Salvation by faith alone is evil, in my opinion. I would like to hear why its proponents think it is just.
Salvation by faith alone is evil, in my opinion. I would like to hear why its proponents think it is just.
Salvation by faith alone is evil, in my opinion. I would like to hear why its proponents think it is just.
Not evil, that is subjective. Just stupid.
You are saved by grace through faith and not by good works, but TRUE faith brings forth good works for its own sake. You do not buy your way into heaven through favours, you do not merely perform rote good works to grind your way into heaven, you will be saved if your faith is true, and the true faithful perform good works for the sake of doing good, for the love of their neighbour.
You can't work your way into heaven, you've already sinned.
Ezekiel 18:4 [...] the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned [...]
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death [...]
It's a matter of what your good deeds stem from.
Both atheist and papist view makes good deeds transactional and ultimately egoistic. Atheists do good deeds because others will return the favour. Papists do good deeds to trade against their bad deed with God.
Sola Fide is unique because it frees you from this transactional mindset and unegotistical motivation to do good deeds. See Matthew 7:15-20.
With sola fide though there's no motivation not to be immoral though. You've already got a free ticket to heaven, just go nuts with it.
Sounds like left hand path eastern religion.....
The reality is people do whatever they can get away with doing. For example, on the road you speed just as much as won't cause you to get a ticket. You go to whatever the limit is.
Hmm, thought I was alone in applying this to everything......
No, it's human nature....
What about manipulating absolutely every preconceived belief based on religious faith for your own benefit, is that human nature or am I a psychopath?
They cope with the No True Scotsman Fallacy. In reality, they have no logical argument against based antinomianism.
It's like saying "You get an A automatically even if you do no work in the class". Unless you're interested in the material you probably won't do much at all.
.
The legalistic thinking of papists never ceases to amaze.
It's called logic.
Faith doesn't mean loving God. I have faith I can go over the bridge without the bridge breaking. Do I love the bridge? No. But I have faith in it.
I would say rather that you have merited trust in the bridge based on your prior experience with bridges. If you grew up in a nation in which bridges regularly collapsed you would not feel that way.
Faith isn't logical.
Also your analogy sucks. A better anology is that of a child being able to trust in their parents love. Knowing you always have a loving father and mother and a place to call home, regardless of what happens, gives you courage to venture out into the world and build something. Making a "leap of faith" and all that ya know.
I believe faith is logical. God's existence can be proven without a doubt.
If someone has no faith inside, they also go to hell. This is logic and can be figured out by reason.
No because then you obviously don't actually have faith and trust in Christ, and it's not a once saved always saved deal like heretics preach. You can lose your salvation.
This is how some people I know see it. Just "Believe in the name Jesus Christ and be saved" and that there is nothing you (other than losing faith) can do to lose your salvation.
In the Reformed faith it is true that a person who has been justified before God (see definition here
) cannot become unjustified. But a person who is justified possesses a genuine faith given to them by God and *will* do good works as a *necessary* fruit of their faith.
The people I'm talking about would reject this actually. These are nondenominationals and Baptists. They say that faith leading to works is works based salvation. One of them asked me for example if someone addicted to drugs or alcohol died and never repented but called on the name Jesus Christ would he be saved?
Those are Antinomians, the reformers called them heretics.
>The people I'm talking about would reject this actually. These are nondenominationals and Baptists.
Such people have lost all grounding with the historic Protestant faith, as expressed in the doctrinal standards crafted during the Reformation. Protestantism has never been about 'just make your own church and do your own thing'; we believe in authoritative tradition and church government. I will be fair to Baptists, though, as there are some who do hold to the understanding of salvation that I expressed, though they are a minority.
>One of them asked me for example if someone addicted to drugs or alcohol died and never repented but called on the name Jesus Christ would he be saved?
If he did not repent, then the answer is no (Mark 1:14-15)
Not biblical, they're wrong.
>For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
If that addict had true faith he would simply repent.
Yes, but evidence of losing faith is willfully disobeying God and making no attempt to repent or better yourself in His name. By continuing to sin and making no effort at all to avoid sinning you are admitting in your heart that you do not have faith in Jesus, you disbelieve in His authority, you disbelieve in the punishment awaiting the unfaithful, you disbelieve in His gift of eternal life.
Also in this sense, Sola Fide is even more strict than Catholic doctrine, you can not handwave away your lack of faith by robotically performing good works and praying the rosary. Faith is something truly deep and difficult and can't be painted over with good works.
That's a dead faith
Mt 3:8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
>16. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
>17. Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
>18. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
>19. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
>20. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
>21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
>22. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
>23. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Many people who boast of their good deeds will be rejected because they work iniquity and may not even admit or recognize a certain sin (and sin is transgression of the law) even is a sin.
The Bible says if you confess yours sins, he is faithful and just to forgive them (I. John 1:9). But if you deny something that violates God's laws is a sin and you continue to live in that sin, then how can you be forgiven, you will die in sin and perish.
Luke 13:3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
Luke 13:5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
It's like you're not even interested and just want a circle jerk for your false works-based salvation. You don't even keep God's laws and commandments and you deny breaking many of them even is a sin. You don't understand how salvation works and you count yourself for righteous for boasting of your good deeds or your false gospel.
You can't just "go nuts" and do whatever you want if you have true faith and love God, you will stumble of course, but the constant striving for a closer union with God is a necessity of faith. How can you have faith in the Lord if you do not try to obey him? In that case you must disbelieve in His power.
It's what the bible teaches.
The Reformed doctrine of sola fide is this:
That faith alone is the sole instrument whereby a person is justified before God. Justification is God's forensic (legal) declaration that a person is righteous in his sight; the term 'justification' means something different in Catholicism so the definition matters. Once a person is justified, the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit within them will begin the process of sanctification, in which they will throughout their life increase in love and obedience toward God, and will do good works. Sanctification is a *necessary* part of salvation, when salvation is construed broadly. But we sometimes use the term 'salvation' to simply mean justification. But good works are necessary. But they do not merit or earn or contribute to our right standing with God in any way.
I don't know how anyone bears with the Catholic schema. I understand the role that faith places in their system, at least I think that I do, but I want to talk about how this actually works out on a sacramental level. Once a person has faith in Christ, has repented of their sins, has been baptized and regenerated and forgiven of their sins and is now in a state of grace, how does this process continue? It is at that point entirely dependent upon their works. If they commit a single mortal sin they are damned, ipso facto. They can return to a state of grace via the sacrament of penance, but they are where they were once before. If they do the wrong thing, they are damned. I fully understand the reason that the Reformers rebelled against this. Luther suffered from scrupulosity on account of this, and that frankly seems to me to be the logical response to the system in place.
Basically Christianity doesn't make any sense if you don't have a Sola Fide perspective. Roman Catholicism is incoherent.
It also doesn't make sense regarding Christ's claim that his burden is easy and his yoke is light. The Catholic sacramental system is anything but. You are basically under obligation to obey the moral law in all significant matters lest you be immediately damned for failure. The only difference with being under Christ is that you get lots of retries.
It does if you see God as someone who says "I can save you if you do whatever I want or else damnation for you"
OP here. I’m not Christian, I’m a Muslim. Only an evil god would punish one person for the crimes of others. That is North Korea tier behavior.
Catholics and Prots speak past each other on this for two reasons: (1.) different definitions of "faith" in this context and (2.) different understandings of what Justification is
1.) In the context of Faith vs Works, Catholics think "Faith" is referring to mere belief that Jesus died for our sins. Prots think it is referring to belief AND obedience. If Catholics and Prots understood this, they would actually come pretty close to being on the same page. There is no Catholic teaching out there that says works save us, but we must be truly repentant (aka obedient to Christ) and have the *intention* to sin no more. There is teaching that works can *increase* justification though, which leads to the next point
2.) For Prots, Justification is a one-time event when a person professes faith in Christ and devotes their life to Him. Prots are split as to whether or not you can lose salvation. Catholics belief that Justification is something you can forfeit. Catholics believe that a person is initially Justified when they first receive God's grace (usually by Baptism). However, being in a state of Grace can be lost by sin. Simply because sin is inherently choosing to worship an idol of some sort over God, which we cannot serve two masters. Choosing to sin means we are no longer repentant, and we must repent to enjoy a state of Grace again. Works can increase in Justification to Catholics, not meaning we're any more saved than we were before the works were done, but more along the lines of Sanctification, which Catholics deem is part of Justification.
This leads down other rabbit holes of differences of course, but the Faith vs Works dichotomy is largely a farce by my view, only propagated by those who are ignorant on the matter
>Prots think it is referring to belief AND obedience.
Not quite.
Westminster Larger Catechism:
>Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
>A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation.
Obedience is a necessary fruit of faith, but it is not part of faith.
Thanks for posting this, I think I understand better. I still think that exerpt aligns pretty well with Catholic teaching of Initial Justification at least. The main difference is on the nature of Justification
>If they do the wrong thing, they are damned
Sin is inherently worshipping something else other than God. And once you sin, you are no longer totally repentant as you have turned away from God to another master. Confession with a priest isn't required to return to a state of Grace in Catholic teaching. Confessing to God privately is just as efficacious, but God wants us to do both.
Initial justification is a relatively recent and non universal view among Catholics
>I still think that exerpt aligns pretty well with Catholic teaching of Initial Justification at least. The main difference is on the nature of Justification
My understanding of the matter is that when Catholics say "justification" they include in that category what the Reformed would call "sanctification," which is the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit in a Christian to bring him into every greater love and obedience to Christ. Reformed theology clearly distinguishes these things. Sanctification, whereby we are brought to do good works, is a part of the larger process of salvation, and necessarily follows from justification, but justification (gained via faith) is the only thing that bears on us being declared righteous by God. So we use the term salvation to refer broadly to this entire process, but we also use it more narrowly to refer only to justification.
Westminster Larger Catechism:
Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.
>Sin is inherently worshipping something else other than God. And once you sin, you are no longer totally repentant as you have turned away from God to another master.
Christ saves me and I am his. No one can take me out of his hand, not even myself. He is a perfect savior, and when he wills to save a person, he will save them and he will not fail.
>Confession with a priest isn't required to return to a state of Grace in Catholic teaching. Confessing to God privately is just as efficacious, but God wants us to do both.
My understanding is that this is not correct. Catholicism distinguishes between imperfect contrition, which is repentance based on fear of punishment, and perfect contrition, which is repentance foremost on the love of God. A moral sin can only be forgiven 1) receiving the sacrament of penance from a priest, or 2) making an act of perfect contrition with a sincere intention to have recourse to the sacrament of penance as soon as one is able. If you do not sincerely intend to receive the sacrament, or you knowingly neglect to receive it, then you have not been forgiven.
I went ahead and checked to make sure my understanding of penance and contrition was correct, and it is indeed what is stated in the Catechism:
>1451 Among the penitent's acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is "sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again."
>1452 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.
>1453 The contrition called "imperfect" (or "attrition") is also a gift of God, a prompting of the Holy Spirit. It is born of the consideration of sin's ugliness or the fear of eternal damnation and the other penalties threatening the sinner (contrition of fear). Such a stirring of conscience can initiate an interior process which, under the prompting of grace, will be brought to completion by sacramental absolution. By itself however, imperfect contrition cannot obtain the forgiveness of grave sins, but it disposes one to obtain forgiveness in the sacrament of Penance.
>No one can take me out of his hand, not even myself. He is a perfect savior, and when he wills to save a person, he will save them and he will not fail.
Well that's a matter of free will. Paul's epistles don't offer the 100% confidence you have.
>If you do not sincerely intend to receive the sacrament, or you knowingly neglect to receive it, then you have not been forgiven.
You're correct, Catholic teaching says we're called to live a sacramental life and knowingly neglecting to do so is sinful. You are truly forgiven if you confess privately to God, but you should also bring it to sacramental confession as well when you go into it next. Perfect contrition is not out of our reach, I'm blessed to say that I have felt it plenty of times in my past (and hope to keep experiencing it). Also, if you don't do priestly confession because of ignorance that's not your fault, Catholics believe God can certainly grant mercy there as well.
My main point was to refute the common misconception that "you confessed to God but not in front of a priest right before you died? LMAO enjoy hell"
>Paul's epistles don't offer the 100% confidence you have.
Jesus does.
John 10:27-30 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”
Christ will save his elect, and none of them will perish. My understanding of my condition, whether I am one of the elect, which we would call the assurance of salvation, is something that is obtained through perseverance in the faith and good works:
Phil. 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling ...
2 Pet. 1:10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election ...
1 Jn. 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.
It is something that we can be assured of.
>My understanding of my condition, whether I am one of the elect, which we would call the assurance of salvation, is something that is obtained through perseverance in the faith and good works
The saints assurance is to be foremost grounded in the promises of God in the word and sacrament, it's dangerous to ground that in yourself
It is not the totality of assurance but it is part of it
WLC Q. 80. Can true believers be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and that they shall persevere therein unto salvation?
A. Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavor to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by faith grounded upon the truth of God’s promises, and by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.
It is only supplemental, as I notice the fruits of the Spirit within my life which serve to reassure me that I am in the state of grace. It's not like if I am destitute the solution is to go out and do good works to get some assurance, that would just make things worse as I would see nothing but sin in myself, the solution to a lack of confidence is to turn to the promises of God with the faith of a child.
This is what I meant by saying that it is obtained through perseverance in the faith and good works. If it sounded like I meant that it is purely through works that was not my intention. I wasn't really trying to give a thorough explanation, but simply to state that we *can* have true confidence about our salvation.
The central and irreplaceable basis for assurance of salvation rests in God's word. Peter writes in 2 Peter 1:19-21 that we have "a more sure word of prophecy" as compared to the miracles he had earlier witnessed. In other words, the divinely revealed, inspired word of God is said to be a better and "more sure" word than any miracle. This is also confirmed by John in 1 John 5:9-10, where it is said that if we accept the witness of men, "the witness of God is greater," and this is unconditionally true in every circumstance. God's word is said to be identical to truth itself in John 17:17, and Paul states in Romans 10:17 that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. In Titus 1:2, Paul wrote that God cannot lie. And this is said to be where our hope lies.
In the account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, the statement is made by Abraham at the end, "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Similarly, in John 5:46-47, Jesus said these words, "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?"
It's of course possible on this basis to have confidence that God is able to perform what He said He would do. That is why Paul is able to write this in 2 Timothy:
"For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." (2 Timothy 1:12)
The apostles also write to the saved people– i.e. the saints in the churches to let them know of the basis of their assurance which is in God's word. For example, see Philippians 1:6, 1 Peter 1:3-5, 1 John 2:27, 1 John 5:13, 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Timothy 1:9, 2 Timothy 3:15, Acts 20:32.
WCF 18.2 This certainty is not a bare conjectural and probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope; but an infallible assurance of faith founded upon the divine truth of the promises of salvation, the inward evidence of those graces unto which these promises are made, the testimony of the Spirit of adoption witnessing with our spirits that we are the children of God, which Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance, whereby we are sealed to the day of redemption.
>My main point was to refute the common misconception that "you confessed to God but not in front of a priest right before you died? LMAO enjoy hell"
In that case, I agree. That is not the Catholic position. I tried to be careful in my wording to not make it sound like that.
Many Americans believe the definition of faith is believing in the name Jesus Christ and not obedience and also believe you are saved by this no matter what you do as long as you keep believing the name Jesus. Where does this come from?
>where does this come from?
huckster preachers
Antinomianism. There is a tradition of it in America stretching back 300 years.
They are correct that faith is not obedience, see
. But obedience is a necessary consequence of faith. The people you speak of fail to take account of all that scripture says on the matter and thus become imbalanced.
It goes back to the Reformation; Luther and Melanchthon wrote against it.
Ephesians 2
Romans 4:1-8
What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Apparently God can reveal himself in such a powerful way it can convert someone like Paul, but hides from everyone else. That's the true evil.
>Salvation by faith alone is evil
Pic related is what the holy Catholics did to people who believed in it when they still had temporal power.