1Thess521
Well-known member
the CC's hubris caused the splitThe pillar and foundation of the truth doesn't need to correct itself.
the CC's hubris caused the splitThe pillar and foundation of the truth doesn't need to correct itself.
Heresy caused the split.the CC's hubris caused the split
the CC's hubris caused the split
Heresy caused the split.
is Sola Fide a heresy or not?To be completely honest, it was both. There was some hubris involved, for the leaders of the Church had acquired some bad habits, most of which have now been corrected. Who knows if Luther would have been so pushed to invent his heresies if the Church had acted more faithfully at that time? However it was prompted, the result was indeed many heresies that persist today in Protestant churches.
Pppffffttt! Except YOUR church ceased to be the pillar and foundation of the truth many centuries ago! For hundreds of years, it has been "teaching for doctrine the precepts of men" and thus, worshiping God in vain, as He says in Isaiah, which Jesus quoted, to lambast the Pharisees for making man-made rules trump what is actually in Scripture.The pillar and foundation of the truth doesn't need to correct itself.
So, being saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ Jesus alone (alone meaning "only" here) is a heresy? OR was the heresy, in the CC's eyes, the refusal to cowtow to the Pope and obey him over obeying God?Heresy caused the split.
The "sola" part is a heresy. It appears nowhere in the bible, except in the negative sense. And even if you ignore that or otherwise dismiss it, we are sill left with the fact that it does not appear in the positive sense.is Sola Fide a heresy or not?
===============================end LifeIn's remarkTo be completely honest, it was both. There was some hubris involved, for the leaders of the Church had acquired some bad habits, most of which have now been corrected. Who knows if Luther would have been so pushed to invent his heresies if the Church had acted more faithfully at that time? However it was prompted, the result was indeed many heresies that persist today in Protestant churches.
What is the heresy?The "sola" part is a heresy. It appears nowhere in the bible, except in the negative sense. And even if you ignore that or otherwise dismiss it, we are sill left with the fact that it does not appear in the positive sense.
Maybe LifeIn or pilgrim can tell us what those heresies are
do they reject it?It would take more that a single post to handle all of them, but a really big on to start with is "sola fide". We could have as whole thread on why sola fide is a heresy that the Catholic Church rejects.
What follows is a list Catholic apologists and clergy affirming "sola fide". There are too many to go through one by one, but I will address a major one:What is the heresy?
The reference cited provides the needed clarification right here:Pope Benedict XVI: 'Luther Was Right'
https://www1.cbn.com/ChurchWatch/archive/2009/02/06/pope-benedict-xvi-luther-was-right
FalseWhat follows is a list Catholic apologists and clergy affirming "sola fide". There are too many to go through one by one, but I will address a major one:
The reference cited provides the needed clarification right here:
By defining "faith" as "identification with Christ expressed in love for God and neighbor," Pope Benedict qualified his statement, noting that the Apostle Paul had written about such faith in his letters, especially the one to the Philippians.
This is different from the Protestant interpretation of sola fide since it defines faith in a way that Protestants say requires works ("expressed in love for God and neighbor"). That is, if you don't have love of neighbor, you don't have faith.
that has nothing to do with Sola FideAnother big difference not mentioned in the article is that Catholics believe that faith is possible for all people, whereas the way sola fide has been interpreted (wrongly) is that the very act of desiring faith is an impossible act of will unless one is already saved.
You keep using this and I will continue to respond with this.....“Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, ‘Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.’ All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. 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 we have 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. Amen.”
- Clement, First Epistle to the Corinthians, Ch. 32 (AD 99)..........
“God justifies by faith alone” (“Deus ex sola fide justificat”)
- Jerome, Epestolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v.3 (AD 420)
“What Paul meant was that no one obtains the gift of justification on the basis of merits derived from works performed beforehand, but the gift of justification comes only from faith.”
- Bede, Cited from the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (ed. Gerald Bray), NT, vol. 11, p. 31.(AD 735)
"But in addition that you might believe also this, that sins are given to you individually, this is the testimony, which the Holy Spirit bestows in your heart, saying, Your sins are forgiven by you. For the Apostle thinks thus, that man is gratuitously justified through faith."
- Bernard of Clairvaux, First Sermon on the Annunciation (AD 1153)
“Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone.”
- Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (AD 1274)
not one of your quotes dismisses that we are justified /declared righteous BY GOD by our faith and not our works:You keep using this and I will continue to respond with this.....
Clement of Rome
Let us therefore join with those to whom grace is given by God. Let us clothe ourselves in concord, being humble and self- controlled, keeping ourselves far from all backbiting and slander, being justified by works and not by words. . . . Why was our Father Abraham blessed? Was it not because of his deeds of justice and truth, wrought in faith? . . . So we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, were not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the almighty God justified all men. (Letter to the Corinthians 30:3, 31:2, 32:3-4 [A.D. 95]).
Clement of Alexandria
When we hear, 'Your faith has saved you,' we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed. To begin with, it was to the Jews alone that he spoke this phrase, who had lived in accord with the law and blamelessly and who had lacked only faith in the Lord (Stromateis or Miscellanies 6:14:108:4 [post A.D. 202]).
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]).
Gregory of Nyssa
Paul, joining righteousness to faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides. A soldier cannot be considered safely armored when either shield is disjoined from the other. Faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith (Homilies on Ecclesiastes 8 [ca. A.D. 335- 394]).
John Chrysostom
He that believes in the Son has everlasting life." Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,' someone will say, 'in order to have everlasting life?' By no means! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, 'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" shall enter into the kingdom of heaven'; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1[circa A.D. 391]).
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]).
Augustine
"He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification." What does this mean, "for our justification?" So that he might justify us, so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you are a man. If God made you a man, and you made your-self just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. You did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented, when you did not exist? But he who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge, but he does not justify you without your willing it (Sermons 169:13 [inter A.D. 391-430]).
But we know that God does not hear sinners: but if any man is a worshiper of God and does his will, that man God will hear. He still speaks as one only anointed. For God does listen to sinners too. If God did not listen to sinners, it would have been all in vain for the publican to cast down his eyes to the ground and strike his breast saying: "Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner." And that confession merited justification, just as the blind man merited enlightenment (Homilies on the Gospel of John 44:13 [A.D. 416]).
This but confirms my point that Sola Fide can only be accepted in the proper sense. Instead of dipping into short excerpts that can be misinterpreted, it would be more instructive to look for a long-form discourse on this subject.False
from Jimmy Akin
quoting
" Catholics do not have to condemn the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.if the term “faith” is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity""Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2).We might rephrase the canon:“If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema.”"So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns “sola fide” if it is used “so asto understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required” to attain justification.end quotes
jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone
It does because it bears on the "Fide" part of "Sola Fide". Unless we understand what Fide is we can't properly evaluate Sola Fide.that has nothing to do with Sola Fide
Have you seen this quote (or a variation) around?This but confirms my point that Sola Fide can only be accepted in the proper sense. Instead of dipping into short excerpts that can be misinterpreted, it would be more instructive to look for a long-form discourse on this subject.
you statedIt does because it bears on the "Fide" part of "Sola Fide". Unless we understand what Fide is we can't properly evaluate Sola Fide.
I think further discussion of exactly how specific Protestant denominations interpret Sola Fide differently from Catholics is outside of the rules of the forum, explained here. However if you have any objections to the way Catholics interpret this doctrine, that would be fair game.Have you seen this quote (or a variation) around?
"Luther rediscovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book"
how did the Catholic Church repond to that?
you stated
"the way sola fide has been interpreted (wrongly) is that the very act of desiring faith is an impossible act of will unless one is already saved."
which Is about the total inability of man to seek God with God FIRST initiating a change in the person:
That does not address how we are justified
Sola fide addresses how we are justified by God : not why we desire faith
the fide in Sola Fide is fides formata
" if the term “faith” is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period."
-Jimmy Akin
sure: I have yet to see why Catholics claim Sola Fide (if properly understood )is a heresyI think further discussion of exactly how specific Protestant denominations interpret Sola Fide differently from Catholics is outside of the rules of the forum, explained here. However if you have any objections to the way Catholics interpret this doctrine, that would be fair game.
Kreeft may be espousing 20th century ecumenism, but nothing more than that. He says, "no tricks" but that's erroneous... he actually presents a hodge podge of jargon trying to utilize language both Roman Catholics and Protestants can agree upon. In context, he argues the Protestant Reformers and Rome had the same Gospel, but Rome's error was that they were not preaching this agreed upon Gospel in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. That is the "guilt" he purportedly feels: that Rome was not preaching the gospel and played a role in disunity. Kreeft argues basically for infused righteousness as the gospel, not imputed righteousness. This is diametrically opposed to Reformation theology. Kreeft writes in context that for the Council of Trent, "salvation meant not just justification but sanctification as well; and it was quite correct to say that both faith and works contribute to sanctification, thus to salvation."Peter Kreeft:
Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works?
On this issue I believe Luther was simply right;