Thursday, November 10, 2011

Luther: I am now more negligent than I was under the Pope

Recently, I was asked about this obscure Luther quote:
"I confess... and many others could undoubtedly make an equal confession, that I am now more negligent than I was under the Pope: and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among monks and priests" (Walch, IX.1311).
This quote is used by Roman Catholics in a variety of ways. First, it sometimes serves as proof Luther admitted his personal life was characterized by sin, or that once he was freed from Romanism, his moral and spiritual life was worse (see below). Second, it's sometimes used as proof that the doctrine of justification by faith alone does not produce good works, and Luther here admitted it. This blog entry uses the quote as an answer to this statement: "...if Sola Fide is correct, the Catholic Church falls, but if it is not right, then Protestantism crumbles. We will start by reading what Luther had to say about himself after leaving the Catholic Church." Another blogger uses the quote as proof Luther had "regrets as to the relative failure of the 'Reformation' " and "the lower state of general morality." Martin Luther regretted the Reformation? No, he didn't.

Polemical Secondary Sources
If you search around on the Internet for this quote, you'll probably not find any of Rome's current defenders producing a primary context. What you'll typically find is the reference "Walch IX 1311." I doubt any of Rome's current defenders actually have, or have read this source. Most of them couldn't tell you if this statement was from a treatise, letter, sermon, or Table Talk. Their "deep into history" triumphalism is often abandoned when Luther is the subject. Where did Luther say it? What's the context?  These basic questions should be asked by anyone thinking of using this quote. 

My best guess is this quote was popularized by Father Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther. On page 131 (page 125, 1987 Tan version) O'Hare stares:
The new Gospel did not even make Luther himself better. He said: "I confess . . . that I am more negligent than I was under the Pope and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among monks and priests." (Walch, IX. 1311.)
A similar interpretation and citation can also be found in Henry O'Connor's Luther's Own Statements. It appears Father O'Hare plagiarized O'Connor (it is a source he used). On page 56 O'Connor states exactly,
The new Gospel did not even make Luther himself better. He writes: "I confess that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests." (Walch IX.1311)

A similar version of the same quote was used by Hartmann Grisar in Luther 3. On page 206, Grisar states:
"I confess of myself," he says in a sermon in 1532, "and doubtless others must admit the same [of themselves], that I lack the diligence and earnestness of which really I ought to have much more than formerly; that I am much more careless than I was under the Papacy; and that now, under the Evangel, there is nowhere the same zeal to be found as before." This he declares to be due to the devil and to people's carelessness, but not to his teaching. (Werke, Erl. ed., 18 2 , p. 353).

Primary Source
O'Hare and O'Connor  cite Walch, IX. 1311. "Walch" refers to a set of Luther's works published 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch. The set was revised from 1885-1910 (in St. Louis), and may not match up with the earlier set. It appears O'Connor used the 18th Century edition. Here is volume IX, 1311 from the old set.  Grisar refers to "Werke, Erl. ed., 18 2 , p. 353." This volume is also available. Page 353 can be found here.

The writing in question is a lengthy sermon on 1 john 4 16-21. It can be found in WA 36:416 - 477, with the quote being found on page 469.  To my knowledge, this sermon has not been translated into English. In fact, in Lenker's multi-volume set of Luther's sermons, he's probably alluding to this sermon when he mentions a number of sermons were too long to include [Complete Sermons of Martin Luther 4 (2) (Baker Books, 2000) p. 40].

Context
Even though not translated in English, a cogent and concise overview of this sermon by a leading Luther scholar is available.  Paul Althaus devoted a few pages to it in The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). The context has nothing to do with Luther admitting the failure of the Reformation or admitting how sinful his life was. Rather, the sermon is on love: the love God and the love of neighbor. Before tackling the quote, here is part of the overview from Althaus (pp. 450-455):

In 1532, five years later, Luther again interprets I John 4:17 in a series of sermons on I John 4:16 This later interpretation is quite different from that of 1527. It also differs from his interpretation of the corresponding passage, I John 3:19. He now recognizes that perfect love includes the love which Christians have. This corresponds to his exegesis of I John 3:19f. in the lectures. However, the confidence or joy which love gives is no longer understood in terms of man's relationship to God. Luther rather distinguishes a twofold joy (or "courage" or "boast") and correspondingly a twofold fear which is overcome by the Christian's joyfulness. This victory results in a corresponding increase in joy. On the one hand, the Christian on the day of judgment stands before God the Lord as his judge and must fear his wrath. This is the "fear which falls down from above."

Before God, every man is lost because he is guilty when judged by the high standards of God's commandments. "I am a sinner in your sight"' On the other hand, however, when death and the day of judgment come—yes, even before this, in life itself--Satan, death, the world, and the neighbor against whom I have become guilty, so very guilty, rise up to accuse me. They accuse me of lacking good works and transgressing God's commandments. And this, too, I must fear. This is the fear which comes from below, that is, from the world.

The first fear, the "basic fear before God," cannot be overcome in any other way; and my joyfulness and my confidence before God cannot be established in any other way than with Christ and with God's work of salvation in him, that is, by faith in Christ. The fear which we feel toward God because of our sins "is conquered only through faith." Faith works the "most important joyfulness," and our "chief glory." The fear which "falls down from above" cannot be overcome "except through baptism and the gospel. This gives great courage that we cannot find in ourselves but only in Christ."

But the fear which I feel because Satan, death, the world, and my neighbor accuse me, must be overcome in another way. And my joyfulness in the face of it must have another foundation. This is given by good works and love. Before God we always have a bad conscience. But in relationship to demonic powers and to men we should, like Paul (I Cor. 4:4; II Cor. 1:12; II Tim. 4:7), have a good conscience because of the manifest love for our neighbor toward whom we in our calling have fulfilled the Ten Commandments. This love is definitely not perfect before God. And the Apostle John does not intend to say that when he says that love is perfect. Love is perfect when it has content and is not a mere empty husk, not false, and not "only a rattling of our teeth" with "nothing behind it." In view of Paul's statement, Luther asserts that it is possible for a Christian to have love that is perfect in this sense, that is, it is possible that the Christian has fulfilled his obligation to his neighbor. Thus "through firmly grasping right works" love silences the accusations of the others and no longer needs to fear. I can fully and faithfully fulfill my calling in an orderly fashion; and in every case that is a service of love. Luther personally asserts that he has fulfilled the office of the ministry in this way. For this reason the glorying and courage of a good conscience does have a place.

Under no circumstances, however, does it mean adequacy before God. The Christian standing before God and under God's observation may, in opposition to accusations made by demonic powers and men, well boast that he has faithfully fulfilled his calling in love, but he may never do this in order to establish his relationship to God" For no man can stand under the commandments as God himself interprets them. Luther thus sharply distinguishes a twofold oughtness in God's commandments: on the one hand, that which God expects of me and, on the other hand, that which my neighbor and the world can expect of me. God the Lord demands more than my neighbor and the world can demand. There is all the difference in the world between having to answer to God and to my neighbors and the men and the powers who accuse me. "I will not come to terms with God in any other way than through Christ" "I must speak differently with God," that is, than with men and powers. I can only speak to God in such a way that I point to Christ and hold fast to him.

Thus I can insist that I have acted in love only when I speak with men and demonic powers but never when I speak with God. I neither can nor may think that I have been saved by acting in love or have created my own salvation. Luther never tires of emphasizing this. Two completely different dimensions are involved. And Luther says that his opponents are constantly confusing the two. That fear which produced Psalm 6 ("Rebuke me not in thy anger, nor chasten me in thy wrath") is cast out not by our love but only by Christ and by faith in him."

On the other side, however, living and working in love and the joy which it gives on the day of judgment is of great significance for the Christian when he confronts his accusers—even though it does not establish his salvation. To have to appear on that day without works of love would mean to be afraid and, according to I John 4:18, fear has to do with punishment. For the accusations of men and of other authorities do strike our conscience. "Whoever is terrified feels great agony for the conscience is the greatest cross on earth." If we have no works, our heart becomes fearful and trembles under the accusations of Satan and of men. "It pains a man to have to admit: 'I have not done right. I have despised authority and have not honored my teacher and my spouse." "That hurts" is Luther's translation of John's "fear has to do with punishment" (RSV). And this is in addition to the fear of God's wrath which every man must have. How can a man get rid of this double burden? "If you want to take the sting out of what your neighbor and the devil say and out of God's wrath you have a doubly difficult task. Yes, dear fellow, it is more than you can do." Luther can say, "I must also bring that glory [which comes from works of love] with me or God will not treat me in a friendly way.""He can also say that it "damages" faith to have no work. It must be exercised "and kept moving." "It is difficult for a Christian to believe in the hour of death if he has no experience or signs of faith. "It is difficult to hang only on the mere grace of God." This is how far Luther goes in urging that faith be exercised in love and its works. Faith is in trouble when it has not been tested in life and when it lacks the "signs" which such testing produces.

This may be also put positively. Entering into judgment with works of love does not bring anyone salvation. Salvation comes only from God's forgiving grace. These works of love are, however, the "crown" of which the Apostle Paul speaks in II Timothy 4:8, "Henceforth, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day." Although the Christian is and remains a sinner before God, God will give the crown to him because he has tirelessly continued to serve the world in spite of its unthankfulness. Luther thus distinguishes between blessedness and salvation on the one hand and the crown or the praise, the honor, the glory on the other.

This glorying in view of one's works of love is admittedly a very minor sort of glory when it is compared with faith's glorying for the sake of Christ. The confidence which it brings is of a lower grade and yet we must have it so that the world cannot accuse us before God.

On the other hand that is not yet the final word. Luther's pastoral theology must also speak a word to those who, because of their lack of works, are so terrified by the accusations of men and of the authorities that they completely collapse in despair. God does not want that to happen. The fear which arises from a lack of love in our lives admittedly causes agony. But Luther constantly emphasizes that the Christian still should not collapse in despair. For God has commanded us to believe and to be joyful in him. "Faith and not fear should be in control"; even though, as we have already heard, faith is "weakened" when it is not tested in love and through sins against the commandments. But Luther's reference does not imply that a man will be damned because of such weakness. Whoever does not have works should really not despair; he too can be saved through faith in God's grace. Luther in his lectures on I John 3:19 f. in 1527 had said that we should certainly be concerned to have the good conscience that comes from living in love. But even if we have no works or if our works against love accuse us, that is, if we cannot achieve that living love described in vs. 19 which "reassures our heart before God," we are still not left without comfort. Rather, we should remind ourselves that God not only advises but expressly commands us to hope in him. Therefore whatever may happen we should not despair. For the highest commandment, the sum total of the gospel, is that we should in faith grasp the grace which is offered to us; and this makes us worthy before God.

Thus the dialectic of the relationship between faith and love is adequately treated on all sides. We are saved only through faith in that grace offered to us in the gospel and through nothing else. True faith, however, demonstrates itself in love. If it is missing, then it is difficult for faith to be faith and to overcome the accusation of a bad conscience with the joyful certainty of salvation. Yet we cannot tell anyone in such a situation to do anything else than to believe. If you have no works, then do not be without faith.

The Quote in Context
 Brigitte translated the surrounding context of this quote:

This is what St. Paul meant when he preached about love, 1. Cor. 13 (verse 1): if I speak in tongues of angels; similarly (verse 2): if I had all faith so that I could move mountains, but have not love, so I would be nothing, etc. Because when a person goes along in security with the illusion that he has faith but never experiences it, it must decay and dry up, and nothing is found when it comes to the point in time when some is supposed to be found.

The dear apostles understood this quite well; and we experience it, too. Because the world always remains this way, that it praises itself falsely because of its faith, or otherwise it wants to be seen as quite holy without faith.

But if a person preaches regarding faith and grace, nobody wants to perform works; and if a person urges works, then nobody seeks faith. Those people are quite rare who can hold to the right middle of the road; yes, it becomes difficult even for the pious Christian.

I confess even of myself, and no doubt so will many others also, that I, too, lack the diligence and earnestness, which I should now have in greater measure than before, but rather am more slack than I was under the papacy, and nowadays there hardly is such earnestness under the gospel as one used to see previously under the monks and priests, when there was a great deal of donating and building, and none was so poor, that he did not desire to give something.

But now, no town which can support a preacher, and nothing except robbing and stealing is going on among the people with no one there to stop them.

From where comes such a plague? There are those who scream that it is due to the teaching that one should not build upon and trust in works. But no, it is the pesky devil who blames this condition falsely on the salutary doctrine; also it is our old Adam who wants to always break out to the side onto the wrong path, and believes that it does not matter whether or not we do many good works; and thus we become quickly lazy and careless, persisting in this way until we lose the sap and strength of faith altogether.
Alternate translation (ht: Rhology):
The world invariably offers one of the two following options/aspects: either we boast falsely of a faith that we really don't have, or we pretend to sanctify ourselves without faith. Either way, we lack faith. Whether we preach faith and grace, each one believes that he is doing his own works and we neglect faith. Nothing is stranger, even among people who are truly pious, than those who know how to choose the middle road.

I confess for my own part, and many other people could no doubt say the same, that I am much more negligent than when I was under Papism and that I lack also the discipline and the zeal that, today more than ever, I should have. There is nowhere in the Gospel the ardor and the zeal that one demonstrated once in the priests and monks, whereas everywhere we used to see pious foundations laid at great cost, and no one was so poor as not to desire to contribute for something. There is no town today that does not, instead, demonstrate its ill will when it comes to providing for their pastors' living. Theft and banditry are those things for which we demonstrate zeal. So to what shall we attribute this shameful complaint? "To doctrine", say the shouters, "to the doctrine that teaches us that we must not place our trust in works". But no, it is only Satan who can blame such things on pure and salvific doctrine.
Conclusion
Ripped from its context, one can make a quote say whatever one wants to.

Luther's goal in this statement is balance. The entire sermon is an exposition on faith and works, and achieving that balance. Does the quote serve as proof that the doctrine of justification by faith alone was to blame for a lack of works? Luther says no: " ...it is only Satan who can blame such things on pure and salvific doctrine." To place the blame on the doctrine of faith would be to admit works are to be trusted in for salvation.

Luther was not admitting his "new Gospel did not even make himself better" (O'Hare and O'Connor). For under the papacy in Luther's day, works were stressed over faith. It was an unbalance. I could just as easily picture an ex-Jehovah's Witness state "When I was under the Watchtower, I excelled in works, now under the Gospel, I struggle to maintain a healthy balance."

Note also what Luther links his admission to in regard to his hearers: donating and building.  Under the papacy, there was a works oriented zeal to give to the church.  Luther's statement is a preaching exhortation to both himself and his hearers- that faith should produce fruit. That fruit though is not salvific, it is done out of heartfelt gratitude to what God has done through Christ.

Oh, and today is the anniversary of Luther's birthday.

69 comments:

De Maria said...

You say:
....Luther's goal in this statement is balance. The entire sermon is an exposition on faith and works, and achieving that balance. Does the quote serve as proof that the doctrine of justification by faith alone was to blame for a lack of works? Luther says no: " ...it is only Satan who can blame such things on pure and salvific doctrine." To place the blame on the doctrine of faith would be to admit works are to be trusted in for salvation.....

Are you implying that Luther didn't really teach justification by faith "alone", but actually taught justification by faith and works?

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

On a related post, you ask the question, Luther Added The Word "Alone" to Romans 3:28?

Yet, in the same post, you provide proof that Luther admits adding the word saying:
“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there.....

To me that offends in two ways, first off, it contradicts Scripture which says:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

And we know that Luther knowingly did so, unless you want to say that he did not actually call the Epistle of St. James an "epistle of straw."

Secondly, he admittedly adds a word to Scripture which isn't there and thus violates the rule often quoted by Protestants:
Rev 22:
18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Now, although he justifies his action by claiming that this is the gist of St. Paul's meaning, he must be wrong for St. Paul said previously,
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Therefore St. Paul says that unless one works and keeps the Law, one will not be justified by God. And Protestant doctrine virulently opposes this idea. Therefore faith "alone" can not be what St. Paul meant. Because the idea directly opposes Scripture in James 2 and Romans 2.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Hi, I'm just submitting this so I can get follow up comments emailed to me.

Sincerely,

De Maria

James Swan said...

Are you implying that Luther didn't really teach justification by faith "alone", but actually taught justification by faith and works?

No.

I'm not sure how you arrived at your question based on what I wrote.

Brigitte said...

Luther would mean that faith must exercise itself in love if it is to be vital. This love can never justify because our love is so poor and insufficient. We can never boast of it before God. But before men we are supposed to have good works and a decent life and love demonstrated. Our reputation should matter to us in this regard. If we do not exercise our faith in this way, it will be pretty weak and this weakness we should not be content with. We should worry that the devil will snuff out this little bit of faith. He has this in the section preceding this one.

He says if we are happy with a little glimmer in the ashes we should watch out that the devil does not come with a bucket of cold water and snuff out this glimmer.

De Maria said...

James Swan said...

No.

I'm not sure how you arrived at your question based on what I wrote.


Because you say:
....Luther's goal in this statement is balance. The entire sermon is an exposition on faith and works....

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Brigitte said...
Luther would mean that faith must exercise itself in love if it is to be vital.


Which is the Catholic teaching, is it not?

This love can never justify because our love is so poor and insufficient.

But love is an essential element in those who are justified, is it not? For Scripture says:
1 Corinthians 13:2
And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

We can never boast of it before God.

But we must demonstrate it before God.

But before men we are supposed to have good works and a decent life and love demonstrated.

That is also true. Because it is men who judge those worthy of Baptism.


Our reputation should matter to us in this regard. If we do not exercise our faith in this way, it will be pretty weak and this weakness we should not be content with. We should worry that the devil will snuff out this little bit of faith. He has this in the section preceding this one.

He says if we are happy with a little glimmer in the ashes we should watch out that the devil does not come with a bucket of cold water and snuff out this glimmer.


This all sounds like Catholic doctrine to me. Yet, we know that Luther did not approve of the idea that those who keep the law will be just before God. This idea is taught by St. Paul in Romans 2:13.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Brigitte said...

Nowhere!!!--did we say that we can be justified by keeping the law. He is only warning against laxness and lukewarmness which will soon lead to extinction of faith.

I am thinking that this does not jive with the TULIP, perhaps, the part about the extinction, I mean.

De Maria said...

Brigitte said...
Nowhere!!!--did we say that we can be justified by keeping the law. He is only warning against laxness and lukewarmness which will soon lead to extinction of faith.

I am thinking that this does not jive with the TULIP, perhaps, the part about the extinction, I mean.


It conflicts with OSAS that's for sure.

PeaceByJesus said...

I left a comment on the source blog, (if he will allow it), some of which i will say here, as besides supposing that holding to SS means that, like RCs, we are allowed to think of men above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6; contra Acts 17:11) being indoctrinated by Catholic forums often results in parroting their specious arguments, such as sola fide meant to the Reformers a marginalization of works as defining faith and love, yet some of Luther's balance can be seen here here

Meanwhile, if the alleged morality of Luther negates SF despite much holy fruit thru the centuries, , etc, then the bodies of sexually active successors to Peter need to be exhumed and burned in disassociation from them.

In addition is the comparative overall fruit today of Rome versus evangelicals,

De Maria said...

‪PeaceByJesus‬ said...
I left a comment on the source blog, (if he will allow it), some of which i will say here, as besides supposing that holding to SS means that, like RCs, we are allowed to think of men above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6; contra Acts 17:11) being indoctrinated by Catholic forums often results in parroting their specious arguments, such as sola fide meant to the Reformers a marginalization of works as defining faith and love, yet some of Luther's balance can be seen here here


To avoid jumping around the internet, may we discuss these findings of yours here?

Because it seems obvious, that whatever Luther meant, he disagreed with the Epistle of St. James. And that is a clear contrast to the teaching of the Catholic Church which is just as comfortable teaching that we are justified by faith and works as She is teaching we are justified by faith apart from works and also that neither faith nor works merit the gift of justification. Teachings which Luther obviously found contradictory.

So, please, if you're defending Luther, then defend these words of his from the preface to the Epistle of St. James:
Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20);


Meanwhile, if the alleged morality of Luther negates SF despite much holy fruit thru the centuries,….

God will judge the actions of Luther. Please stick to the subject at hand. As for the Catholic Church, her doctrines are holy. Any Catholic, be he a layman or a priest, who sins, has done so in contradiction of the Church.

Sincerely,
De Maria

PeaceByJesus said...

First, i am not defending Luther per se, but countering the RC polemical tactic that construes Luther and sola fide as teaching that any manner of faith appropriates justification, versus one which effects obedience towards its Object.

As far as the disagreement with the Epistle of St. James, i do not know or need to know all of what Luther's objection was, but it is easy understand Luther seeing James as contradicting Paul in particular as regards Gn. 15:6, which states with Paul that Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness," but which James turns into a prophecy which was not realized until Gn. 22, though he was already in a covenant relationship of faith.

However, this is reconciled if you hold that James is speaking about works justifying or confirming one as possessing justifying faith, which Luther in strong terms affirms must be of a kind that will effect the "obedience of faith," a faith that will work by love, manifesting "things which accompany salvation." (Heb. 5:9)

The unGodly of necessity are justified by faith alone (which Rome affirms on one hand), but not by a faith that will remain alone, and thus in a real sense one is justified by the works of faith, by an effectual kind of faith, but not as if the works or his holiness itself earned Him acceptance with God and instrumentally was what procures justification that makes one accepted in the Beloved.

And which need for true faith Paul confirms, as while
"to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness", (Romans 4:5) yet "not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," (Romans 2:13) as justifying faith is one that confesses Jesus is Lord, (Rm. 10:9,10), "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

God will judge the actions of Luther. Please stick to the subject at hand.

Perhaps you should try to comprehend what the subject of the correction of James before you lecture what the subject is, which is a misappropriation of Luther's writing in order to render him immoral in the effort to promote the polemic that sola fide "produces rotten fruits and thus must be false." You are upset because your tree is manifestly does what he charges, regardless of all the assertions of Rome's claims which much of RC apologetica rely upon.

As for the Catholic Church, her doctrines are holy. Any Catholic, be he a layman or a priest, who sins, has done so in contradiction of the Church.

So she says and so we say as regards sinning against our faith, although yours include many who were sppsdly successors to Peter in her "unbroken successions, while not even qualified to be church members.

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
First, i am not defending Luther per se, but countering the RC polemical tactic that construes Luther and sola fide as teaching that any manner of faith appropriates justification, versus one which effects obedience towards its Object.


That, I think, is the confusing thing. Because if Luther does not deny the efficacy of works towards justification, why does he claim that the Epistle of James is anti-Gospel.

As far as the disagreement with the Epistle of St. James, i do not know or need to know all of what Luther's objection was, but it is easy understand Luther seeing James as contradicting Paul in particular as regards Gn. 15:6, which states with Paul that Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness," but which James turns into a prophecy which was not realized until Gn. 22, though he was already in a covenant relationship of faith. 

However, this is reconciled if you hold that James is speaking about works justifying or confirming one as possessing justifying faith, which Luther in strong terms affirms must be of a kind that will effect the "obedience of faith," a faith that will work by love, manifesting "things which accompany salvation." (Heb. 5:9)

Whoa, Pardner! You blew right past his disagreement with St. James. Which to me is a perfect illustration of his error. Luther disagrees with the Epistle of St. James. Therefore, Luther disagrees with the WORD OF GOD. Because the Epistle of St. James is a canonical book of the Bible. Do you disagree?



The unGodly of necessity are justified by faith alone (which Rome affirms on one hand), but not by a faith that will remain alone, and thus in a real sense one is justified by the works of faith, by an effectual kind of faith, but not as if the works or his holiness itself earned Him acceptance with God and instrumentally was what procures justification that makes one accepted in the Beloved.

I agree with all of that. I believe in that statement you are using the terminology "faith alone" in the same sense as one of our canonized Saints, John Chrysostom:
"They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed." - St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Galatians 3)

But St. John Chrysostom understood the terminology in the same sense promulgated by our Pope:
(Galatians 5) Verse 6 "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love." What is the meaning of "working through love?" Here he gives them a hard blow, by showing that this error had crept in because the love of Christ had not been rooted within them. For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (St. John Chrysostom; Commentary on Galatians 5, NPNF1: Volume 13, page 37)


CONT'D

De Maria said...

CONT'D

PBJ said:
And which need for true faith Paul confirms, as while 
"to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness", (Romans 4:5) yet "not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," (Romans 2:13) as justifying faith is one that confesses Jesus is Lord, (Rm. 10:9,10), "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

Amen! That, believe it or not, is Catholic Teaching.



Perhaps you should try to comprehend what the subject of the correction of James before you lecture what the subject is, which is a misappropriation of Luther's writing in order to render him immoral in the effort to promote the polemic that sola fide "produces rotten fruits and thus must be false." You are upset because your tree is manifestly does what he charges, regardless of all the assertions of Rome's claims which much of RC apologetica rely upon.

On the contrary, by his own hand Luther states that he disagrees with St. James. So, how do you accuse me of misappropriation? Can you find a Lutheran writing where he changes his mind and begins to accept the teaching of St. James? Since, in another place, he calls it an epistle of straw, I doubt that he ever came to terms with that teaching. Feel free to correct me.

So she says and so we say as regards sinning against our faith, although yours include many who were sppsdly successors to Peter in her "unbroken successions, while not even qualified to be church members.

I guarantee that every single successor of Peter has sinned. As I also guarantee that every single Protestant from Luther on down has sinned. If you are saying that sins disqualifies us from being Church members, I suggest you've misunderstood the Gospel:
Mark 2:
 17When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Sincerely,
De Maria

PeaceByJesus said...

>PeaceByJesus said...
First, i am not defending Luther per se, but countering the RC polemical tactic that construes Luther and sola fide as teaching that any manner of faith appropriates justification, versus one which effects obedience towards its Object.<

That, I think, is the confusing thing. Because if Luther does not deny the efficacy of works towards justification, why does he claim that the Epistle of James is anti-Gospel.


Because the works themselves are what appropriates justification by the kind of faith that will effect obedience. James, if taken to mean that works are the instrumental means of appropriating justification, is contradicting Gn. 15:6 as invoked by Paul, as rather than Abraham being justified because he believed — before circumcision and offering up Isaac, as God justifies the unGodly by faith — James would appear to have Abraham not yet justified until he offered up Isaac, and which was after circumcision, which would mean that by works of righteous we are saved, contra Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8,9, etc..

There is a difference between saying that works and Godliness justify a person as having faith, fruit being the outworking of that which is eternal, which is a God-given faith which justifies the unGodly but effects Godliness, versus teaching that the fruit of faith is what justifies a person and merits eternal life, which is what Rome officially promotes. Saving faith and works are inseparable as in cause and effect, but faith is what appropriates justification unto the fruit of holiness.
Rome's does states that no merit of works obtains initial justification, which is normally obtained through baptism (but allows that contritio caritate perfecta=perfect contrition, may be a substitute), but then states that the justified may be accounted to have truly merited eternal life by those very works which have been done in God. And that the good works of one that is justified merits eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life. (Trent CANON XXXII) Trent, Chapter XVI, XXXII; The Sixth Session). And that they can merit for themselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification and for the attainment of eternal life. (CCC, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, #2010) And that “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members... (CCC, #2006)

In somes places Rome does seek to qualify meriting eternal life, as not meaning one actually morally earns eternal life, but that is a reward due to God's faithfulness to reward obedience, and the redeemed are indeed judged by their works, as this is how faith is manifest, and they are rewarded based upon being worthy, but in reality they are worthy of damnation as sinners who fall short of the glory of God, and thus it is imputed righteous that makes one accepted in the Beloved as an adopted child, with works testifying to true faith and being rewarded accordingly.

But regardless of technical distinctions, the practical effect of Rome's soteriology is that of fostering confidence in the power of Rome and one's works as earning eternal life, and effecting an avoidance of coming to Christ as one damned for his sins and destitute of any merit whereby he may gain Heaven, and thus place all their faith in the Son sent by the Father to save them by His sinless shed blood, and righteousness, and so follow Him.

If Roman Catholics actually were taught a certain level of works were necessary for them to be saved, then they would be like the (socalled) Jehovah' Witnesses, but in reality the effectual gospel of Rome is one that provides much assurance that as long as you die in her arms then she will get you in, from Ted Kennedy to the liberal once-a year lay communicant.

PeaceByJesus said...

► >As far as the disagreement with the Epistle of St. James, i do not know or need to know all of what Luther's objection was, but it is easy understand Luther seeing James as contradicting Paul in particular as regards Gn. 15:6, which states with Paul that Abraham "believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness," but which James turns into a prophecy which was not realized until Gn. 22, .." (Heb. 5:9) <

Whoa, Pardner! You blew right past his disagreement with St. James. Which to me is a perfect illustration of his error. Luther disagrees with the Epistle of St. James. Therefore, Luther disagrees with the WORD OF GOD. Because the Epistle of St. James is a canonical book of the Bible. Do you disagree?



I did not “blow past it,” but explained his objection which you failed to see, and the real issue here is disagreement with St. James being canonical, based upon the perceived contradiction with St. Paul. If it is then it cannot be the Word of God, and it cannot be agreed with.

And here you have another aspect of the spin in the typical RC rant against Luther, which makes Luther being the first to deviate from a closed canon, but which is ignorance or willful deception. The facts are that for over 1400 years after the last book was written, Rome had no infallible canon, nor was everything settled which he disagreed with, and Luther had significant Catholic company in his reservations about James, and especially the apocrypha. (nor was Luther the first to put “alone” in Rm. 3.)

In addition, as you must allow for CFs and for Rome, Luther was engaged in his own development of doctrine, and so what he states at one point on the canonical status of James and what it teaches, must be weighed with what he says in other places, such as,

“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

And see links below.

► The unGodly of necessity are justified by faith alone (which Rome affirms on one hand), but not by a faith that will remain alone, and thus in a real sense one is justified by the works of faith, by an effectual kind of faith, but not as if the works or his holiness itself earned Him acceptance with God and instrumentally was what procures justification that makes one accepted in the Beloved.

I agree with all of that. I believe in that statement you are using the terminology "faith alone" in the same sense as one of our canonized Saints, John Chrysostom:

"They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed." - St. John Chrysostom (Homily on Galatians 3)


It is good if you agree with Scripture and us, but other Roman Catholics disagree.

PeaceByJesus said...

But St. John Chrysostom understood the terminology in the same sense promulgated by our Pope:

I do not see becoming justified by entering into communion with Christ, as per Ratzinger, but justified by faith in Christ to save us His sinless shed blood (versus confidence in our works earning it or the power of the church gaining it), and thus entering into communion with Christ. This then has its outworking in obedience.

"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise," (Ephesians 1:13)

"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Galatians 4:6)
As for CFs, one offering is The Historical Roots Of The Reformation And Evangelicalism

One of the earliest patristic sources, Clement of Rome, wrote:
"And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever." (First Clement, 32)

► >And which need for true faith Paul confirms,..as justifying faith is one that confesses Jesus is Lord, (Rm. 10:9,10), .."<

Amen! That, believe it or not, is Catholic Teaching.



If you read my link to Reformation definition of what kind of faith is salvific, you will see the above is what Luther and others preached.

► >Perhaps you should try to comprehend what the subject of the correction of James before you lecture what the subject is..<

...how do you accuse me of misappropriation?
The subject of the correction by James Swan was about a misappropriation of certain words of Luther about himself and the Reformation by the Catholic blogger in seeking to make sola fide into a form of antinomianism, which i countered by explaining the place of works and substantiating that Luther manifestly strongly upheld the necessity of them, and showing the double standard of the RCA at issue.

Your subject was on James 2, in supposing that Luther's rejection of James due to the perception that it teaches salvation by works is indeed a promotion of unholiness, as the Catholic blogger essentially asserted, but which is false. Enemies of Christ also take Paul's words in Rm. 7 out of context to denigrate the Christian faith.

Can you find a Lutheran writing where he changes his mind and begins to accept the teaching of St. James?

See James Swan here here

► >So she says and so we say as regards sinning against our faith, although yours include many who were sppsdly successors to Peter in her "unbroken successions, while not even qualified to be church members.<

I guarantee that every single successor of Peter has sinned. As I also guarantee that every single Protestant from Luther on down has sinned...

Again you are missing the context, which is that even if the claim of Luther's lack of holiness is true, using such to denigrate a doctrine is problematic for Rome, as unlike Luther's it is well known that many popes themselves were adulterers, etc.

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
Because the works themselves are what appropriates justification by the kind of faith that will effect obedience. James, if taken to mean that works are the instrumental means of appropriating justification, is contradicting Gn. 15:6 as invoked by Paul, ….

All of that is besides the point. Here's the question I'm asking you. Luther says that St. James contradicts St. Paul. Do you agree with him or not? Simple, yes or no will do.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus‬ said...
Because the works themselves are what appropriates justification by the kind of faith that will effect obedience. James, if taken to mean that works are the instrumental means of appropriating justification, is contradicting Gn. 15:6 as invoked by Paul, as rather than Abraham being justified because he believed — before circumcision and offering up Isaac, as God justifies the unGodly by faith — James would appear to have Abraham not yet justified until he offered up Isaac, and which was after circumcision, which would mean that by works of righteous we are saved, contra Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8,9, etc..

Neither St. James nor St. Paul teach what you are attributing to them.

First, here is what they teach:
Romans 2:
 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

James 1:22
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

You can see the parallelism there.

Now, let me ask you. Does Protestantism teach that a man who has not amended of his sins may be justified?

What does it mean to repent of one's sins? Is it simply a feeling of "God will forgive me because I can't help myself" or is it an earnest change in one's behavior?

See, here's the difference between what Protestants teach and the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church says, first you amend your ways and then God will justify you. That follows from Romans 2:13.

But Protestants invert Romans 2:13 and say, God will justify you and then you will obey His Word.

Do you see the difference?

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

Again you are missing the context, which is that even if the claim of Luther's lack of holiness is true, using such to denigrate a doctrine is problematic for Rome, as unlike Luther's it is well known that many popes themselves were adulterers, etc.

You brought that up. Not me. If some other Catholic is arguing based upon Luther's morals, please discuss that with them. I am not a student of Luther's morals. I have only studied some of the things which he said. And he definitely attacked the veracity of a canonical book of the Bible. I am asking you whether you agree with that attitude. Because it is problematic. Wouldn't you agree, that disagreeing with the Word of God is problematic?

Sincerely,

De Maria

PeaceByJesus said...

Luther says that St. James contradicts St. Paul. Do you agree with him or not? Simple, yes or no will do.

Why not read what i said? You evidence you do not to objectively examine an issue, but can only narrowly think as one whose beliefs are by implicit trust in Rome which dictates them. How attractive to ignoble men.

But my answer is there, that he does not, but he does according to the interpretation of Roman Catholics on James.

► Because the works themselves are what appropriates justification by the kind of faith that will effect obedience. James, if taken to mean that works are the instrumental means of appropriating justification, is contradicting Gn. 15:6 as invoked by Paul, as rather than Abraham being justified because he believed — before circumcision and offering up Isaac, as God justifies the unGodly by faith — James would appear to have Abraham not yet justified until he offered up Isaac, and which was after circumcision, which would mean that by works of righteous we are saved, contra Titus 3:5; Eph. 2:8,9, etc..<

Neither St. James nor St. Paul teach what you are attributing to them.
Wrong.
First, here is what they teach: Romans 2: 13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

That is the verse i supplied before for you, and not even a thank you.

James 1:22
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
You can see the parallelism there.


The parallelism is in teaching that the does of the law shall be justified because that is the kind of faith that is salvific, not the merit of works, which justification by faith many verses testify to in parallel. You would have Paul say the doers of the law shall be justified because they do them, while in then say "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:26-28)

“Justifying faith is not faith plus works (as in Roman Catholicism), nor is it faith without works (as in antinomianism); it is faith that works. The works, however, are not works of merit, but of necessity. Saving faith will “necessarily” produce good works, because justification and sanctification are inseparable. The Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, stressed the importance of both justification and sanctification (which involves “necessary” good works). — http://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/CramptonGaryJustification.htm

PeaceByJesus said...

Now, let me ask you. Does Protestantism teach that a man who has not amended of his sins may be justified? See, here's the difference between what Protestants teach and the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church says, first you amend your ways and then God will justify you. That follows from Romans 2:13. But Protestants invert Romans 2:13 and say, God will justify you and then you will obey His Word. Do you see the difference?

I see your error in requiring a formal prescribed work to be done before conversion, that of baptism (and then it is usually not a morally cognizant person who amends his ways) ,though Rome evens allows exceptions, and affirms baptized Protestant s in general as children of God and part of the general body.

And it is not we who invert Scripture but you, as Scripture teaches that Abraham was justified prior to circumcision, which is a type of baptism, while to require all to amend their lives before conversion would require that all souls have such power of character as to do so while being yet unregenerate. (Thus the International church of Christ, which held to baptismal regeneration and a high standard of repentance in order to be baptized/converted, had a lot of doctors and high achievers.) What Rm. 2:13 and like verses teach is that a faith that justifies is a faith that obeys.

It is established that Abraham was justified before circumcision, and not on account of the merit of his works:
"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," "How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" (Romans 4:2-3,6,10,11)

PeaceByJesus said...

The exclusion of works is not simply the works of the Law, which came latter, in which one was justified by obedience, though this ability was by God's grace, but “not by works of righteousness” excludes any system in which one earns Heaven because he is good enough. What is earned is the second death, while eternal life ia a gift, as salvation by grace does not mean we are justified in conversion because we really become holy, as per baptismal regeneration, but salvation by grace through faith means that God justifies the unGodly by faith, and which then effects obedience and holiness by the Spirit, which fruit justifies him as one that is saved, with this constituting a complete faith.

What does it mean to repent of one's sins? Is it simply a feeling of "God will forgive me because I can't help myself" or is it an earnest change in one's behavior?

In conversion it is coming to God with a repentant heart, but as one helpless to justify himself by works, as one dead in sins, just as Abraham and Sarah were helpless to produce a vast number decedents, being reproductively dead, but by faith he obtained the promise. Faith and repentance are inseparable, as you cannot believe that Jesus is Lord without it changing your life, in accordance with light and grace received. And God will not justify one who does not have such faith, but He who grants repentance and opens the heart also sees it, and gives His Spirit, even before baptism , although that can be the occasion of regeneration. "..God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:7-9)

If by “amended” you meant a repentant heart, then that would be Scriptural "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18) While a soul may evidence this before conversion in manifest ways, in Scripture conversion was almost always in the same hour as they heard the gospel, (Acts 2, 8, 10, 16, 17) and the call to do works which corresponded to repentance proceeded from that. (Acts 16:20) The key is to pray and preach in such a way as to convict men “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) as Peter did in Acts 2, so that souls come to Christ out of a poor and contrite heart.

Sola fide does not mean there is no prep work being done before conversion, in which some evidence of contrition may be expected, but that it is not any merit of works that justifies the unGodly. As regards the former, if you read what i provided via the link (i know you spurn such) then you would know that historically Protestants like the Puritans sometimes made the standard for repentance too high.

“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’” (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) The conversion of Daniel Brainard gives testimony to this.

PeaceByJesus said...

You brought that up. Not me. If some other Catholic is arguing based upon Luther's morals, please discuss that with them. I am not a student of Luther's morals. I have only studied some of the things which he said.

No, you made the issue that of Luther and James DM, while Swan was correcting a misappropriation of Luther's works, and i dealt with the moral polemic. Your premise was that i was defending defending Luther (“So, please, if you're defending Luther) which was a miscomprehension of what i wrote 12:45 PM, November 13) and so if you want to respond to us by arguing that Luther's words about James then don't complain when we stick to our topic.

And he definitely attacked the veracity of a canonical book of the Bible. I am asking you whether you agree with that attitude. Because it is problematic. Wouldn't you agree, that disagreeing with the Word of God is problematic?

DM, you actually read the response, or just have a knee jerk reaction to things? Wouldn’t you agree that not having an infallible canon, but one in which debate on whether James still canonical, and that Luther could reform his views, places this in a different light. “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.”

But despite your hobby horse, Luther's beliefs determine less than what those of the CFs do for Rome (we judge them, more than they judge us), as their doctrines have no weight except by the weight of Scripture for them.

Anyway, it is Rome that most evidences it believes faith without works (which signify Scripture regeneration) will save them, , because of faith in Rome to save anyone who die in her arms, and as you promote a church and not simply a faith, as we do, when Rome is reformed then less souls will leave it due to its spiritual lack.

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
Luther says that St. James contradicts St. Paul. Do you agree with him or not? Simple, yes or no will do. 

Why not read what i said?


Because you seem to be avoiding my questions. I asked a simple yes or no question asking whether you agree with Luther's negative attitude towards a canonical work and you respond with a 6 part discourse on Luther's moral life. Effectively burying the question. I didn't ask about Luther's moral life.

You evidence you do not to objectively examine an issue, but can only narrowly think as one whose beliefs are by implicit trust in Rome which dictates them. How attractive to ignoble men.

It's the other way around PBJ, you evidence your implicit trust in Luther by your excusing his anti-Christian remarks towards the Word of God in the Canonical book entitled the Epistle of St. James.

But my answer is there, that he does not,

That's your answer? He does not? Shouldn't you then provide some evidence that he did not? I provided a quote of his, prefacing the Epistle of St. James, wherein he states that he believes the Epistle of St. James contradicts the Word of God.

Can you provide some evidence that this is falsified?

Can you provide some evidence that Luther actually extolled the value of the Epistle of St. James?

Otherwise your claim is empty. Because there is no way that your assertion concerning Luther's opinions can weigh more than Luther's own words in that regard.

but he does according to the interpretation of Roman Catholics on James.

HIS preface to the Epistle of St. James in HIS version of the Bible proves you wrong. That is a fact which all can read and see for themselves. Here it is again:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24). ….


That is a quote of Luther's words. Soooo, you need to provide proof of your assertion. Otherwise your assertion remains an empty claim.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

PeacebyJesus said:
The parallelism is in teaching that the does of the law shall be justified because that is the kind of faith that is salvific,

Faith which works, right?

not the merit of works,

I am of a different opinion. If faith alone is not salvific, it is because it is not accompanied by works and therefore it is not meritorious. Therefore the reason that faith which works is salvific is because of the merit of the works which it produces. Both the faith and the works are meritorious.

which justification by faith many verses testify to in parallel. You would have Paul say the doers of the law shall be justified because they do them, while in then say "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:26-28)

The reason you misunderstand this verse PBJ, is because you have rejected the Traditions of the Catholic Church from which this teaching sprang. It is the justification which we receive via the Sacraments of the faith of Jesus which he is alluding to in this Scripture.

“Justifying faith is not faith plus works (as in Roman Catholicism), nor is it faith without works (as in antinomianism); it is faith that works.

Scripture says it is faith plus works, sometimes (2 Pet 1:5; James 2:26) and faith which works, at others (Gal 5:6; James 2:18). Therefore your argument is simply splitting hairs, as the Word of God makes no distinction between the two, as you do.

The works, however, are not works of merit, but of necessity. Saving faith will “necessarily” produce good works, because justification and sanctification are inseparable. The Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, stressed the importance of both justification and sanctification (which involves “necessary” good works). — http://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/CramptonGaryJustification.htm

And here, you are inverting Romans 2:13. Because Romans 2:13 does not say that justification produces good works, but that those who produce good works will be justified.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
I see your error in requiring a formal prescribed work to be done before conversion,


Before conversion? Conversion is the beginning of process of justification in Catholicism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Protestantism, conversion and justification are essentially the same, is that correct?

that of baptism

1. Baptism is the work of God to which we submit in faith.
2. Baptism is the fullness of justification, but not its end.
3. Baptism is done after conversion, after one has studied to show himself approved and begun to live a life of virtue and good works according to the Commandments of God.
4. At that point, the convert requests Baptism from the Church.
5. During Baptism, God washes away the sins of the past and the man is reborn in the image of Christ.

(and then it is usually not a morally cognizant person who amends his ways)

Do you read people's hearts? How would you know otherwise?

,though Rome evens allows exceptions, and affirms baptized Protestant s in general as children of God and part of the general body.

What is wrong with that?

Anyway, you've ignored the question again.

Let me repeat it. Does Protestantism acknowledge that one must amend his sinful ways before God will justify him? Yes or no?



And it is not we who invert Scripture but you, as Scripture teaches that Abraham was justified prior to circumcision, which is a type of baptism, while to require all to amend their lives before conversion

You'll have to produce that teaching. I've never heard of the Church requiring anyone to amend their ways before conversion. The Church requires those who convert to show evidence of their repentance:
Acts 26:20
But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

would require that all souls have such power of character as to do so while being yet unregenerate…..

I have no idea what you're talking about. The Catholic Church requires no such thing as you accuse.

(Thus the International church of Christ, which held to baptismal regeneration and a high standard of repentance in order to be baptized/converted, had a lot of doctors and high achievers.) What Rm. 2:13 and like verses teach is that a faith that justifies is a faith that obeys.

In other words, faith and works of obedience.



It is established that Abraham was justified before circumcision, and not on account of the merit of his works:
"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

But if he had not worked in obedience to God, his works would not have wrought with his faith and his faith would not have been made perfect:
Genesis 26:5
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.



"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," "How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" (Romans 4:2-3,6,10,11)

After he proved his faith by his works.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...


PeaceByJesus said...
The exclusion of works ….


Thanks for your opinion. This is a great opportunity to highlight the difference between the Protestant faith and Catholicism.

The exclusion of works is not simply the works of the Law, …. but “not by works of righteousness” excludes any system in which one earns Heaven because he is good enough.

Agreed.
1st. We are justified by the Mercy of God. Not by any works which we do. Not the Commandments. Not the ordinances. Nothing which we do can justify us.

2nd. By the same token, God will not justify anyone who does not keep the Commandments.

3rd. The Ten Commandments are still the basis of the Christian faith. Jesus Christ insists that we obey them:

John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

4th. We are justified in Baptism, apart from the works of the Law, including the law of the Commandments. Although we must first keep them, God will not justify in Baptism anyone who does not obey His Son. In fact, it is blasphemous for anyone who does not believe in God or His Son, to expect to be washed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism:

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

What is earned is the second death, while eternal life ia a gift,

A gift which is only given to those who work:

Romans 6: 22But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
 23For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

as salvation by grace does not mean we are justified in conversion because we really become holy, as per baptismal regeneration, but salvation by grace through faith means that God justifies the unGodly by faith, and which then effects obedience and holiness by the Spirit, which fruit justifies him as one that is saved, with this constituting a complete faith.

Salvation by grace means that God did not have to send His Son to die for our sins. That is the gift of God. Jesus Christ died for us when we were still in our sins. That is salvation by pure grace. Jesus saved the whole world, if only the whole world had believed.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...

PBJ said:
First,… 

In conversion it is coming to God with a repentant heart, but as one helpless to justify himself by works, as one dead in sins, just as Abraham and Sarah were helpless to produce a vast number decedents, being reproductively dead, but by faith he obtained the promise. Faith and repentance are inseparable, as you cannot believe that Jesus is Lord without it changing your life, in accordance with light and grace received.


Agreed.

And God will not justify one who does not have such faith, but He who grants repentance and opens the heart also sees it, and gives His Spirit, even before baptism ,

Agreed.

although that can be the occasion of regeneration. "..God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:7-9)

He is speaking of Baptism, making a direct reference to St. Cornelius the good Centurion (Acts 10).

If by “amended” you meant a repentant heart, then that would be Scriptural "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18)

Agreed.

While a soul may evidence this before conversion in manifest ways, in Scripture conversion was almost always in the same hour as they heard the gospel, (Acts 2, 8, 10, 16, 17) and the call to do works which corresponded to repentance proceeded from that. (Acts 16:20)

Agreed. But we don't hold conversion and justification to be synonymous. But conversion is the beginning of the process of justification.

The key is to pray and preach in such a way as to convict men “of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment,” (Jn. 16:9) as Peter did in Acts 2, so that souls come to Christ out of a poor and contrite heart.

Agreed.



CONT'D

De Maria said...

CONT'D

Sola fide does not mean there is no prep work being done before conversion, in which some evidence of contrition may be expected, but that it is not any merit of works that justifies the unGodly. As regards the former, if you read what i provided via the link (i know you spurn such) then you would know that historically Protestants like the Puritans sometimes made the standard for repentance too high.

That just shows the illogic of Protestant theology.
1. Why would one who has not converted want to do any prep work in service of God?
2. Why would such a person be contrite?
3. It is God who calls the unregenerate man to conversion.
4. It is the man who hears God's call who converts and seeks God in faith.
5. It is the man who seeks God in faith which pleases God.
6. It is the man who pleases God by doing the works of the law in response to the grace of faith, which God justifies.

“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’” (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) The conversion of Daniel Brainard gives testimony to this.

That is besides the point. Scripture says one must be a doer to be justified (Romans 2:13). Whether certain Protestants set this standard too high is between them and God. But Scripture is not thus proven wrong.

Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...


PeaceByJesus said...No, you made the issue that of Luther and James DM,


In our discussion. Please read my first two posts to see which points I began to make. It is during your and my discussion that we had a great deal of topical drift.

We have spoken before, and I'm sure by now you know that it is not my custom to address every single point made in the articles. I do my best to stick to one or two major points.

while Swan was correcting a misappropriation of Luther's works,

Swan has more than one article on the subject, rather than post on two separate articles, I thought I could show, here on this one, that his works are not misappropriated.

and i dealt with the moral polemic. Your premise was that i was defending defending Luther (“So, please, if you're defending Luther) which was a miscomprehension of what i wrote 12:45 PM, November 13) and so if you want to respond to us by arguing that Luther's words about James then don't complain when we stick to our topic.

I'm not complaining that you stick to the topic. I'm complaining that you ignore questions and do not address the points being made. 

DM, you actually read the response, or just have a knee jerk reaction to things? Wouldn’t you agree that not having an infallible canon, but one in which debate on whether James still canonical, and that Luther could reform his views, places this in a different light. “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.”

That sounds like a backhanded slap in the face. First he says he considers it a "good book". Not the Word of God. Then he says that it contradicts the Word of God:
….In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture….


Would you describe a book as "good" which contradicts Scripture?

But despite your hobby horse, Luther's beliefs determine less than what those of the CFs do for Rome (we judge them, more than they judge us), as their doctrines have no weight except by the weight of Scripture for them.

That is again, besides the point. Although you have already answered the question, I believe I will get a different response from you after you read my rebuttal which I submitted today. However, I can understand why you now seem to be distancing yourself from Luther where before you were defending him.

Anyway, it is Rome that most evidences it believes faith without works (which signify Scripture regeneration) will save them, , because of faith in Rome to save anyone who die in her arms, and as you promote a church and not simply a faith, as we do, when Rome is reformed then less souls will leave it due to its spiritual lack.

That is a complicated statement. Though I do perceive another jab at the Catholic Church. However, it is Luther's statements which are in question right now. And the proof you need to provide to support your contention that he did not mean what he said.

Sincerely,

De Maria

RPV said...

That is besides the point. Scripture says one must be a doer to be justified (Romans 2:13)

Truer words were never spoke which is why your posts in general are pretty much irrelevant.

The salient detail left out of your triumphant summary is that no man can fulfill/do the law. The law only brings sin and condemnation, not salvation.

But Christ, the second Adam, has not only fulfilled the law, he has atoned for those who have broken the law, hence salvation is only found in his name and his imputed righteousness is appropriated by faith. The elect then go on to perform good works/do the law out of gratitude rather than justification.

IOW these kind of errors obliterate one's credibility and impartiality, never mind competence to the question under discussion.

Thank you.

De Maria said...

RPV said...

Truer words were never spoke

Romans 2:13 is Scripture, so that is stating the obvious.

which is why your posts in general are pretty much irrelevant.

I merely quoted Scripture.



The salient detail left out of your triumphant summary is that no man can fulfill/do the law.

On the contrary, with God all things are possible. Christ said so:
Matthew 5:48
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The law only brings sin and condemnation, not salvation.

The Law brings one to Christ:
Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.



But Christ, the second Adam, has not only fulfilled the law, he has atoned for those who have broken the law,

If that were true, all men would be saved. But only those men who obey Christ are saved:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

And Christ directed us to keep the Commandments:
John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

hence salvation is only found in his name and his imputed righteousness is appropriated by faith.

And faith is expressed in works:
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

The elect then go on to perform good works/do the law out of gratitude rather than justification.

a. You are contradicting yourself, as you claimed that no man could do the law.

b. You have inverted Romans 2:13. Scripture says one must first keep the law and then be justified. Not the other way around. One is not a member of the elect until one is justified:

2 Peter 1:10
Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

IOW these kind of errors obliterate one's credibility and impartiality, never mind competence to the question under discussion.

The errors are yours. Your words have been compared to Scripture and found lacking.



Thank you.

You're welcome.

Sincerely,
De Maria

RPV said...

What did Luther say of Erasmus, DM?
That he exegeted scripture like a hog rooting for acorns?

It is not enough that we can sprinkle texts like chopped nuts in our reply if we do not have a consistent and coherent understanding of Scripture in the first place and miss the forest for the trees.

IOW surely you can’t mean to tell us that the Book of Romans is not about the gospel of grace in which the just live by faith as Paul declares in Chapt. 1:17?

That Rom. 2:13 does not in context precede and lead up to Paul’s statement in Rom. 3:19-23, that no man can obey the law in order to be justified which is why faith in Christ for justification is necessary?

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.


Further, beware and choose carefully your reply.
The Scripture not only tells us that God sovereignly hardened Pharoah’s heart, but also that Pharoah hardened his own heart Ex.7:3, 8:15.

De Maria said...

‪RPV‬ said...
What did Luther say of Erasmus, DM?
That he exegeted scripture like a hog rooting for acorns?


Oh? Yet hogs are quite successful at finding acorns, aren't they? Was Luther averse to searching the Scripture to find the treasures therein?

Matthew 13:44
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.

It is not enough that we can sprinkle texts like chopped nuts in our reply if we do not have a consistent and coherent understanding of Scripture in the first place and miss the forest for the trees.

Nor is it enough to claim to know what Scripture says without providing an ounce of evidence to prove it.



IOW surely you can’t mean to tell us that the Book of Romans is not about the gospel of grace in which the just live by faith as Paul declares in Chapt. 1:17?

As you have rejected the Traditions of Christ through which His Grace is applied to believers, you don't recognize the Gospel of Grace which is taught by the Catholic Church. Instead, you substitute the gospel of Luther, which is a poor replacement.

That Rom. 2:13 does not in context precede and lead up to Paul’s statement in Rom. 3:19-23, that no man can obey the law in order to be justified which is why faith in Christ for justification is necessary?

Romans 2:13 does in fact precede and is indeed part of the context within which Romans 3 must be understood.

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

I see nothing there which contradicts Romans 2:13. Romans 2:13 does NOT say that one is justified by the law. Romans 2:13 says that God justifies those who keep the law.

Jesus Christ commanded that we keep the Commandments. And only those who keep the Commandments of Jesus Christ will be justified. And only those who persevere in keeping the Commandments will be saved. Very simple. It is Biblical and it is Catholic Teaching.

Further, beware and choose carefully your reply.
The Scripture not only tells us that God sovereignly hardened Pharoah’s heart, but also that Pharoah hardened his own heart Ex.7:3, 8:15.

True. What's the question to which I must carefully reply?

Sincerely,
De Maria

RPV said...

You might trying reading the post again real slow DM, if not the Book of Romans and see if you can then tell us that Paul’s gospel – Christ’s gospel – is by obedience to the law, instead of by faith alone.

And don’t bother trying to smear it at Luther’s gospel or giving us the party line as to what the Roman church’s gospel is, but tell us what Rom. 3:20-24 plainly says.

But let me make it easy for you.
Here it is again:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.


It’s not that hard and the Scripture is clear enough, though certain parties have failed miserably so far to do anything other than evade the truth.

Which is why again their credibility and competence in all this is suspect, if not that Paul’s admonition in Galations comes into play:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed Gal. 1:8,9.


cheers

PeaceByJesus said...

>Why not read what i said?<

Because you seem to be avoiding my questions. . I asked a simple yes or no question asking whether you agree with Luther's negative attitude towards a canonical work and you respond with a 6 part discourse on Luther's moral life. Effectively burying the question. I didn't ask about Luther's moral life.

No, you not only construe Scripture, but this exchange as well. Searching this thread will show that what you 1st responded to me on was my comment (here ) , which was not to you but to what James wrote and aspects of the Catholic blog, and regarding which i said,

>< I left a comment on the source blog, (if he will allow it), some of which i will say here, as besides supposing that holding to SS means that, like RCs, we are allowed to think of men above that which is written, (1Cor. 4:6; contra Acts 17:11) being indoctrinated by Catholic forums often results in parroting their specious arguments, such as sola fide meant to the Reformers a marginalization of works as defining faith and love, yet some of Luther's balance can be seen here .

Meanwhile, if the alleged morality of Luther negates SF despite much holy fruit thru the centuries, , etc, then the bodies of sexually active successors to Peter need to be exhumed and burned in disassociation from them. <

To which you said here ,

To avoid jumping around the internet, may we discuss these findings of yours here? Because it seems obvious, that whatever Luther meant, he disagreed with the Epistle of St. James...So, please, if you're defending Luther, then defend these words of his from the preface to the Epistle of St. James:

Thus from the beginning with me, rather that responding to the material that substantiated that Luther and the Reformers required saving faith to be one that would effect holiness, or that what James dealt with was not about promoting neglect of works, you went about contending that Luther disagreed with James, as if that was a denial of the necessity of works as evidencing faith, and which response by you either shows a misunderstanding of sola fide, or of my words in describing the reason for the emphasis upon works, or a desire to find a pretext for attacking Luther. Luther's rejection of James simply did not equate to a rejection of the necessity of works in the life of believers, and promoting moral laxity, but his disagreement with James 2 was to what precisely justifies, a faith which effects obedience, or the works, but which was not my subject.

You then in this same first post to me responded to my moral argument by incredibly asking me to “stick to the subject at hand,” when that was part of my subject, in response to the Catholic blogger who made it a subject!

And in my next post (here ) i first clarified what my argument was, that of whether sola fide basically promotes antinomianism, but in condescension to your focus in Luther and James, in which your actual request was to “defend these words” of Luther, then i stated that did not know all of what Luther's objection was, but in dealing with his rejection i stated that it is easy to see how Luther could see James contradicting Paul, and why. I thus acknowledged your argument and defended how Luther (or others) could see it as such, which is a reality.

PeaceByJesus said...

I also reproved you for accusing me of getting off subject when it was my post you were supposed to be responding to, and i also responded to your exchange on the moral argument.

In your response (here ) you seem to have a misunderstanding of what i said, which was not that works justify one by obtaining righteousness, but justify as one having a complete, confessed saving faith, and thus you cannot understand why Luther opposed James at that time. And then you accused me of blowing past the issue, which was Luther's disagreement with James, but which i dealt with in condescension to your preoccupation with this. You also asserted that Luther disagreed with the Word of God because James is a canonical book and asked if i agreed with doing so.

In your next post (here ) you responded to my statement that the original subject was “a misappropriation of Luther's writing in order to render him immoral,” which i had expressed was that of the moral argument (of the Catholic blogger), but which you make to refer to your Luther's rejection of James, again as if this equated to a promotion of moral laxity, and which substantial evidence shows it did not.

You proceeded to interact with the moral argument with an “everybody does it “polemic, which negates the Catholic bloggers argument.

In my response (here) i further explained why Luther claimed that the Epistle of James is anti-Gospel, contrasting Scripture with Rome.

And having explained how Luther could disagree with James, in my next post (here ) i responded to your imagination that i blew past that issue, and i stated that you need to allow that Luther was in a period of developing beliefs, as Rome herself has. And i answered your query as to whether Luther disagreed with the Word of God by responding that this was an anachronistic attempt to make Luther disagreeing with the Word of God when Rome did not have an infallible canon as yet, and James was one of the books which others also questioned were inspired. Yet Luther preached from it at times and included it om His Bible. But which again does not make Sola fide and Luther marginalizing the need for holiness, and for a faith that effected it, which was the argument you were supposed to be responding to.

In my next post (here ) after invoking support from Clement of Rome, i again linked to the material showing how Luther and the Reformers defined of what kind of faith is salvific, and i explained what my charge of misappropriation was, reminding you of what my post was about and your tangential non sequitur. And i also provided links to material as to whether Luther, all told, may not have maintained that James was contradicting Paul, versus explaining (as seen in my linked material) “why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works,” as qualifying what kind of faith saves, thus justifying one as having true confessed faith. I then also corrected your take on the moral argument of iniquitous popes by again showing you how it was relevant.

PeaceByJesus said...

You next post dismissed all my explanation of why Luther would reject James based on the issue of what is the “instrumental means of appropriating justification” as being all “besides the point” (!) and it was then that you made your demand “Luther says that St. James contradicts St. Paul. Do you agree with him or not?,” but which i had answered in my 1st response to you, and said that this seeming contradiction is reconciled if “James is speaking about works justifying or confirming one as possessing justifying faith, which Luther in strong terms affirms must be of a kind that will effect the "obedience of faith.” Thus i did to see not James contradicting Paul according to this understanding.

Your next post provided your argument that you amend your ways and then God will justify you, versus that God will justify the contrite by faith and then such will obey His Word in practical ways.

Then you responded to my correction (here ) of your dismissal of iniquitous popes, that this was relevant because “even if the claim of Luther's lack of holiness is true, using such to denigrate a doctrine is problematic for Rome,” by saying that “You brought that up. Not me. If some other Catholic is arguing based upon Luther's morals, please discuss that with them,” when the reality was that this is what the original post of mine which you responded to was about, that “sola fide meant to the Reformers a marginalization of works as defining faith and love,” which response you quoted and which “findings” you asked to discuss, but in which you made to be all about Luther and James, which was not part of any defense of Luther i made nor does it equate to a marginalization of works as defining faith and love!

And then, also ignoring the fact that James was not part of an infallible canon for Rome until Trent, in the year Luther died (1546) established it for Rome, you again asserted that Luther “definitely attacked the veracity of a canonical book of the Bible,” and which anachronistic argumentation also charges Jerome and others who rejected the apocrypha as attacking the assured veracity of a canonical book.

In response i answered your demand as i understood it as to whether St. James contradicts St. Paul by challenging you to read my response and stating that “he does not, but he does according to the interpretation of Roman Catholics on James.”

I followed that with correction of your position that basically has God justifying the Godly by works, versus the unGodly by faith, but which is faith is justified as being true faith by works (the believer is justified by works in the sense that works which confirm he has faith).

PeaceByJesus said...

I alsoresponded to your charge of inverting Rm. 2:13 as teaching justification by works by pointing out “that Abraham was justified prior to circumcision, which is a type of baptism, while to require all to amend their lives before conversion would require that all souls have such power of character as to do so while being yet unregenerate,” versus teaching that a faith that justifies is a faith that obeys as a consequence of being washed, justified and sanctified positionally, but that “amended” is correct as understood by a broken and contrite heart, and how this requirement was manifest by such Protestants as the Puritans.

I also responded to your question as to what repentance of one's sins means, a feeling or actual change, by explaining what it means in conversion, that of a contrite spirit which then effects actual change, and how sola fide preachers emphasized the need for a properly disposed repentant heart in order to be saved.

This was followed by another correction of your assertion that i was not sticking to the subject by my moral argument, while you went in your own direction. And again in response to your “Luther attacked the Word of God charge,” that you also ignored the fact that what Luther rejected was not yet part of Rome's infallible canon. And that it is Rome which most evidences a marginalization of works.

Bringing us up to your most recent series, despite the above, you responses you charge me with avoiding your questions: I asked a simple yes or no question asking whether you agree with Luther's negative attitude towards a canonical work and you respond with a 6 part discourse on Luther's moral life, which is a misconstruance of the exchange, and warranted this overview. As said, you responded to my post by asking (1st) if we could discuss my findings, which was that sola fide did not marginalize works as defining saving faith, and that the moral argument of the poster also negates the claim of Rome, by going in the direction of Luther's rejection of James, which you challenged me to defend. And which i manifestly did, not by a burying the question with a 6 part series on Luther's moral life, or not defending it, but right in my first response explaining how it is easy to perceive James as contradicting Paul. You are the one doing the burying of my original contention by your diversionary non sequitur.

And when asked (your 2nd ?) whether i agreed that Luther was contradicting the Word of God i pointed out that James was a book whose canonical status was still able to be disputed. I do affirm James as canonical, but as said, your charge against Luther would also be one against saints who did disagreed with the veracity of certain books in the second century church which were latter progressively established as Scripture.

I also responded to your 3rd question as to how i could charge you with misappropriation by pointing you back to the context in which the Catholic blogger was guilty of such.

In response to your 4th question as to a Lutheran writing where Luther changes his mind and begins to accept the teaching of St. James, i provided links to Swan where this is argued.

PeaceByJesus said...

And when you finally asked (5th ?) , “Luther says that St. James contradicts St. Paul. Do you agree with him or not? Simple, yes or no will do,” i clearly stated that “he does not, but he does according to the interpretation of Roman Catholics on James,” with the second statement being warranted, because unlike your superficiality here, this clarifies what doctrine is disagreeing with Paul.

And i answered your 6th 7th and 8th questions, “Does Protestantism teach that a man who has not amended of his sins may be justified?..Is it simply a feeling of "God will forgive me because I can't help myself" or is it an earnest change in one's behavior? and “Do you see the difference?” by explaining the difference between requiring a formal prescribed work to be saved, and that of having a repentant heart [Lk. 18:13,14] which will effect such, and which Rome allows for in some cases.

And in response to your question as “Wouldn't you agree, that disagreeing with the Word of God is problematic?” i again pointed out to you problematic nature of your assertion which throw a man to the lions for rejecting a book (with scholarly reasons) which was still open to dispute, while Luther also said of it, “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.”

And now in response to my charge that that “you evidence you do not to objectively examine an issue...,” you have the desperation and audacity to assert “you evidence your implicit trust in Luther by your excusing his anti-Christian remarks towards the Word of God in the Canonical book entitled the Epistle of St. James,” but which is another example of your dismissing the evidence that what Luther rejected was not a canonical book. Jerome rejected the apocrypha as a doctrinal, canonical book, though sometimes such were referenced, as were even some books by CFs which Trent rejected. And which is again irrelevant to my argument, that Luther and sola fide does not marginalize works in the life of the believers, as defining what manner of faith is salvific, which is what you have avoided in your quest to make Luther 's attitude towards James the problem, which does not equate to what my argument asserts, which findings you ask to discuss.

You then take my response to your question “Luther says that St. James contradicts St. Paul. Do you agree with him or not?,” which was “he [meaning Paul] does not, but he does according to the interpretation of Roman Catholics on James, and assume i am saying Luther did not disagree, which i never said, and instead i argued under the assumption that he did. And the rest of your response there is based upon your misapprehension of what i was answering, and which was a result of my assuming the question was whether i agreed that Paul was contradicting James, and which issue i first responded to by showing how they might be reconciled.

I do see Luther as at least first rejecting James due to the ancients and his seeming to be in contradiction to James, but what of it? It does not follow that works are marginalized, but that such as necessary if faith will be established as salvific. I honestly am amazed at the the preoccupation of certain Roman Catholics to assassinate Luther, which i think is much due to the delusion that we run after men after the manner they do.

PeaceByJesus said...

While we do enter into the labors of others, we do not follow Luther or any man as if they were a pope, but seek to do as the Bereans did in judging the veracity of the preaching of the very apostles. In so doing we are to “prove all things, and hold fast to what is good.” (1Thes. 5:21) You also exercise judgment in coming to believe Rome is assuredly infallible and which does your reasoning for you, and in judging which of the multitudes of potentially infallible pronouncements are infallible, and what they and the ordinary magisterium mean in their teachings. Rome's magisterium which can only effectively watches over the doctrine of her church, and effectively allows and sees substantial disunity, while Protestant churches have leadership which does the same. The real difference is the Rome claims universal jurisdiction and coercive powers, and assuredly infallibility, but which effectively rests upon self-proclamation.

And while you are not allowed to accept any evidence that impugns Rome, the idea that Luther was deviating from a Rome that was completely unified in its soteriology before Trent is challenged by research. As Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran turned Orthodox, and scholar in the history of Christianity (with honorary degrees from 42 universities), states, "Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone….That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers….Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.” — The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (1959), 49, 51-52

American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown, in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections” ( Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970) said he could not prove on historical grounds that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)

Other Catholic researchers also add support for Reformation claims.

Your next post is about faith which works, in which you said:

PeaceByJesus said...

“If faith alone is not salvific, it is because it is not accompanied by works and therefore it is not meritorious. Therefore the reason that faith which works is salvific is because of the merit of the works which it produces. Both the faith and the works are meritorious.”

However, this requires one to have meritorious works in order to be converted, which as an absolute even Rome contradicts, while nothing merits justification, as in morally earning it, and in dealing with what actually appropriates justification before God, that of works or faith, the teaching is that it is faith.

As explained, Abraham was before the Law, and was counted as righteous before even circumcision, as Paul expounds, "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) Strictly speaking, it is faith which is the instrumental means of obtaining of justification. Abraham was helpless to produce the promise, as we are to attain eternal life, but" being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (Romans 4:23-24) (Romans 4:21-25) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Rome holds that “Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called...” (Trent, cp V.) “..that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace... (cp. VIII).

But that “the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified;..(cp. VII)

The approved if not infallible (relative little is in Roman Catholic teaching and practices) Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html) states,

“We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.”

“When Catholics affirm the "meritorious" character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.”

PeaceByJesus said...

Nor is Trent's requirement of baptism absolute, as Rome allows for perfect contrition in baptism by desire:

Baptism of desire (Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti) Baptism of desire is the explicit or implicit desire for sacramental baptism (votum baptismi) associated with perfect contrition (contrition based on charity). Baptism of desire works ex opere operantis.

In the funeral oration on the Emperor Valentine II, who died without Baptism, St. Ambrose says: " Should he not acquire the grace for which he longed? Certainly: As he desired it, he has attained it . . . His pious desire has absolved him " (De obitu Valent. 51, 53). St. Augustine declared: " I find that not only suffering for the sake of Christ can replace that which is lacking in Baptism, but also faith and conversion of the heart (fidem conversionemque cordis), if perhaps the shortness of the time does not permit the celebration of the mystery , of Baptism " (De bapt. IV 22, 29). In the period of early Scholasticism St. ! Bernard of Clairvaux (Ep. 77 c. 2 n. 6-9), Hugo of St. Victor (De sacr. 116, 7) and the Summa Sententiarum (V 5) defended the possibility of Baptism of desire against Peter Abelard. Cf. S. th. III 68, 2. (John Hardon, The question and answer Catechism)

“if the contrition be perfect (contritio caritate perfecta), then active justification results, that is, the soul is immediately placed in the state of grace even before the reception of the sacrament of baptism or penance, though not without the desire for the sacrament (votum sacramenti). If, on the other hand, the contrition be only an imperfect one (attritio), then the sanctifying grace can only be imparted by the actual reception of the sacrament.” (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cc. iv and xiv)

“When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible” (CCC 1452).

However,

"Pre-Scholastic and early Scholastic authors treat of only one sorrow for sin in connection with sacramental or ecclesiastical penance, and that is contrition, contritio cordis, the sorrow that is perfect enough to wipe out the sins before God even prior to confession to a priest." (Two concepts of attrition and contrition." P. DE LETTER, S. J. St. Mary's College, Kurseong, India, http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/11/11.1/11.1.1.pdf)

Jesus likewise healed people and did not hear any confession when He healed the palsied man, nor did He prescribe penance to him. (Mt. 9:2-5) And Simon was told by Peter to repent and pray to God if perhaps the thought of his heart may be forgiven him. (Acts 8:22) But confessing faults to one another and praying for each other is healthy and exhorted. (Ja. 5:14-20)

What Rome somewhat allows as an exception, that of faith out of a properly contrite heart, we hold as the instrumental means by which one is justified being counted a righteous, but which must effect obedience towards Christ if it is indeed salvific faith. And thus the emphasis upon a properly disposed heart by such prechers as the famous Anglican clergyman George Whitefield, "I did then preach much upon original sin, repentance, the nature and necessity of conversion, in a close, examinatory and distinguished way; laboring in the meantime to sound the trumpet of God's judgments, and alarm the secure by the terrors of the Lord, as well as to affect them by other topics of persuasion: which method was sealed by the Holy Spirit in the conviction and conversion of a considerable number of persons, at various times and in different places in that part of the county." - George Whitefield by Arnold Dallimore, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Banner of Truth), Volume L 417.

PeaceByJesus said...

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:26-28)

The reason you misunderstand this verse PBJ, is because you have rejected the Traditions of the Catholic Church from which this teaching sprang.


Translated means, whatever Rome says history, Scripture and its unverifiable amorphous oral tradition is channeled to mean, is what it means, under the premise that she has infallibly decreed that she is infallible whenever she has or will speak in accordance with her infallibly defined subject and scope based formula, though you must discern that each pronouncement was given as dogma (was all Trent said infallible?), but under this premise you can “prove” anything.

Thus the Catholic apologist is not to read Scripture seeking to find out what it says and to determine the veracity of truth claims, but is to reads it to find out how it can be used to support Rome. And thus they will wrest Scripture rather than allow objective thinking to lead them to a conclusion that is contrary to Rome, while i should either agree or differ with any man based upon the weight of Scriptural argumentation, which source is the only assuredly infallible transcendent material authority in faith and morals.

“Once he does so (joins the Catholic church), he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.”

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

It is the justification which we receive via the Sacraments of the faith of Jesus which he is alluding to in this Scripture.

And which is an example of the above Catholic misconstruance, while in context Paul broadly (as this is not restricted to simply the Law) excludes the merit by works as the basis for being counted as righteous, and uses Abraham's believing the promise of God as illustrating how God justifies the unGodly by faith, and the Holy Spirit shows souls being born again prior to baptism, but you attempt to restrict salvation to going through Rome's sacramental system of salvation, and are more conservative than she is in so doing if you exclude baptism by desire, as some Catholics do.

PeaceByJesus said...

Scripture says it is faith plus works, sometimes (2 Pet 1:5; James 2:26) and faith which works, at others (Gal 5:6; James 2:18). Therefore your argument is simply splitting hairs, as the Word of God makes no distinction between the two, as you do.

It does indeed, as between cause and effect. By faith believers overcome, (Jn. 5:4; Heb. 11) and which has great recompense of reward, (Heb. 10:17) as it effects works which are rewarded. (1Cor. 3:8)

PeaceByJesus said...

And here, you are inverting Romans 2:13. Because Romans 2:13 does not say that justification produces good works, but that those who produce good works will be justified.

That is because faith is evidenced by works, while the cause of justification, in being washed, sanctified and justified, (1Cor. 6:11) is by faith, and you are inverting many texts which in context declare this, to the exclusion of works being the cause of salvation. “Not by works” is not simply the works of the law as some Catholic argue, but it extends to any system of earning eternal life. Salvific faith is a kind of faith that will produce manifest evidence, presuming opportunity, and by this evidence believers are judged worthy of eternal life based upon that evidence, (Mt. 25:34-40) but it is by God-given faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His blood which justifies man, being counted for righteous, not his works, as what man truly appropriates is damnation.

Before conversion? Conversion is the beginning of process of justification in Catholicism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Protestantism, conversion and justification are essentially the same, is that correct?

Yes, as by faith a believer is washed, sanctified and justified, but while sanctification as one indwelt by the Spirit is progressive, and “justifies” one as possessing true faith, yet his justification is by faith being counted as righteousness, as he comes to Christ damned and destitute.

1. Baptism is the work of God to which we submit in faith.

As a response it is a work of man, but what is signifies and the blessing of obedience (which extends beyond obedience in baptism) which follows is the work of God.

2. Baptism is the fullness of justification, but not its end.

I will leave “fullness” to interpreters, but engaging in this figure is the demand or answer of a good conscience toward God, (1Pt. 3:21) identifying one with Christ and testifying to what God has done, being salvific in the sense that saving faith expresses union with Christ crucified and risen, symbolically buried in a liquid grace, and raised to walk in newness of life. (Rm. 6) Thanks be to God. But to walk in surrender and keep the living sacrifice from crawling off the altar requires a daily crucifixion and putting on the new man. (Col. 3) Salvation is about going from damnation as one rejected by God to forgiveness as one accepted, but it also refers to being saved from the power of sin.

3. Baptism is done after conversion, after one has studied to show himself approved and begun to live a life of virtue and good works according to the Commandments of God.

Wrong, and this is not the order in which Catholics are typically baptized, and while the above is often the practice even in evangelical churches, yet Scripturally baptism is normatively concomitant with conversion, the confession of what is in the heart, a sinner's confession in body language, (cf. Rm. 10:9,10) and baptism can even be the moment when one comes to faith, but it is the faith which is counted for righteousness, for those whom the Lord drew/pulled, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) whose heart the Lord opened, (Act 16:14) and granted repentance, (Acts 11:18) and gave faith to. (Eph. 2:8,9) While the prep work can take decades, conversion in Scripture was typically in the same hour as they heard the gospel, and could precede baptism. And infants cannot obey the requirements given for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) nor does the Holy Spirit provide even one manifest example of infants being baptized, and it is presumption to suppose that whole households must include such, while more descriptive accounts teach those who were baptized were those who heard the word.

PeaceByJesus said...

4. At that point, the convert requests Baptism from the Church.

No, at the point of conviction of his desperate need for salvation and readiness to believe with repentant faith, the sinner needs to confess Christ, and the first formal means of doing so is normatively baptism, but confession of Christ is the key aspect here. "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." (Mt. 10:32) "We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;" (2 Cor. 4:13)

5. During Baptism, God washes away the sins of the past and the man is reborn in the image of Christ.

This can be the case if that is when a person does come to faith, but as seen in Scripture, this can precede conversion/regeneration as it is faith which appropriates justification by imputed righteousness, though it is a type or faith that confesses the Lord Jesus.

>(and then it is usually not a morally cognizant person who amends his ways) <

Do you read people's hearts? How would you know otherwise?

Do you read the heart of infants as being cognizant of their need for salvation and coming personally to faith, or did you fail to understand how how Catholics are said to typically become born again?

>though Rome evens allows exceptions, and affirms baptized Protestant s in general as children of God and part of the general body.<

What is wrong with that?

Did you fail to see that this was contrary to or left out of your position that one must amend his sins in order to be justified?”

Anyway, you've ignored the question again.

It is you who have ignored answers or failed to comprehend them. If you cannot see my answers (1:10 AM, November 17, 2011 to your questions, “Protestants invert Romans 2:13 and say, God will justify you and then you will obey His Word. Do you see the difference? What does it mean to repent of one's sins? Is it simply a feeling of "God will forgive me because I can't help myself" or is it an earnest change in one's behavior?”, then you fail to understand what is required in not simply responding to a question according to its aspects and the argument behind it, and reasoning out of the Scriptures rather than truth by dictation from Rome.

>And it is not we who invert Scripture but you, as Scripture teaches that Abraham was justified prior to circumcision, which is a type of baptism, while to require all to amend their lives before conversion<

You'll have to produce that teaching. I've never heard of the Church requiring anyone to amend their ways before conversion. The Church requires those who convert to show evidence of their repentance:

Trent, Chapter VI. The manner of Preparation.
God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves,..and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism..

But you failed to clarify amend, as in “The Catholic Church says, first you amend your ways and then God will justify you,” and i addressed the possibility that by amend you meant a contrite heart in conversion, the latter being the context which your question “Does Protestantism teach that a man who has not amended of his sins may be justified? applies to.” As for after that, i have made it clear from the beginning that Protestant historically emphasized to the necessity of a living faith which manifested things which accompany salvation, which of course includes repentance when convicted of sin.

PeaceByJesus said...

But if he had not worked in obedience to God, his works would not have wrought with his faith and his faith would not have been made perfect: Genesis 26:5 
Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.



Genesis 26:5 does not describe when Abraham's faith was counted for righteousness, which 15:6 and Rm. 4 clearly states was because he believed the promise, and Paul emphasizes this was not on account of his works, but by faith. But again a man is not justified by a kind of faith that is alone, but by one that confesses Christ, if anyways able, and this kind of faith is a complete or “perfect” faith. Yet “with the heart man believeth unto righteousness,” and God knows what manner of faith is in the heart and counts it for righteousness, as He did with Abraham before circumcision, which then was expressed in manifest ways. One cannot do works of faith which justifies before God, making him His child, before conversion because one must first have faith which enables works. And if one must do manifest works first to be justified, then you do have a contradiction in Rm. 4, and Rome must reject her baptism of desire/perfect contrition. But if you claim a kind of faith is saving faith that does not effect obedience, then you contradict Paul and James and all Scripture, as even the demons have such a kind of faith. (Ja. 2:19)

It is true that even believing can be called a work, but this is only by grace, and does not morally merit justification, rather one comes to Christ as who merits damnation and cannot earn eternal life, and casts all his faith upon the risen Lord Jesus to save him by His sinless shed blood. In contrast is teaching that because of ones degree of goodness then one will gain Heaven, not in utter dependance upon the mercy of God in Christ to save him as one that deserves Hell, and who in response to being saved by grace seeks to live out practically what he is positionally in Christ, which is the principle seen in the epistles.

Those who preach salvation by works of righteousness they have done will often excel in works, while what institutionalized religion, Catholic or Protestant, overall effectually promotes today is not conviction leading to a day of conversion with manifest regeneration characterized by heartfelt worship and evangelical works of faith and virtue in response, but perfunctory professions of faith and confidence in their own virtue and or the power of the church to gain even the most nominal eternal life, never having had a point of manifest conversion, and often supposing a form of infant baptism did so.

>"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness....<

After he proved his faith by his works.

Indeed, but had he died prior to offering up Issac then Abraham would have been saved, as his faith was counted for righteous before it was so clearly manifest as in Gn. 22. Jesus proved His Deity by works, and by being made “perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10; 5:9), in passing every test, though He was the perfect Son of God before that. The point is that what one is will be manifest, faith being manifest by works, with a denial of it denying who he is. And while one is accepted by God by faith in the Lord Jesus, he is rewarded according as he confesses that faith. And confessed faith is confirmatory of salvation.

PeaceByJesus said...

>The exclusion of works is not simply the works of the Law, …. but “not by works of righteousness” excludes any system in which one earns Heaven because he is good enough.<

Agreed. 1st. We are justified by the Mercy of God. Not by any works which we do. Not the Commandments. Not the ordinances. Nothing which we do can justify us.

Which requires defining works as meritorious different from how it sounds. And Rome does teach that the good works of one that is justified truly merit eternal life, and what is easily conveyed by this is the idea of earning eternal life by doing more good than bad, while apostolic preaching convicted men of their damnable state, and salvation by faith, not works of righteousness.

How the Mercy of God justifies is the question, which is by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, by which the damned soul who is destitute of any merit whereby he may escape his just and eternal punishment in Hell, or gain Heaven, is washed, sanctified and justified, (1Cor, 6:11) by imputed righteousness, (Rm. 4:4-6) translated into His kingdom (Col. 1:13) and baptized into His body. (1Cor. 12:13) And as the word of God effectually worketh in them that believe, (1Thes. 2:13) so again, it has its outworking in things which accompany salvation. (Heb. 5:9)

What is seen in the epistles is the exhortation to live out what they are, being forgiven , sanctified, justified, and accepted in the Beloved, being made a new creature and seated in Heavenly places, all being obtained by faith in conversion, and rightly enabling and inspiring them to live it out. “ If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” (Gal. 5:25)

2nd. By the same token, God will not justify anyone who does not keep the Commandments.

Or who will not, as justification is not obtained by being Godly for God justifies the UnGodly by faith in the only One who truly is 100% Godly. After that the statement is true in the sense that salvific faith is one that is characterized by obedience by the Spirit to of Christ, for as faith is judged by works, so those who truly obey Christ by the Spirit are those who are/will be justified as true believers.

3rd. The Ten Commandments are still the basis of the Christian faith. Jesus Christ insists that we obey them:

I did not know you were a 7th day Adventist, as the Sabbath is the 7th day, while the only specific day the early church specifically is recorded as meeting on is the 1st day of the week. But it is true that "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." (1 Corinthians 7:19) And which is done as under the New Covenant

4th. We are justified in Baptism,...Mark 16:16 
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

In which again the instrumental means is faith, which is expressed in baptism, among other things. Confessed faith confirms saving faith, that belief and baptism, but faith is what precisely appropriates justification, thus not believing is what damns one, and which regeneration precedes baptism in Acts 10:46-47 "..Then answered Peter,Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:8-9) If regeneration must await until faith is expressed in the formal act of baptism then it must be a absolute restriction, and thus no regeneration before that, but the Holy Spirit provides evidence that it can.

PeaceByJesus said...

A gift which is only given to those who work:

Romans 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.  23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.


And they were made free from sin by repentant faith, not because of they worked for it, but which faith effects holiness and also results in eternal life. Holiness does not appropriate Heaven but without a faith that effects it then one will get what what he does earn, which is the 2nd death. The publican had contrite faith in the mercy of God and went down to his house justified without works being mentioned. (Lk. 18:13,14) In summation, the gift is only given to those which have the kind of faith which effects obedience, which faith is counted for righteousness. "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." (Galatians 5:6)

He is speaking of Baptism, making a direct reference to St. Cornelius the good Centurion (Acts 10)

Wrong, i knew well what the reference was to and which is not referring to what happened in baptism but the forgiveness and regeneration which preceded it. "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:46-47)

Why would one who has not converted want to do any prep work in service of God?

I did not say in service of God, but as Nicodemus shows it can include that, and as to why, its called prevenient grace, which Rome also affirms: “The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called...; “ “and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope...” (Trent cps. 5+6)

Even "Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly." (Mark 6:20)

2. Why would such a person be contrite?

John 16:8: “And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.”

6. It is the man who pleases God by doing the works of the law in response to the grace of faith, which God justifies.

Then you have God justifying the Godly, which He does in the confirmatory sense that faith is evidenced by works, which declares one is a believer, but to first become a justified believer a soul comes to God as one who is unGodly, and which God justifies by faith being counted for righteousness, not because he is a law-keeper, though such will become one in seeking to fulfill the righteousness of the law as under the New Covenant. (Rm. 8:4)

PeaceByJesus said...

That is besides the point. Scripture says one must be a doer to be justified (Romans 2:13).

It says, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified," (Romans 2:13) referring to obedient faith, in keeping the righteous of the law, (Rm. 8:4) as this is a characteristic of faith, not that law-keeping justifies, which is obvious as Paul proceeds to reject works of righteous done before the giving of the law or after it as appropriating justification. Otherwise we are back under the law, except with more grace given to keep it.

“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" (Romans 4:11)

But Scripture is not thus proven wrong.

No, only the attempts to convert it to support Roman errors are.

>peaceByJesus said...No, you made the issue that of Luther and James DM,<

In our discussion. Please read my first two posts to see which points I began to make. It is during your and my discussion that we had a great deal of topical drift.

Indeed, as shown, in which i was not responding to you, but to points the Catholic blogger made, that of basically making Luther and sola fide into a doctrine promoting antinomianism, which findings you asked to discussed, but attempted to make the dispute about Luther and James, which did not alter my findings, while accusing me of going off topic when i actually stayed with the findings who were supposed to discuss! This is no way to gain points in a debate.

I do my best to stick to one or two major points.

It seems you tried to do your best in making your points rather than arguing the points you were supposed to be responding to, and then blaming me for being diversionary. Again, Luther disagreed with works appropriating justification, versus faith, and thus James as he understood him, (at least at first), but clearly defined the kind of faith which is justificatory as being one that effected the obedience of faith.

Swan has more than one article on the subject, rather than post on two separate articles, I thought I could show, here on this one, that his works are not misappropriated.

The subject of Swan here was a misappropriation of certain Lutheran quote, which was not that of Luther on James, which was served “as proof that the doctrine of justification by faith alone was to blame for a lack of works,” and which he showed did not teach that, and to which subject i added more. You came along and wanted to argue on Luther's rejection of James, but which rejection did not mean a lack of emphasis on works, but in condescension to you i end up in this extended soteriological exchange which is far too long for this type of blog, unless superficial treatment is to be imposed.

I'm not complaining that you stick to the topic. I'm complaining that you ignore questions and do not address the points being made.

You did complain about not sticking to the topic, which was your doing in the first place, and i manifestly did address the points and the argument being made, as readers can see.

First he says he considers it a "good book". Not the Word of God.

And at one time Jerome and others considered apocryphal books likewise.

Would you describe a book as "good" which contradicts Scripture

In an overall sense, if it has much to offer, yes, with qualifications, and Scripture calls men good, (Acts 11:24) even blameless, (Lk. 1:6) though they are not totally good without faults. You own interpreters implicitly attack the literal veracity of much of Scripture.

PeaceByJesus said...

<

But despite your hobby horse, Luther's beliefs determine less than what those of the CFs do for Rome (we judge them, more than they judge us), as their doctrines have no weight except by the weight of Scripture for them.<

That is again, besides the point.

It is not besides the point, as your focus upon Luther presumes that we think of him above what is written as determinative of what we believe, as if indicting Luther is going worked toward turning us toward Rome, but which perverse reasoning is a repellent to those who hold Scripture as being supreme, and is even inconsistent with your own faith, in which bad popes are even used as a reason for Rome being the one true church.

Although you have already answered the question, I believe I will get a different response from you after you read my rebuttal which I submitted today.

I more i see of Catholic preoccupation with indicting Luther as if it equates to sola fide promoting moral laxity or destroys our faith the more it evidences the damage Catholic devotion to men promotes.

My response was to your question as to whether i agreed with attacking the veracity of a canonical book of the Bible, in which i pointed out that what Luther attacked was not part of your infallible canon at the time, and that he had scholarly reasons for disallowing it as Scripture, as he was not alone at the present or the past on doubting or rejecting books of Trent's canon. Thus he was disagreeing with what was not yet established as being the Word of God, and if you want to damn Luther for rejecting what would later be established as Scripture then you must also do so to CFs and greater Catholics than yourself which also rejected some your present canon.

I also had offered evidence that allows that Luther might have reconciled his doctrinal reason for rejecting James. As Swan provides,

Luther answered this spurious proposition: “Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies.” [Rather than dismissing James as spurious], Luther responded:

“The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, “faith” ought to be placed with the word “justifies” and the portion of the sentence “without works justifies” is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word “justifies,” not to “faith.” In the minor premise, “without works” is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a reigned faith. “Without works” is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.”[64]

“Even though Luther arrived at the harmonizing solution, it is probably the case that the question of James’ apostleship out-weighed it.”

PeaceByJesus said...

I can understand why you now seem to be distancing yourself from Luther where before you were defending him

Your understanding has been an issue before, and here you wrong perceive that my defense of what the teaching of what sola fide and Luther effects as regards the alleged promotion of moral laxity equates to some Catholic type devotion to him as if he were a pope, which is absurd. I am not much of a follower of men personally, probably to a fault, and can differ as i see fit, and have limited interest in Luther but from what i know of him i see him as a man of courageous faith who provided some necessary moral and doctrinal correction, but who was a man with faults and who was working through his theology, and which could somewhat change or be refined, which you must also allow for your own.

I do look for objectivity and balance (and there is exaggeration on both sides, but Swan does help provide balance in response to certain Catholics claims on Luther), and i do not think all Catholics are necessarily lost, or that atheists cannot be relatively moral, though i contend with both, and am skeptical of exaggerated unverifiable claims, and arguments which rely on them impugn their veracity. The claims of the Catholic blogger was one of them and your attempt to equate Luther's rejection of James with the promotion of moral laity also is a stretch.

>Anyway, it is Rome that most evidences it believes faith without works (which signify Scripture regeneration) will save them, , because of faith in Rome to save anyone who die in her arms, and as you promote a church and not simply a faith, as we do, when Rome is reformed then less souls will leave it due to its spiritual lack.<

That is a complicated statement. Though I do perceive another jab at the Catholic Church.

It is indeed a jab, an overall statement which is based upon abundant evidence , and as a former Catholic in a heavenly Catholic region who personally knows both sides, becoming manifestly born again while still a Catholic, (evangelical radio helping much), at least in practice and remaining therein for 6 years, in which i sought to serve God, and had dealt with thousands of Catholics over 30 years. This does not mean that there are not exceptions, but it does provide balance to the denigration often seen by Roman Catholics of evangelical and the as superiority of themselves in faith and morals. The more their view of the Bible is like evangelicals then the more conservative they are.

However, it is Luther's statements which are in question right now. And the proof you need to provide to support your contention that he did not mean what he said.

I have not contended that Luther did not reject James as regards what actually appropriates justification, at least initially, or as not being Scripture, but the links i provided enables more objectivity.

And due to your preoccupation with an issue which does not correspond to what my “findings” show, and which required an extended exchange which requires a multiplicity of posts on a blog as this and the time it takes, and as i have lots to do, and the Catholic restriction on objectivity when things challenge their faith, i think the exchange on this topic needs to end for now.

De Maria said...

RPV said...
You might trying reading the post again real slow DM, if not the Book of Romans and see if you can then tell us that Paul’s gospel – Christ’s gospel – is by obedience to the law, instead of by faith alone.


I already did. Romans 2:13 is quite clear. And Jesus is explicit.

And don’t bother trying to smear it at Luther’s gospel or giving us the party line as to what the Roman church’s gospel is, but tell us what Rom. 3:20-24 plainly says.

Taken in context of the entire Bible and specifically in context of the book of Romans, it means that only those who obey the Law will be justified by the faith of Jesus Christ.


But let me make it easy for you. 
Here it is again:

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

In other words, we are not justified by the deeds of the law. But does not justify those who do not keep the law, because anyone who violates the law, commits sin:

1 John 3:4
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

In other words, faith in Jesus Christ is witnessed by the law, because those who have faith in Jesus Christ keep the law. There is no difference between Jew or Gentile, for the Gentile who keeps the law, without the law, shows that the law is written in his heart.



It’s not that hard and the Scripture is clear enough,

Amen! Keeping the Commandments is the Will of God. Transgression of the Commandments is sin against God.


though certain parties have failed miserably so far to do anything other than evade the truth.

Agreed.

Which is why again their credibility and competence in all this is suspect, if not that Paul’s admonition in Galations comes into play:

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed Gal. 1:8,9.

Absolutely. And the Gospel of Jesus Christ is clear:
Matthew 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

God doesn't change.

cheers

And to you,
Sincerely,
De Maria

De Maria said...


‪PeaceByJesus‬ said...

Your understanding has been an issue before,…. I am not much of a follower of men personally, probably to a fault,


I'm glad you said that, because Scripture says:
Philippians 3:17
Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

And therefore, the Word of God tells us to follow MEN.

and can differ as i see fit, and have limited interest in Luther but from what i know of him i see him as a man of courageous faith who provided some necessary moral and doctrinal correction,….The claims of the Catholic blogger was one of them and your attempt to equate Luther's rejection of James with the promotion of moral laity also is a stretch.

Please quote me. Because I don't remember making any such promotion. However, I did claim that you avoid responding to questions. And this is a case in point.

Anyway, it is Rome that most evidences it believes faith without works (which signify Scripture regeneration) will save them, , because of faith in Rome to save anyone who die in her arms, and as you promote a church and not simply a faith, as we do, when Rome is reformed then less souls will leave it due to its spiritual lack.

Whether anyone leaves the Catholic Church is besides the point. The point being discussed is whether you agree with Luther that the Canonical book known as the Epistle of St. James contradicts Scripture.


It is indeed a jab, an overall statement which is based upon abundant evidence ,
Nah. Nothing but innuendo.

and as a former Catholic in a heavenly Catholic region

Amen to that. Because the Catholic Church is heaven on earth!

who personally knows both sides, becoming manifestly born again while still a Catholic, .... The more their view of the Bible is like evangelicals then the more conservative they are.

Conservative does not mean good or virtuous. And you have gone very far around the block and yet I perceive no answer to the simple question asked of you. 


I have not contended that Luther did not reject James as regards what actually appropriates justification, at least initially, or as not being Scripture, but the links i provided enables more objectivity.

Thank you. Finally an answer to the question at issue. There is nothing you can provide which can defend Luther's attack on the Word of God (i.e. his attack on the Epistle of St. James.) All you can do is justify his position.



And due to your preoccupation with an issue which does not correspond to what my “findings” show, and which required an extended exchange which requires a multiplicity of posts on a blog as this and the time it takes, and as i have lots to do, and the Catholic restriction on objectivity when things challenge their faith, i think the exchange on this topic needs to end for now.


It is your choice to right reams of non related material in order to justify Luther's attack towards a canonical book of the Bible.

Sincerely,
De Maria

PeaceByJesus said...

And therefore, the Word of God tells us to follow MEN.

Have ye never read ”We ought to obey God rather than men"? (Acts 5:29)
"It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes." (Psalms 118:8-9)

Once again you are ignoring context in your deceitful desperation to gain some points. The context was the inferred premise behind your preoccupation with Luther, as if he were a pope i must follow in doctrinal matters. My not being much of a follower was in that regard, versus the cult-like devotion you seem to presume by your preoccupation with Luther here. However, contrary to what you example by your blind devotion to Rome, the exhortation to follow men and even commands to obey authority on earth is never unconditional, but dissent on Biblical grounds is allowed and even required, as seen the above quote and many others. The birth and growth of Christianity itself required not following leaders unconditionally except the Lord, and formal decent is not an assurance of perpetual spiritual authority, as God can raise up stones from anywhere to continue to build His church.

As regards what the argument inferred by you, your own doctor Aquinas affirms, "Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things. - St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church - Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104

Also, “Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1.).

But if you want to follow men after the manner you seem to presume i do as regards Luther, then you can follow the CFs which believed that sexual relations even in marriages were necessarily sin.

>The claims of the Catholic blogger was one of them and your attempt to equate Luther's rejection of James with the promotion of moral laity also is a stretch.<

Please quote me. Because I don't remember making any such promotion. However, I did claim that you avoid responding to questions. And this is a case in point.

Again you are ignoring context, Your argumentation in the beginning was supposedly in response to that issue, to “my findings” which you asked to discuss, thus from the beginning it must be presumed that your invocation of the disagreement between Luther and James was based upon the premise that for him to reject the latter meant the promotion of moral laxity, with is what the whole thread was about. If i was not, then you must confess that you did not want to discuss my findings that Luther and sola fide historically supported the necessity of works in defining faith, and instead you simply used that to go off an tangent, and then complain when i responded in accordance with the subject!

And then after i carefully documented how you went of on your tangent, and when you actually asked your questions, and where and how i answered them, you once again come up with me not answering questions? The real question is why you supposed that Luther's view of James was relevant to the issue, or were so desperate to evade the subject of the thread and score points against Luther and Protestantism that you hijacked this thread, and then misrepresented what the subject was which you were supposed to be responding to!

PeaceByJesus said...

The point being discussed is whether you agree with Luther that the Canonical book known as the Epistle of St. James contradicts Scripture.

And which was answered after it was asked according as i understood it, as shown.

>It is indeed a jab, an overall statement which is based upon abundantevidence. <

Nah. Nothing but innuendo.

True to form, you simply reject whatever indicts Roman Catholicism out of hand, besides misrepresenting the issue you were to respond to.

Thank you. Finally an answer to the question at issue. There is nothing you can provide which can defend Luther's attack on the Word of God (i.e. his attack on the Epistle of St. James.) All you can do is justify his position.

Finally? You show you wanted to avoid the findings you claimed to want to discuss, while claiming questions were not answered when they were, including this one, and now you ignore the problem with your charge in the light of James being yet subject to dispute at that time, and rejected by some CFs before Luther, in addition to the presumption that Rome determines what Scripture is, and which your Orthodox Catholic brethren disagree with you on.

Because the Catholic Church is heaven on earth!

More like the gates of Hell for multitudes, sadly, and this delusion of yours and mind control is what drives your sophistry and insolence which this thread manifests for all to see, and renders you unworthy of more patient exchange, and which testifies as to why no one should convert to Roman Catholicism but toward the long-suffering of evangelicals. You should also thank James for his tolerance as well, because of the mercy of God toward us, which i am thank Him for.

RPV said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RPV said...

IOW DM you are telling us that the covenant of works is the covenant of grace; that the gospel of works is grace.

Uh huh.

So salvation is by keeping the law.
(Perfectly mind you, no schlock job halfway attempts admissable - which is why Christ's righteousness is indispensable.)

How's that working out, buddy?
Seems like you got a little problem with the 9th commandment by the time you get through mangling everybody's comments to make them say what you want or avoid the point.

The theme of Romans is either the just shall live by faith alone or it's not. Which is it?

And don't bother trying to confuse things by bringing in sanctification. We are talking about justification.
Make the root good and the fruit follows.

Sadly I am not expecting too much from the word mongering and alphabet chopping we've seen so far. It's par for the course from the spiritual dolts or bargain basement apologists that fly the Roman colors these days, as it has been in the past.

cheers

De Maria said...

PBJ,

I asked, "do you agree with Luther's attack against a canonical book of Scripture."

this was the answer you gave:
My response was to your question as to whether i agreed with attacking the veracity of a canonical book of the Bible, in which i pointed out that what Luther attacked was not part of your infallible canon at the time, and that he had scholarly reasons for disallowing it as Scripture, ....

Correct me if I'm wrong. But haven't you and I discussed the canon of Scripture in the past and you said that the canonical books were selected by the Holy Spirit before they were even put in the Bible by the Catholic Church?

Now you say that the Epistle of James was not a canonical book by the 15th century during Luther's lifetime?

You're digging a deeper and deeper hole.

Sincerely,

De Maria

De Maria said...

‪RPV‬ said...
IOW DM you are telling us that the covenant of works is the covenant of grace; that the gospel of works is grace.


Who said "covenant of works"? You or I. Answer: YOU.
Who said "gospel of works"? You or I.
Answer: YOU.
The Catholic Church does not teach a Covenant of works nor a Gospel of works, but the Gospel of Grace.

Uh huh.
Uh uh uh

So salvation is by keeping the law.
Salvation is by the mercy of God through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

(Perfectly mind you, no schlock job halfway attempts admissable - which is why Christ's righteousness is indispensable.)
Everything is possible with God.

How's that working out, buddy?
God is my Judge. I don't judge myself (1 Corinthians 4:3). Do you not believe that God will judge you rightly? Why are you so concerned to judge other people and yourself that you deny God's sovereign right to judge you?

1 Corinthians 4:3But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

Seems like you got a little problem with the 9th commandment by the time you get through mangling everybody's comments to make them say what you want or avoid the point.

It is not I who is mangling the Word of God. It is the men whose false doctrines you follow.



The theme of Romans is either the just shall live by faith alone or it's not. Which is it?
You seem to be reading into Scripture your errors. I don't see that in Romans anywhere. Romans is clear, those who disobey God will not be saved. THAT IS THE THEME.



And don't bother trying to confuse things by bringing in sanctification. We are talking about justification.
Make the root good and the fruit follows.
The Vine, Jesus Christ, is always good. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the branches will produce good fruit.
John 15 1I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. 2Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: …



Sadly I am not expecting too much from the word mongering and alphabet chopping we've seen so far. It's par for the course from the spiritual dolts or bargain basement apologists that fly the Roman colors these days, as it has been in the past.
At least I'm producing Scripture. All you produce is opinions based upon the errors of the Reformers.


cheers
And to you,

Sincerely,
De Maria

RPV said...

This:

The theme of Romans is either the just shall live by faith alone or it's not. Which is it?
You seem to be reading into Scripture your errors. I don't see that in Romans anywhere. Romans is clear, those who disobey God will not be saved. THAT IS THE THEME.



And this:

At least I'm producing Scripture. All you produce is opinions based upon the errors of the Reformers.



Enough said.

De Maria said...

RPV said...
This:

The theme of Romans is either the just shall live by faith alone or it's not. Which is it?
You seem to be reading into Scripture your errors. I don't see that in Romans anywhere. Romans is clear, those who disobey God will not be saved. THAT IS THE THEME.



And this:

At least I'm producing Scripture. All you produce is opinions based upon the errors of the Reformers.



Enough said.


I agree.

Sincerely,

De Maria

PeaceByJesus said...

Now you say that the Epistle of James was not a canonical book by the 15th century during Luther's lifetime?

Based upon your standard, as it is you who are seeking to indict him, and by implication, to throw under the bus all RCs who disagreed with books of Trent's canon before they were infallibly defined in the year Luther died.

That Luther did reject and argue against some books that became accepted by Prots is nothing hidden by us, but does not negate the doctrines we hold, nor does your rabbit trail rant impugn my findings which you ostensibly wanted to discuss, regardless of your apparent myopic desperation to do something to attack Luther in the service of Rome.

Perhaps you suppose such will get you time of from purgatory, and or want to see how much of our time you can exhaust, but which serves to manifest why one should avoid the mind control of Rome.

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...Based upon your standard, as it is you who are seeking to indict him, ....

Again, you want to change the subject and are avoiding answering questions. Now, are you saying that Luther was free to blasphemously condemn the Epistle of St. James because you don't believe it was not canonical until the 15th century? Or what do these words of yours mean?

My response was to your question as to whether i agreed with attacking the veracity of a canonical book of the Bible, in which i pointed out that what Luther attacked was not part of your infallible canon at the time,....

Because it was certainly part of the infallible canon of the Catholic Bible at the time of Luther. So please answer the question posed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

PeaceByJesus said...

Again, you want to change the subject and are avoiding answering questions.

Do you want to look even more like an insolent man who does his best to hijack a thread, then complain about not sticking to the topic when you are the one who changed it, and then complain about a question not being answered, only to be shown this was not the case but that each question was answered?

And now you insolently assert that you asked "do you agree with Luther's attack against a canonical book of Scripture," when (again in review) what you 1st asked on this was "Luther says that St. James contradicts St. Paul. Do you agree with him or not?" which i answered in the negative as to whether i also thought James contradicts St. Paul, as i previously showed you.

After that you asked, "Wouldn't you agree, that disagreeing with the Word of God is problematic?," and which i answered according to your premise that Rome determines what Scripture was, and thus Luther at the time was disagreeing with a book that was not yet part of Rome's infallible canon (even in Protestantism), thus dissent was not restricted to Luther.

But as as typical, you fail to rectify the problem with your argument, but continuing on your tangent and reformulating questions, you go on to say that you were asking whether i agree with Luther's negative attitude towards a canonical work, and charge me with avoiding questions and of responding with a 6 part discourse on Luther's moral life, which i comprehensively showed was a misconstruance of reality. And that i answered your argument as per above

And when you finally asked (#5) , “Luther says that St. James contradicts St. Paul. Do you agree with him or not? Simple, yes or no will do,” i stated that “he [Paul] does not [contradict], but he does according to the interpretation of Roman Catholics on James," which you seem to fail to understand means i do not agree with Luther.

Thus from the beginning you failed to address the issue you were supposed to be responding to, and to misconstrue the exchange, and to to see answers as answers, and want yes or no responses in a debate, while whole your premise is faulty and utterly fails to accomplish anything except to manifest how good you are at taking up our time on inconsequential rabbit trails.

Continuing to example that, now you ask, "are you saying that Luther was free to blasphemously condemn the Epistle of St. James because you don't believe it was not canonical until the 15th century? Or what do these words of yours mean?"

Sigh. Why such irrelevant questions should be answered is the question, but as you should have been able to understand, the answer is Luther was as free as others in his day to criticize a book which was not yet established as Scripture, as were others before him in doing so to James or other books. One such in the 5th cent. who criticized James was Caius Marius Victorinus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15414b.htm, http://weekendfisher.blogspot.com/2007/03/marius-victorinus-and-teachings-of.html) but criticisms of books now held as canonical were not restricted to that.

Certainly they were wrong if such books were Scripture, but sins of ignorance as not the same as willful rebellion, while conflation with the rest of Scripture was a prerequisite in canonization, while the lack of conformation as to the apostolic sanction or origin of James weighed against it.

But again, this issue does not negate the contention of my findings which you deviated from due to your inquisition. Perhaps you long for the days when Rome could wield the sword of men to deal with those she terms "heretics," but as she lost that unholy use now you must resort to hijacking responses in order to get some hits on Luther, imagining it attracts us to Rome rather than such desperation repelling us. You do a disservice to your better apologists.

De Maria said...

PeaceByJesus said...
Again, you want to change the subject and are avoiding answering questions.

Do you want to look even more like an insolent man who does his best to hijack a thread, ....


Hijack a thread? It is not I who insists upon talking about everything under the sun and posts reams of unrelated material. That is you.

All I do is focus on one aspect of the article at a time. I believe that is a method which accomplishes more as we can go into more detail on one subject than on 1000.

And if there was any topical drift in you and I's conversation, that is how you brought it about.

Sincerely,

De Maria

PeaceByJesus said...

What i posted related to my argument as well as your tangent, and exposing it as just that, while your immediate, irrelevant, hijacking of the subject of my post, which “findings” that sola fide did not mean to Luther and the Reformers a marginalization of works as defining faith and love, but that emphasis on works was balanced by strong emphasis on works which saving faith must produce, and which findings you first asked to discuss — which i suspect you never read — has been well documented beginning here.

But after being exposed, rather than apologize for accusing me of not sticking to the topic which you deviated from, and misconstruing the exchange, you insolently went right back on your tangent which is of no consequence to my findings!

Such posters are not worthy of further exchange.