"The doctrine by which the church stands or falls."

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Agnus Dei: The class is still waiting for that one ellusive verse...faith alone...

HP: With that we will obviously be preparing for a very long wait. Would you mind sharing with us how the ring illustration is used to debunk OSAS? Thanks.

PS: I disagree with you concerning baptism, but I do not disagree with you regarding the notion of ‘faith alone.’ There are some things one must do in order to be saved, we simply disagree on exactly what they are.

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

I said...

"

The Catholic cult brainwashes her victims with that very lie, Agnus."

And you said...

"I take it you’re linking me to the Western Church. Let it be known for the record, I’m not attending the Western Church known as the Roman Catholic Church. I have been attending an Antiochian Orthodox Church."

It doesnt make an ounce of difference. As I have mentioned to you before, I dont know if you are RCC or not, but either way you have still fallen victim to her lies

I said...

"We are NOT saved by any counterfiet shelter of any counterfeit church. We are not even saved by the true church. The true church here on earth is nothing more than all of the born again people on earth. Nothing more. And we...the church...do not save anyone.

We are saved by a person, Agnus. That person is Jesus Christ. He is...

Our savior
Our shelter
Our peace
Our life
Our source of power
Our source of truth
Our EVERYTHING"

He saves His people, Agnus. He personally saves each one individually. There is no other way to be saved but individually by Christ Himself. The only people involved are the sinner, the Father, Christ and the Holy Spirit.

And you said...

"But of course D28guy, no one comes to the Father except through Christ Jesus. Just b/c Christ was crucified doesn’t mean all will be saved. If you encounter a lost soul, do you hand him a bible and let Sola Scriptura do its job?"

I share the goodness of Christ with him, I share the gospel of Jesus Christ with him, and I invite him to partake of Gods great salvation through faith alone. If he does recieves Christ and is born again, I share with him the truth concerning the imporatance of feeding on Gods scriptures. I tell him that I will help him as much as I can. And I encourage him to find a bible believing fellowship that preaches faith in Christ alone and the scriptures alone as our truth standard. I would invite him to my fellowship if he wants to start there. God has placed good teachers in the body to assist new believers in the faith. Nobody denies there are good teachers, but they are not the authority. The scriptures are our truth standard and the Holy Spirit is ultimately the "Teacher"

"Do you a fallible man try and explain salvation to him..."

Absolutly. Thats Gods way, Agnus. People sharing with other people. We are all priests unto God, meaning His representatives. Absolutly no need to point them to anyone else.

"or should you lead the individual to the "pillar and foundation of Truth" which is the Church of the living God?"

The church on earth...all of the believers here on earth...is the pillar and ground of truth because we preach Christ, who is "the Truth", we learn from Gods scriptures, which contain His written truth, and it is guided by the Holy Spirit who is the "Spirit of Truth".

"The last thing I want is someone’s soul on my hands,..."

Thats a crying shame, because if you know Christ you could be the very one who God has ordained to share the good news with that person.

"I’ll lead him to Christ’s Church."

What if he dies in a car wreck on the way? What if the cares of life attack him and he loses interest.

If someone inquires the time to share is RIGHT THEN.

I posted...

"Originally Posted by D28guy
The thief on the cross...just the sinner excercising faith alone, and God saved Him

The Ethiopian Eunuch...just the sinner excercising faith alone, and God saved Him

The tax collector in the temple...just a sinner excercising faith alone...justified.

Cornelius and the others with him...just sinners excercising faith alone...and God saved him."

And you said...

"The class is still waiting for that one ellusive verse...faith alone..."

You know Agnus, of course I cant judge this, nor can I judge your heart, and I'm not doing either of those things...but the complete blindness that you are seeming to exhibit causes me great concern and fear. I sincerely hope, with all of my heart, that you havent gone too far.

Prayerfully concerned,

Mike

 

[DHK]

The class is still waiting for that one ellusive verse...faith alone...

You won't get it the way you wan't it, just like you won't get trinity either; and you are being very childish about it.

If you instruct your child to come home from school alone without her friends, and she obeys you, saying, "Look, I came home all by myself without anyone else with me." Now you become very anger, throw a temper tantrum, and say: "But you didn't come home alone!! These are the silly, childish, semantic word games that you insist on playing here.

With all deference to the KJVO you act like that. "If it is good enough for Paul then it is good enough for me." In other words, Paul (or James) must have used "faith alone" even though the NT was actually written in Greek. How do you know the expression or its equivalent wasn't used in the Greek language? Have you thoroughly studied this out in Greek? Or do you just stick to the KJV, and affirm because if it is not found there it must be true? What childishness!

You refuse to look at Scripture that does teach faith alone without using those exact words, just like non-trinitarians refuse to look at Scripture that teach the trinity if the word trinity isn't in the Bible. That is the exact frame of your mind. In a word--childish.
As Jesus said--Ye err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.

 

[Matt Black]

Are the sins washed away by the Baptism? or by the Blood of Jesus Christ?

Both, surely; again you propose a false dichotomy.

No one can work out his or her own salvation.

*Cough* Philippians 3:12 *cough*

 

[Matt Black]

With all deference to the KJVO you act like that. "If it is good enough for Paul then it is good enough for me." In other words, Paul (or James) must have used "faith alone" even though the NT was actually written in Greek. How do you know the expression or its equivalent wasn't used in the Greek language? Have you thoroughly studied this out in Greek?

Er...I have studied the Greek NT in its various main MSS, and I can confirm that the words "faith alone" are not there in Greek either, except in Luther's Epistle of Straw where it says, with crystal clarity that we are not saved by faith alone.

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know the Scriptures...

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: What childishness!

HP: It would seem to me that the mature thing to do is simply admit that Scripture does not nor does it infer ‘faith alone’ but to the contrary plainly states that we are NOT saved by faith alone. Is it childish to deny that repentance is a condition of salvation, or that ‘he that overcomes,’ or ‘he that continues to the end, the same shall be saved?’ I certainly do not think so. I would beleive they are wrong, but I would not have to resort to calling them childish. Even those that find baptism as a condition of salvation, I beleive are indeed be wrong, but that has nothing to do with being ‘childish,’ now does it?

In a debate forum inviting other denominations, is it not enough to state ones opinion, state the other is simply wrong, or point us to the Scriptures, rather than to call another ‘childish?’ IMO it certainly adds no strength to ones argument to do so, and does nothing to communicate Christian charity one to another.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

HP: It would seem to me that the mature thing to do is simply admit that Scripture does not nor does it infer ‘faith alone’ but to the contrary plainly states that we are NOT saved by faith alone. Is it childish to deny that repentance is a condition of salvation, or that ‘he that overcomes,’ or ‘he that continues to the end, the same shall be saved?’ I certainly do not think so. I would beleive they are wrong, but I would not have to resort to calling them childish. Even those that find baptism as a condition of salvation, I beleive are indeed be wrong, but that has nothing to do with being ‘childish,’ now does it?

In a debate forum inviting other denominations, is it not enough to state ones opinion, state the other is simply wrong, or point us to the Scriptures, rather than to call another ‘childish?’ IMO it certainly adds no strength to ones argument to do so, and does nothing to communicate Christian charity one to another.

Amen. :thumbs:

And it still needs to be pointed out that the only verse in the Bible that mentions "justification", "works" and "faith alone" in the same sentence unequivocally states that one is NOT justified by faith alone. Here it is again:
"You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

 

[Agnus_Dei]

HP:Would you mind sharing with us how the ring illustration is used to debunk OSAS? Thanks.

Not necessarily rings I was eluding too, but the marriage commitment itself.

(This is just an illustration; my wife and I are happily married for 7 years) I’m married, both my wife and I have committed ourselves to each other, we love each other…20 plus years have drifted by and suddenly, my wife on her own freewill, leaves me for another man and becomes married to him. She’s turned her back on our commitment and her relationship with me is broken. I still love her and desire a relationship with her, but she’s failed persevere to the end; she’s failed to run the good race and finish.

If you’re married HP, you and I both will agree that a successful marriage takes work, lots of hard work. We can’t get married and just bum around on the couch or continue in an abusive relationship, although some do persevere. But we persevere through the hard times that test our commitment. We nurture our relationship and we grow together.

In my commitment to Christ, He’s fully and totally committed to me. Nothing can ever separate the Love of my Father from me…but as my fictional wife, I can still choose to turn my back on that love and sever that relationship.

PS: I disagree with you concerning baptism,

Keep in mind HP, my baptism illustration was to answer the thief on the cross scenario. In short, Baptism in regard to Orthodoxy is more than just a symbolic act of burial and resurrection, but an actual supernatural transformation. Baptism imparts cleansing (remission) of sins and union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.

When you have a chance, read about the Orthodox view of the atonement of Christ verses the Catholic and Protestant view. Very interesting to see that Catholic view develop via Augustine and then we see the Immaculate Conception develop as a result.
-

 

[Matt Black]

Do you mean theosis/ recapitulation -v- penal substitutionary atonement?

 

[Matt Black]

Titus 2:11

11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men.

So, the Salvation has been complete for ALL men.

There is NO condition left unfulfilled yet, since Jesus has died for us at the Cross.

So now you're a universalist? Hmmm...

As soon as anyone accept this Truth, he or she is saved.

If anyone reject this Truth, the Sin of rejection remains to be punished.

The Unbelievers will be punished not because they committed a lot of sins, but because they rejected the Remission of Sins by the Blood of Jesus.

Repeat,

The sins of Hitler and Stalin were forgiven at the Cross, but the reason why they go to the Hell is because they rejected such redemption of the sins, having trodden down the Blood of Jesus.

Ah, so there is a condition that needs to be fulfilled for salvation, then?

 

[Matt Black]

Agnus and Matt,

1. What kind of good works did the Robber at the Cross do in order to go to the Paradise?

Did you not read what Agnus posted about the catechumen or what I posted about the baptism of desire?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Do you mean theosis/ recapitulation -v- penal substitutionary atonement?

I believe so, I’m still reading about the differences and at the moment I can’t articulate the differences to do it any justice.

Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church touches upon this and I’m still in the questioning phase, but still I like what I’m hearing.

But what I have picked up is that the urgency of infant baptism in Catholicism and the Immaculate Conception of Mary as being born sinless is a result of the Augustinian theology of original sin and the atonement. Then Calvin, took Augustan’s theology and developed it further in that man is born totally depraved, an idea that’s foreign to Orthodoxy, if I’m not mistaken.
-

 

[Matt Black]

+Kallistos Ware is indeed a good starting point for Orthodoxy, but presumably you're also being catechised by your local community? The difference in emphasis also I believe accounts for the fact that Orthodox will give Communion to baptised infants but Catholics won't until the age of about 7, after they have made their first confession. (I'm not sure what we Anglicans do nowadays but it used to be the case that you had to be confirmed before you received Communion; certainly the Blacket only gets a blessing at the moment.)

[ETA - you're right IIRC about the whole Original Sin concept not really being there in Orthodoxy; rather, the Orthodox tend to see Man as first and foremost made in God's image as per Gen 1 and therefore a reflection of the Divine, albeit a flawed and fractured one, and therefore tend to see salvation-sanctification/theosis as being a restoration/ reconstruction of that fractured relationship and thus the achievement of Man's true purpose and existence.]

 

[DHK]

Repentance is the flip side of faith--so to speak--and is not a work. A change of attitude (repentance) toward God, can hardly be called a work. You need to "work" on what is a work and what isn't. Faith and repentance (Biblical repentance) are not works. They are flip sides of the same coin. One cannot have faith without repentance. Faith includes repentance. God looks for a repentant faith. Faith is not a work, and thus it is faith and faith alone. Where does it say faith alone without saying the word alone? Many places, and you would have to be blind to miss it!!

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
--How is a man justified? By faith--and faith alone! It is not faith plus anything, but faith alone. The Lord is not required by the Catholics for their meagre understanding of Scripture to put the word "alone" in all verses of Scripture that use the word "faith" in reference to salvation. Do Catholics, Orthodox, and other such people have the right to dictate to God how He should write the Bible??? You act like it.

Ephesians 2:8-9 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.
--This passage by itself says "faith alone" many times over! Let's look at it phrase by phrase:

"By grace are ye saved"--This refers to the grace of God on the cross where Christ paid the full penalty of our sin. When he cried out in Jn.19:30, "It is finished," he meant what he said--the work of salvation was finished. There was nothing to be added. No one could add anything. All that was to be done had been done. The atonement had been made by his shed blood. His blood had paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. There is absolutely no work that could ever add to that work that he did on the cross. "For by grace (His grace) are ye saved." For anyone to dare to presume that they could help pay for their sin, help bear the burden of Christ, help Jesus out in the atonement is absolute foolishness. But that is precisely what you are saying when you say that salvation is by works. It is either by grace or it is not salvation at all. That is what Paul says:

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
--One small work on the part of man nullifies God's grace. Salvation is either all of grace or it isn't salvation at all. In this case you might say "grace alone." And if it is grace alone, it must be "faith alone."

Back to Eph.2:8,9
"through faith"--It is not "through faith plus baptism" or plus confirmation, or plus tongues, or plus works of any kind. It is through faith (alone). Does the alone have to be there for the childish Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and others who have that mindset. The alone is implied and inferred. It can be no other way. No other meaning can be taken no matter how many different courses in hermeneutics one may have had. There is only one interpretation possible: faith alone!!
Thus we have: grace alone, faith alone.

What is the next phrase in the verse:
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
--It means: it is not of works. You can't work for salvation. "It is not of yourself." Isn't that plain? It is not of man's works. There is nothing of man that God wants in his unsaved state. There is nothing that man can do in his unsaved state to merit salvation. Everything that he does in his unsaved state is as "filthy rags" (Isa.64:6). Salvation is not of works, not of yourselves, not of anything that you can do.

Next: "It is the gift of God"
Note--a gift cannot be worked for. It is a gift; no works are involved. It is to be received by faith alone. But I am sure that you all make your children pay with interest for every single Christmas gift that they receive. Nothing free in this life you know! Of course if you make them pay for their gifts, are they gifts? No they are earned. A gift is free, and comes without works. It is to be received, by faith, and by faith alone.

What is next:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--Well how clear could it be?? Salvation is by faith alone! Why, Duh! Because it is not of works. This is simple math folks. It is not difficult. It is not of works. Not of the works of the law, not of religious works like baptism, not of any kind of works whatsoever. It is not of works--any kind of works. All of your works (your righteousnesses) are as filthy rags in the sight of God. God doesn't want filthy rags. He has no use for them.
Let me say it again for emphasis sake: Not of works means faith alone.

And finally:
"lest any man should boast."
That phrase was put there for a purpose. If man could do one small work towards his salvation--be it baptism or any other rite--just one, then he would have something to boast about when he got to heaven. He could say to others that even if Jesus paid 99% of the penalty of his sin, he still paid that 1% by being baptized (because it was a so-called requirement for salvation). Now he boasts about it--See what I did Jesus! You didn't have to pay for all my sin. I had a part in the atonement too. I paid part of that penalty too. You didn't pay the full price. I paid part of it too. What a great guy I am!!! etc. etc.
"Lest any man should boast."

No. Jesus paid it all. Man didn't do one iota, lift one finger, merit anything toward the salvation that Christ provided for us. He paid the penalty. "It is finished!" He cried. There is nothing more to be done.
"As many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12)
Note, it does not say: "As many as received him and were baptized, and were...and did...and...and...and...to them..."
That is the error that some of you believe. And that is a false gospel, yea no gospel at all.

 

[Matt Black]

What do you mean by the words "faith" and "belief"?

When he cried out in Jn.19:30, "It is finished," he meant what he said--the work of salvation was finished. There was nothing to be added. No one could add anything. All that was to be done had been done. The atonement had been made by his shed blood. His blood had paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. There is absolutely no work that could ever add to that work that he did on the cross.

Interesting. So you like Eliyahu seem to be preaching some form of universalism, then. No-one has to do anything; Christ has saved us all and there's no 'work' we need do.

 

[DHK]

What do you mean by the words "faith" and "belief"?

Interesting. So you like Eliyahu seem to be preaching some form of universalism, then. No-one has to do anything; Christ has saved us all and there's no 'work' we need do.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

You don't have to DO anything. But you do have to "receive" him as your Saviour, as the Scripture indicates. That in and of itself is not a work. Christ did the work. One needs to appropriate that work that He did to themselves, otherwise the work is fruitless as far as that individual is concerned.
If I pay the penalty (fine) for you to get out of jail, but you refuse to accept the money already paid, it does you no good. If Christ has already paid the penalty for your sins, and you refuse to accept the payment that he has paid, it does you no good. The same truth is applicable.

 

[Matt Black]

Sounds a lot like 'doing something' to me if you have to 'accept' it...but in your analogy, you don't even have to do that: if I pay the fine for someone else then that person is released from prison whether or not he 'accepts' it...so we seem to be back to universalism in your...er...universe.

Which is it - universalism or 'having to fulfil a condition'? Enquiring minds wish to know...

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Sounds a lot like 'doing something' to me if you have to 'accept' it...but in your analogy, you don't even have to do that: if I pay the fine for someone else then that person is released from prison whether or not he 'accepts' it...so we seem to be back to universalism in your...er...universe.

Which is it - universalism or 'having to fulfil a condition'? Enquiring minds wish to know...

Keep the pressure on Matt...sooner or later DHK and company will be forced to think for themselves...
-

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Back to Eph.2:8,9
"through faith"--It is not "through faith plus baptism" or plus confirmation, or plus tongues, or plus works of any kind. It is through faith (alone). Does the alone have to be there for the childish* Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and others who have that mindset.

(Is that a question?)
Uhh..yes, the word "alone" would have to be there, especially since it still needs to be pointed out that the only verse in the Bible that mentions "justification", "works" and "faith alone" in the same sentence unequivocally states that one is NOT justified by faith alone. Here it is again:
"You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24)

(*And is the "childish" namecalling really necessary?)

The alone is implied and inferred.

Or "read into" the passage by "sola fideists" who ignore the clear unambiguous statement of James mentioned above and who disregard the overall context of Paul's epistles (and his nuanced use of "works").

It can be no other way. No other meaning can be taken no matter how many different courses in hermeneutics one may have had. There is only one interpretation possible: faith alone!!

Wrong...try again....

 

[DHK]

Sounds a lot like 'doing something' to me if you have to 'accept' it...but in your analogy, you don't even have to do that: if I pay the fine for someone else then that person is released from prison whether or not he 'accepts' it...so we seem to be back to universalism in your...er...universe.

That is not always true. Maybe in England, but certainly not here. A person has the right to refuse many things: the right to refuse to be represented in a court of law, the right to refuse to be set free when his parole hearing comes up, the right to refuse a person's offer to pay the fine for his crime (not the death penalty) which was my illustration. It is not a crime for someone else to pay a fine for you, if that is the penalty for the crime committed. You can refuse a man's offer to pay the fine and suffer another consequence if you are unable to pay the fine yourself--jail. Or you can fall upon the mercy of someone else's offer and freely accept his gift, and go free. It is an illustration Matt--a very simple illustration. I know you have studied law. This wasn't meant to be a technical law course, but a simple illustration. It is possible for someone else to pay a penalty for you. It is possible for you to refuse the offer for that man to pay for your sins.

Jesus offers to pay for your sins. He offers every man the free gift of salvation. He offers it to you. As you would reach out and take the payment for the fine (a gift), reach out and take the payment for your sins (the gift of God--eternal life through the blood of Christ). There is no work involved. Receiving a gift is not a work. How much work is involved in your children receiving a gift? The reception of a gift is not work. It is done in good faith. Where is the faith? On the part of the child, the faith is in his parent that the parent's gift is a good gift and not a terrorist's bomb. Likewise we have faith in a good God--faith in his word--that what he has promised he will do. Faith is not a work.

Which is it - universalism or 'having to fulfil a condition'? Enquiring minds wish to know...

Enquiring minds may know that Matt is confused.
There is no universalism here.
The only universal principle involved here is that Christ died for the sins of the entire world. That is universal. The offer of salvation is free to all who believe. That is universal. It is free to all, because all need it, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. That is universal. All have sinned and therefore all need a Savior. That is universal. There are many universals.

In relation to those "universals" the Bible says: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (without condition) and thou shalt be saved. There are no conditions to be saved. I went through an entire post verse by verse, and word by word explaing that. Why don't you believe the Scripture on that point? If you really had a question about it, you would refer to that post and the Scripture posted.