Faith Alone

[1Thess521]

Cyprian​

You, then, who are rich and wealthy, buy for yourself from Christ gold purified in fire, for with your filth, as if burned away in the fire; you can be like pure gold, if you are cleansed by almsgiving and by works of justice. Buy yourself a white garment so that, although you had been naked like Adam and were formerly frightful and deformed, you may be clothed in the white garment of Christ. You who are a matron rich and wealthy, anoint not your eyes with the antimony of the devil, but with the salve of Christ, so that you may at last come to see God, when you have merited before God both by your works and by your manner of living (Works and Almsgiving 14 [A.D. 252]).

"But whatever in the justified
precedes or follows
the free gift of faith
is neither the basis of justification
nor merits it."
-The Vatican
//www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-occidentale/luterani/dialogo/documenti-di-dialogo/1999-dichiarazione-congiunta-sulla-dottrina-della-giustificazion/en.html

 

[1Thess521]

Here is Jerome....

Jerome​

But since in the Law no one is justified before God, it is evident that the just man lives by faith.' It should be noted that he does not say that a man, a person, lives by faith, lest it be thought that he is condemning good works. Rather, he says the 'just' man lives by faith. He implies thereby that whoever would be faithful and would conduct his life according to the faith can in no other way arrive at the faith or live in it except first he be a just man of pure life, coming up to the faith by certain degrees (Commentaries on Galatians 2:3:11 [A.D. 386]).

is anyone justified in this life?

 

[eternomade]

Yes Heb 10:16,Heb 10:17


You're wrong. Christ had no sin to be remitted

I didn't say He did. The sin of the elect were imputed to Christ and His righteousness was imputed to the elect. He was never a sinner but rather a sin offering or sin bearer.

 

[cjab]

I didn't say He did. The sin of the elect were imputed to Christ and His righteousness was imputed to the elect. He was never a sinner but rather a sin offering or sin bearer.

That was a voluntary act of his. God cannot make a covenant with himself.

 

[eternomade]

That was a voluntary act of his. God cannot make a covenant with himself.

For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
Hebrews 6:13 KJV

 

[cjab]

For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
Hebrews 6:13 KJV

Swearing by oneself isn't making a covenant with yourself.

 

[Aaron32]

Any Christians have any thoughts on this?

This second heresy—and it is the delusion and mania that prevails to this day in the great evangelical body of Protestantism—is the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone,without the works of the law. It is the doctrine that we are saved by grace alone, without works. It is the doctrine that we may be born again simply by confessing the Lord Jesus with our lips while we continue to live in our sins.

We have all listened to sermons by the great revivalists and self-appointed prophets of the various radio and television ministries. Whatever the subjects of their sermons may be,they always end with an invitation and a plea for people to come forward and confess the Lord Jesus and receive the cleansing power of his blood.

Television broadcasts of these sermons always show arenas or coliseums or stadiums filled with people, scores and hundreds and thousands of whom go forward to make their confessions,to become born-again Christians, to be saved with all they suppose this includes.

While driving along a highway in my car, I was listening to the radio sermon of one of these evangelists who was preaching of salvation by grace alone. He said all anyone had to do to be saved was to believe in Christ and perform an affirmative act of confession.

Among other things he said:“If you are traveling in a car,simply reach forth your hand and touch your car radio,thus making contact with me,and then say,‘Lord Jesus, I believe,’ and you will be saved.”

Unfortunately,I did not accept his generous invitation to gain instant salvation; and so I suppose my opportunity is lost forever!

Interwoven with this concept is the doctrine that the elect of God are predestined to be saved regardless of any act on their part,which, as I suppose, is part of the reason a Lutheran minister once said to me: “I was saved two thousand years ago,and there is nothing I can do about it one way or the other now,” meaning that he thought he was saved by the blood of Christ shed on Calvary, without any works or effort on his part. What Think Ye of Salvation by Grace? BRUCE R. MCCONKIE of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles January 10,​

 

[Mesenja]

Any Christians have any thoughts on this?

You asked this question coming across as if Latter-day Saints are not Christian.

 

[Newbirth]

You asked this question coming across as if Latter-day Saints are not Christian.

You make this comment come across as if God called people to be christians... Christians are self-apointed.

 

[Aaron32]

You asked this question coming across as if Latter-day Saints are not Christian.

That's a red herring. See the OP of this thread, see the responses from those that believe in the bible. See if you've fairly judged them. And take it up with them, not me.

 

[docphin5]

Any Christians have any thoughts on this?

He has a point in that leading people to saying a “Sinner’s Prayer” and thinking it confers salvation could be misleading, especially if there is no follow-through or commitment to virtuous living. I was raised in the Billy Graham easy-path-to-salvation religious setting and it may have worked for some as a catalyst to something more: joining a church, studying the Bible, etc., but probably for many ended up returning to the old ways, …kinda like the parable of the sower where many receive the word but few stick with it, for whatever reason. To be fair to Billy Graham‘s organization back in the day, it tried to connect people to local Protestant churches during a revival meeting, so some attempt at follow-thru. I have some fond memories of Billy Graham, and Johnny Cash coming to Las Vegas, so I am a little biased, and I didn’t turn out so bad, ha ha!

 

[Mesenja]

That's a red herring. See the OP of this thread. See the responses from those that believe in the Bible. See if you've fairly judged them. And take it up with them not me.​

No I’m taking it up with you friend. Start taking ownership of what you post. ​

 

[Mesenja]

He has a point in that leading people to saying a “Sinner’s Prayer” and thinking it confers salvation could be misleading, especially if there is no follow-through or commitment to virtuous living. I was raised in the Billy Graham easy-path-to-salvation religious setting and it may have worked for some as a catalyst to something more: joining a church, studying the Bible, etc., but probably for many ended up returning to the old ways, …kinda like the parable of the sower where many receive the word but few stick with it, for whatever reason. To be fair to Billy Graham‘s organization back in the day, it tried to connect people to local Protestant churches during a revival meeting, so some attempt at follow-thru. I have some fond memories of Billy Graham, and Johnny Cash coming to Las Vegas, so I am a little biased, and I didn’t turn out so bad, ha ha!​

Billy Graham was a step above most televangelists. It’s lucky that you met Johnny Cash. I was a fan ever since he put out the record At Folsom Prison.

 

[Aaron32]

No I’m taking it up with you friend. Start taking ownership of what you post. ​

I'm not of the group you're unfairly generalizing and accusing of believing that "faith alone" = "easy grace".

 

[Mesenja]

You make this comment come across as if God called people to be Christians. Christians are self-apointed.

I’m not a Calvinist.

 

[Mesenja]

I'm not of the group you're unfairly generalizing and accusing of believing that "faith alone" = "easy grace".​

I’m not going to be bothered anymore dealing with your inability to take ownership of what you said. And I don’t make generalizations and paint everybody with a broad brush. There are some Christians who do subscribe to the doctrine of eternal security and believe that nothing can make them loose their salvation. And I also told you in a previous post that accusing Protestants who believe in salvation by faith alone gives them a license to sin is a straw man fallacy. You have conveniently forgot this. You’re on ignore for the time being.​

 

[Aaron32]

And I don’t make generalizations and paint everybody with a broad brush. There are some Christians who do subscribe to the doctrine of eternal security and believe that nothing can make them loose their salvation. And I also told you in a previous post that accusing Protestants who believe in salvation by faith alone gives them a license to sin is a straw man fallacy. You have conveniently forgot this. You’re on ignore for the time being.​

My apologies of not recalling this. Interesting how the tune changes when we're on a different board, huh?

 

[docphin5]

How do you define "Faith Alone"?

Does faith alone mean "lawlessness" where we completely disregard the commandments?

IMO, your question is loaded to promote works over faith by associating “lawlessness” with faith-alone. It was never presented like that by Paul, as if he was justifying immoral living. (Romans 3:8)

For Paul faith-alone was only juxta-posed to the Mosaic Law, IOW, faith versus works-of-the-Law, and specifically, the ritualistic requirements of the Law: food purity, animal sacrifices, feasts and festivals, Sabbath requirements, in addition to circumcision.

It is not faith versus moral living, but faith versus outward rituals, even if the commandments pertain to outward rituals. One could do all the outward rituals and lack any spiritual birth or spiritual living, according to Paul. Therefore, Paul was essentially abrogating all ritualistic requirements found in Judaism and turning them inside-out as merely symbolic representations of spiritual truths. For example, circumcision of the flesh representing the mortification of fleshy impulses for practical application and possibly representing the new spiritual bodies we are promised in the sense that “flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

IMO, LDS is beginning to resemble the very thing that Paul was trying to eliminate, that is, ritualism replacing true spirituality. For example, LDS emphasizes rituals (Temple requirements) only accessible by the LDS for anyone to reach the highest heaven; which smacks of Judaism who taught the same: convert to Judaism, perform our (Jewish) rituals in the Temple, and partake of the highest heaven. Calling them “commandments” only serves to make them necessary for salvation, obfuscating the real issue Paul was driving at, thereby, subordinating spiritual living to outward rituals again. In that sense, LDS is returning to the very thing Paul was opposed to, particularism based on outward rituals; but in Paul’s day it was called Jewish particularism, whereas, today it is arguably called Mormon particularism.

 

[Mesenja]

​

IMO, your question is loaded to promote works over faith by associating “lawlessness” with faith-alone. It was never presented like that by Paul, as if he was justifying immoral living. (Romans 3:8)

For Paul faith-alone was only juxta-posed to the Mosaic Law, IOW, faith versus works-of-the-Law, and specifically, the ritualistic requirements of the Law: food purity, animal sacrifices, feasts and festivals, Sabbath requirements, in addition to circumcision.

It is not faith versus moral living, but faith versus outward rituals, even if the commandments pertain to outward rituals. One could do all the outward rituals and lack any spiritual birth or spiritual living, according to Paul. Therefore, Paul was essentially abrogating all ritualistic requirements found in Judaism and turning them inside-out as merely symbolic representations of spiritual truths. For example, circumcision of the flesh representing the mortification of fleshy impulses for practical application and possibly representing the new spiritual bodies we are promised in the sense that “flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

IMO, LDS is beginning to resemble the very thing that Paul was trying to eliminate, that is, ritualism replacing true spirituality. For example, LDS emphasizes rituals (Temple requirements) only accessible by the LDS for anyone to reach the highest heaven; which smacks of Judaism who taught the same: convert to Judaism, perform our (Jewish) rituals in the Temple, and partake of the highest heaven. Calling them “commandments” only serves to make them necessary for salvation, obfuscating the real issue Paul was driving at, thereby, subordinating spiritual living to outward rituals again. In that sense, LDS is returning to the very thing Paul was opposed to, particularism based on outward rituals; but in Paul’s day it was called Jewish particularism, whereas, today it is arguably called Mormon particularism.​

I’m sorry you feel that way. I agree with the overall sentiment of what you have posted except for these two points of disagreement. Your uninformed opinion of us and erroneous belief that Paul taught salvation by faith alone.​

 

[Aaron32]

IMO, your question is loaded to promote works over faith by associating “lawlessness” with faith-alone. It was never presented like that by Paul, as if he was justifying immoral living. (Romans 3:8)

For Paul faith-alone was only juxta-posed to the Mosaic Law, IOW, faith versus works-of-the-Law, and specifically, the ritualistic requirements of the Law: food purity, animal sacrifices, feasts and festivals, Sabbath requirements, in addition to circumcision.

It is not faith versus moral living, but faith versus outward rituals, even if the commandments pertain to outward rituals. One could do all the outward rituals and lack any spiritual birth or spiritual living, according to Paul. Therefore, Paul was essentially abrogating all ritualistic requirements found in Judaism and turning them inside-out as merely symbolic representations of spiritual truths. For example, circumcision of the flesh representing the mortification of fleshy impulses for practical application and possibly representing the new spiritual bodies we are promised in the sense that “flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

Thank you for the clarification.
I posed the questions based on how the phrase "Faith alone" is used in the Mormonism forum. No doubt - a better question leads to a better answer.