/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>527028

>This faith gives us good works.

Catholics say this is at least partially heresy.

From the Council of Trent

>Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."

>>527042

That's referring to "Faith alone but not faith that is alone". Session Six, Chapter 16

>For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God,-we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace:

Emphasis mine.

>>527028

Since I'm virtually illiterate, I'm going to let Mr.Gore do most of the talking. But I will say is that the fundamental difference between the 'Christian' from the ' catholic/orthodox position of sanctification is separate from justification. They believe that sanctification is similar to spiritual maturity in God, where justification before the feet of God is more like being born.

>>527028

>- We are saved by grace.

>- This grace gives us faith.

>- This faith gives us good works.

(grace → faith → works)

>- Good works give us faith […] and faith leads to grace […]

(works → faith → grace)

¿que?

>>527063

>- Good works give us faith […] and faith leads to grace […]

I would be curious to hear what the OP meant by this. I think maybe he meant that works mature our faith, bringing more grace into our lives?

>a primacy of faith over good works.

I wouldn't say that. Faith is what justifies and works are a necessary result of a saving faith. Works aren't secondary to works in that they make up a smaller percentage of what is needed to be justified, they are secondary in that their importance is on a different level. As you know, the Eastern mindset isn't really tuned to exactly determining the precise requirements for salvation… but I would be cautious to give works any "piece of the pie" so to speak, even if they are a natural outflow of faith. In reality, such an equation really only describes one part of the process (justification).

>the gifts of faith first and good works second, working together in tandem and being inseparable.

I think a potential objection to this is that this is semi-Pelagianism. It could suggest that God gives us grace to have faith but then we need to "do our part" with good works in order to make that grace/faith effective to save. I know that some Orthodox teach this. My own belief is that, again, good works are a necessary result of having faith, and so we "make …[our]… calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1:10) by performing works. But we should never have the expectation that those works are adding to the sufficiency of God's grace to save us. They are the means that God gives us to participate in his salvation. This is probably heresy to some Orthos but I feel like if you insist on "doing your part" then you end up with the sin of self-justification.

>>527028

>- We are saved by grace

Alone?

>>527052

>That's referring to "Faith alone but not faith that is alone"

So the entire Reformation?

I perceive several people attempting to construct their own elaborate and inevitably paradoxical explanations of justification by something other than faith to quell their misgivings about the antinomian impulse they experience were this to be removed.

>>527063

In Orthodoxy, we understand there to be a synergy of faith and works, so:

Grace -> faith -> works -> faith -> works -> etc.

While grace is a free gift from God, He will give it to those who truly want it, as our Lord says Himself (ask and ye shall receive). And this is founded upon faith (we have faith in the Lord's resurrection so we ask Him to resurrect us too).

>>527083

>I would be curious to hear what the OP meant by this. I think maybe he meant that works mature our faith, bringing more grace into our lives?

That's correct.

>Faith is what justifies and works are a necessary result of a saving faith. Works aren't secondary to works in that they make up a smaller percentage of what is needed to be justified, they are secondary in that their importance is on a different level.

I meant the latter.

>My own belief is that, again, good works are a necessary result of having faith, and so we "make …[our]… calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1:10) by performing works. But we should never have the expectation that those works are adding to the sufficiency of God's grace to save us. They are the means that God gives us to participate in his salvation. This is probably heresy to some Orthos but I feel like if you insist on "doing your part" then you end up with the sin of self-justification.

This is in fact no different from the view of synergism.

Our faith is not our own, it is a gift from the Lord so that we may seek to reflect the same bond He had with the Father, and our works are not our own, they are a gift from the Lord so that we may seek to reflect the same works He did, even up to the Resurrection. While a certain effort must be made to submit to God's grace (because of our obstinancy to rely upon ourselves rather than God), our salvation is up to God and not up to ourselves.

The Orthodox focus is not on whether we do faith or works, but on the fact it is God alone Who saves, and so God's grace alone that saves.

>>527098

Grace alone, yes, but not with the Calvinist implications of man being entirely powerless to choose or not to respond to the offered gift of grace. We are saved by grace alone, but salvation is not a mechanical system, it is a relationship with God and relationships can go bad (although because we are men and He is God, if it goes bad it is entirely our fault, and He will always welcome us back).

>>527194

>Grace alone, yes, but not with the Calvinist implications of man being entirely powerless to choose or not to respond to the offered gift of grace.

You should know that when I say grace alone I mean nothing else by it than the reformers did, namely monergism. Any idea of the necessity of human deeds acting in co-operation with divine grace for faith to be efficient unto justification is absolutely irreconcilable with the gospel of the Reformation.

>We are saved by grace alone, but salvation is not a mechanical system, it is a relationship with God and relationships can go bad

Can grace and its effects be destroyed by grave sin?

in the religion called Christianity the revelation of God is Christ, the "Word of God" is Christ Jesus, while the bible is a series of letters and texts written about that Revelation (Christ Jesus) by wise and illuminated men.

Protestants think that God's revelation is actually the BIBLE as if God's primary mission was to make a manual for people to follow almost robotically. The bible is actually a tool to get theoria/enlightenment so you can become like the prophets and get closer to God via humility.

The worst of the worst and most confused protties think the Bible is actually, literally God itself, infallible and inerrant and all powerful and John 1 "the word became flesh" to them means "the word became papyri". These lost brothers need prayers, they typically commit idolatry using the KJV.

>>527200

According to 2 Timothy 3:16, it wasn't men that were inspired, but the scriptures themselves.

>>527201

"theopneustos" is God-breathed, not "inspired' the word inspired is not that verse, despite what the KJV says. Regardless, paper can not be itself "inspired", it has no mind or life in it.

God's breath is in and through man, not papyri. Paper can not get inspired, paper is not alive, men can be "breathed into" and illuminated.

Faith alone blasphemes the holy spirit. It denies the power of god to be able to save you. It ascribes power to man. In sola fides man saves himself through his faith, god does not come into the equation. This is pure logic. If you believe the only thing that saves you is your faith then you deny that it is god that saves you for "alone" equivalates exclusivity.

So this is essentially a form of gnosticism where you ascend to heaven through your own knowledge.

It is also completely unbiblical and a man made construct by the pervert Luther. The only place it says "faith alone" in the bible is where it says "not by faith alone".

Basically if you believe it is your faith alone that saves you then you are going to hell. If you believe it is your faith that saves you then you can be saved. Subtle but huge difference

>>527202

Books are not paper. They are written on paper, but they themselves are not paper.

>>527202

Divine inspiration is a more or less literal translation of theopneustos. Inspiration has just been used metaphorically to the point that many people aren't even aware of the biblical concept, much less the literal meaning of the word (breathe into).

>>527198

>Any idea of the necessity of human deeds acting in co-operation with divine grace for faith to be efficient unto justification is absolutely irreconcilable with the gospel of the Reformation.

In that case, how is the gospel of the Reformation reconcilable with 1 Corinthians 3:10-15?

>Can grace and its effects be destroyed by grave sin?

Of course not.

>>527098

>So the entire Reformation?

Yes. Most things coming out of the protestants were heretical, and Trent properly condemned those views.

>>527224

>In that case, how is the gospel of the Reformation reconcilable with 1 Corinthians 3:10-15?

Why do you think they are at odds? What does the judgement of Christian teachers have to do with justification?

>Of course not

So then one's own salvation is certain, no matter how sinful they are?

>>527231

>Why do you think they are at odds? What does the judgement of Christian teachers have to do with justification?

What is the distinction between judgement and justification?

>So then one's own salvation is certain, no matter how sinful they are?

Grace can be resisted, but it cannot be destroyed. One must make the effort, conscious or not, to ask God for grace to be able to receive it. But having only a little grace is not sufficient for salvation, not because God's grace does not save but because one must embrace all the grace they are offered to have their sins washed away.

>>527233

>What is the distinction between judgement and justification?

Well, for one thing, there are multiple kinds of judgement. For example, in this passage, the judgement is a judgement of the level of reward saints receive in heaven. The antonym of justification is condemnation. If someone is not justified, then the wrath of God abides upon them, yet we are told here "he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved". So Paul is clear they do not lose their rightstanding with God for their failure.

>But having only a little grace is not sufficient for salvation, not because God's grace does not save but because one must embrace all the grace they are offered to have their sins washed away.

So then is not salvation ripped out of God's hands and placed fully under the control of men?

>>527236

>Well, for one thing, there are multiple kinds of judgement. For example, in this passage, the judgement is a judgement of the level of reward saints receive in heaven. The antonym of justification is condemnation. If someone is not justified, then the wrath of God abides upon them, yet we are told here "he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved". So Paul is clear they do not lose their rightstanding with God for their failure.

So you say that justification is whether we go to Heaven or Hell, and judgement is the degree to which we enjoy Heaven (or suffer Hell)?

>yet we are told here "he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved". So Paul is clear they do not lose their rightstanding with God for their failure.

No, he is saying that those who will fail in their weak works will be condemned by fire, and this is the "salvation" that awaits them.

>So then is not salvation ripped out of God's hands and placed fully under the control of men?

How so? God loves us, but wants us to love Him too.

>>527239

>So you say that justification is whether we go to Heaven or Hell, and judgement is the degree to which we enjoy Heaven (or suffer Hell)?

No. I already said judgement refers to multiple things, it can be the degree to which we enjoy heaven or suffer hell, but it can also refer to other things, including condemnation (to my knowledge the term is never used of justification). Justification is not simply "whether we go to Heaven or Hell", it is deeper than that. It is a legal relationship (hence the legal terms), whether one is in God's good graces or a sinner against whom God's wrath burns hot. The justified saint has something important which the condemned sinner does not have, namely, peace of conscience.

>No, he is saying that those who will fail in their weak works will be condemned by fire, and this is the "salvation" that awaits them.

He says "though he himself will be saved", which clearly means "despite this he will be saved". Hence, their salvation is distinct from and averse to the fire their works go through.

>How so

Because it means that God does His part, sits down and says "Alright, now it's all up to you!"

>>527251

>>527198

Fortunately the Gospel of the Reformation goes against the true Gospel. Every instance of judgement in the entire New Testament corpus never implies or states that it is just for "degrees of enjoyment". Nowhere. In fact even worse, the New Testament period has zero understanding of non recipocal gifts, so monergism would make zero sense at all

>>527203

>If you believe the only thing that saves you is your faith then you deny that it is god that saves you

It is faith that God will save you. So the opposite is true, faith being an absolute belief that it is indeed God alone that saves (and only when you do believe that it is God alone that saves). So your statement is exactly opposite the truth.

>Faith alone blasphemes the holy spirit. It denies the power of god to be able to save you. It ascribes power to man.

Again, this is exactly opposite the truth. Faith in God alone affirms the power of God alone. It is a denial of the power of man, since all the faith, i.e. all the belief is in the work of Christ. Your statement is therefore the exact opposite of the truth.

Also, so-called faith + works is actually faith IN works; specifically YOUR works instead of Christ's. The rest of us put full FAITH in the work of CHRIST since He actually paid the price, and His works are superior to ours. To say otherwise than this is to cheapen and minimize His works by comparing them to and thinking your own works saved you. So you see how each of your statements are opposite of reality.

Hebrews 6:1

Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

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.

>>527705

Except of course, Calvinists put faith in works as proof of being Saved. In fact how does one knows someone have faith? HE MUST BE 100% CERTAIN AND NO ROOM FOR DOUBT!

This is the disgusting form of Sola Fide that must be rejected. What must be affirmed is I look at God and live the life of repentence as Luther states.

This is why the only Sola Fide that is unbiblical and disgusting is the Calvinist Sola Fide which later Baptists will also adopt

>>527705

>So the opposite is true, faith being an absolute belief that it is indeed God alone that saves (and only when you do believe that it is God alone that saves). So your statement is exactly opposite the truth.

God alone does save, that doesn't mean that salvation is not conditional on your cooperation with God. You don't get sola fide from that.

>Faith in God alone affirms the power of God alone. It is a denial of the power of man, since all the faith, i.e. all the belief is in the work of Christ

By the same token, faith and works does the same, since without God you couldn't do either.

>specifically YOUR works instead of Christ's. The rest of us put full FAITH in the work of CHRIST since He actually paid the price,

But good works aren't for the forgiveness of sins, so how is this in any way a relevant comparison?

>His works by comparing them to and thinking your own works saved you

Not our own works, but works do play a role in salvation.

>Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

I don't see how this refutes faith and works?

>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.

Yeah, but how does this say works aren't necessary?