Justification By Faith Alone

[reyb]

[indent]I want you to see in the following verses that both of them, Apostle Paul and the writer of the book of James says ‘And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness”

Okay these are the verses. [/indent][indent]In James 2:20-24

[color="#FF0000"]You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. [b]And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,[/b]" and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. [/color]NIV[/indent]


[indent]Rom 3:27-4:3

[color="#FF0000"]Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

What then shall we say that Abraham , our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about — but not before God. [b]What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." [/b][/color][/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='reyb' post='1717320' date='Dec 3 2008, 11:47 AM'][indent]In James 2:20-24

[color="#FF0000"]You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. [b]And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,[/b]" and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. [/color]NIV[/indent][/quote]

[indent]We know that the offering of Isaac is a test for Abraham as commanded by God. This is a test of his faithfullness to God.
Question : Do Abraham believed God before he offered isaac or after he offered isaac?[/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1716060' date='Dec 1 2008, 08:27 PM']Things you have failed to do:

*answer for the fact that Christ highlights works as the deciding factor in every judgment scenario
* re: post #46; you actually concede the point (thus refuting sola fide) and then divert attention by bringing up something else
* answering either the scriptures (e.g., Hebrews 6:4, James 2:24) or the logic of the concluding paragraph in post #50, which responded to your diversion tactic
* dealing with post #55; you dodge it entirely and don't even make a point or otherwise indicate the purpose of quoting the next verses.[/quote]

[indent]You addressed this to me, thus I posted the above verses from the book of James regarding your position which is 'justification by faith with works'. [/indent]

[indent]Again, I asked - Did Abraham believed God before or after he offered Isaac?
In other word, Do Abraham put his faith to God before or after he offered Isaac?
[/indent]

[Guest nvzbl]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1716395' date='Dec 2 2008, 12:43 AM']That's impossible.[/quote]

[Guest]

this thread is exhausting
wow

[Guest]

reminds me of one of mine
you poor people

[reyb]

[quote name='reyb' post='1718130' date='Dec 3 2008, 09:24 PM'][indent]You addressed this to me, thus I posted the above verses from the book of James regarding your position which is 'justification by faith with works'. [/indent]

[indent][color="#0000FF"]Again, I asked - Did Abraham believed God before or after he offered Isaac?
In other word, Do Abraham put his faith to God before or after he offered Isaac?[/color][/indent][/quote]


[quote name='nvzbl' post='1718216' date='Dec 3 2008, 10:31 PM'][/quote]
[indent]I am waiting... [/indent]

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='reyb' post='1718568' date='Dec 4 2008, 01:54 AM'][indent]I am waiting... [/indent][/quote]

Of course Abraham trusted and had faith in God. Is there reason to think otherwise? You ask if he had faith after the sacrifice but that doesn't make sense because an angel stopped him.

Where does this go from here?

----------------
Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/trans-siberian+orchestra/track/dream+child+(a+christmas+dream)"]Trans-Siberian Orchestra - Dream Child (A Christmas Dream)[/url]
via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url]

[Galloglasses' Alt]

This is getting fun.

[Spriles]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1716060' date='Dec 1 2008, 07:27 PM']1. "Sola" - Can you please provide one, single passage that clearly states that the SCRIPTURES (that it God's WRITTEN Word) [b]ALONE[/b] are a Christian's infallible authority? Even one passage? Remember, we're looking for a scriptural proof of SOLA Scriptura. Passages that merely indicate the Scripture's profitability for teaching or passages that merely highlight the Scripture's inerrancy or divine inspiration most certainly will not suffice - we all agree on that. We're looking for just one scripture that says something to the effect that *SCRIPTURE* * *ALONE* is infallible. No specific formula of words / terms must be employed here; only that the passage CLEARLY refers to [i]a) [/i]Scripture[i] b) [/i]ALONE being [i]c)[/i] infallible

2. "Scriptura" - Can you please point out where the Bible's divinely inspired table of contents is? And by what scriptural standard I should accept that book, if there is one, which has the table of contents? Without circular reasoning? By what objective authority do you discern the Scriptures to be infallible without question begging or circular reasoning?

If Sola Scriptura falls, so too does Protestantism, which bases its protests specifically on this man-made doctrine so recently invented. Then perhaps you can examine the Catholic assertion of an infallible Church with a bit more of an open mind.[/quote]

1. The phrase "scripture alone is infallible" is of course not found in the Bible. However as you know, Paul refers to the scriptures as God-Breathed. Paul also states that the scripture makes the man of God "Complete" and "fully equipped" for [b]every[/b] good work, which in the context is "teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".

2. As God's word to mankind, the “God-breathed” Scripture is self-attesting, thus the Canon may be said to be self-establishing. God used fallible people to recognize that which was scripture just as he used fallible people to write it. An objective and infallible authority outside of scripture is not needed for God to sovereignly preserve his word as he said he would do.

Now, I have some questions for you to answer regarding the necessity of an infallible church.

1. Without circular reasoning, can you tell me what objective authority established the infallibility of Rome?

2. During the time of Christ, what extra Biblical authority did the Jews have to know what the canon of their scripture was? (Don't forget, Jesus held the Jews accountable to know their scripture)

3. By what authority was Athanasius able to possess the same canon of scripture I have today (the protestant Bible) before any church councils even discussed the canon of scripture?

4. How is it that everyone operated under the knowledge of what the canon was before Rome dogmatically proclaimed "the table of contents" at Trent in 1546. Even the Reformation was able to occur under the principle of Sola Scriptura before that time.

5. Can you reference any passage of Scripture that the Roman church has infallibly interpreted?

6. If you maintain that fallible people cannot interpret infallible scripture, on what basis can you believe that fallible people can interpret the infallible interpretation of scripture?

To suggest that the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is recent (By recent I assume you mean the 1500s) is laughable. To make such a claim is to demonstrate ignorance to many writings of the early church.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Spriles' post='1718857' date='Dec 4 2008, 04:07 PM']1. The phrase "scripture alone is infallible" is of course not found in the Bible. However as you know, Paul refers to the scriptures as God-Breathed. Paul also states that the scripture makes the man of God "Complete" and "fully equipped" for [b]every[/b] good work, which in the context is "teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness".

[b]2. As God's word to mankind, the “God-breathed” Scripture is self-attesting, thus the Canon may be said to be self-establishing. God used fallible people to recognize that which was scripture just as he used fallible people to write it. An objective and infallible authority outside of scripture is not needed for God to sovereignly preserve his word as he said he would do.[/b]

...[/quote]

You say that "God's word to mankind, the “God-breathed” Scripture is self-attesting?" I disagree. There were several books that were well debated of whether they should be included in the canon or not. Not every Christian area, had the same list. What we know as the Bible, did not just fall into place.

[Spriles]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1719697' date='Dec 5 2008, 01:20 AM']You say that "God's word to mankind, the “God-breathed” Scripture is self-attesting?" I disagree. There were several books that were well debated of whether they should be included in the canon or not. Not every Christian area, had the same list. What we know as the Bible, did not just fall into place.[/quote]

I'm aware that discussion and debates took place over the canon of scripture, however in a general sense, scripture did in fact just fall into place.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states "The canon, already implicitly present in the apostolic age, gradually became explicit through a number of providential factors forming and fixing it."

I fail to see necessity of an infallible church.

I look forward to hearing the answers to my questions in post #100.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Spriles

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Spriles' post='1719823' date='Dec 5 2008, 04:05 AM']I'm aware that discussion and debates took place over the canon of scripture, however in a general sense, scripture did in fact just fall into place.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states "The canon, already implicitly present in the apostolic age, gradually became explicit through a number of providential factors forming and fixing it."[/quote]

While some parts of the canon were widely accepted, books such as Hebrews, Revelation, and a couple others were debated books from Christian area to area.



[quote]I fail to see necessity of an infallible church.[/quote]

Except the bible was not compiled to like the late 300s. Jesus never said anywhere to follow the bible or read scripture as it did not even exist. What could people follow if there was no bible? Also, most of the books of the NT were not around right after Jesus left. This is why it made more sense for Jesus to form a concrete Church with authority to decide and clarify questionable matters and to evangelize. This is exemplified in Acts and other NT books. When you read the bible, it shows that it is not an order of beliefs such as a catechism or rule book or any such type. The bible was mean to be read by people who already believed. While one can pick up the bible and find some truth, you cannot find it all in the bible. Two people can read the same passage and get something completely different. Who is right?


Also, when you leave people alone to interpret the bible for themselves, you end up with 30,000+ denominations. I mean I am pretty sure the Holy Spirit would not be leading people on wild goose chases and leading differing Christian denominations to polar truths. So either truths can seriously contradict (which really does not follow Scripture), or there is one truth. Not everyone is right.



[quote]I look forward to hearing the answers to my questions in post #100.[/quote]

In due time. We will work through the questions as they come up. We seem to have plenty to talk about now.

I will address the first question though as it seems to come up in our discussion now.

The passage below is from [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp"]Catholic Answers.[/url]
[i]
The Bible as Historical Truth


Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.



A Spiral Argument


Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired. [/i]

[Spriles]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1719881' date='Dec 5 2008, 08:45 AM']While some parts of the canon were widely accepted, books such as Hebrews, Revelation, and a couple others were debated books from Christian area to area.





Except the bible was not compiled to like the late 300s. Jesus never said anywhere to follow the bible or read scripture as it did not even exist. What could people follow if there was no bible? Also, most of the books of the NT were not around right after Jesus left. This is why it made more sense for Jesus to form a concrete Church with authority to decide and clarify questionable matters and to evangelize. This is exemplified in Acts and other NT books. When you read the bible, it shows that it is not an order of beliefs such as a catechism or rule book or any such type. The bible was mean to be read by people who already believed. While one can pick up the bible and find some truth, you cannot find it all in the bible. Two people can read the same passage and get something completely different. Who is right?


Also, when you leave people alone to interpret the bible for themselves, you end up with 30,000+ denominations. I mean I am pretty sure the Holy Spirit would not be leading people on wild goose chases and leading differing Christian denominations to polar truths. So either truths can seriously contradict (which really does not follow Scripture), or there is one truth. Not everyone is right.





In due time. We will work through the questions as they come up. We seem to have plenty to talk about now.

I will address the first question though as it seems to come up in our discussion now.

The passage below is from [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp"]Catholic Answers.[/url]
[i]
The Bible as Historical Truth


Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.



A Spiral Argument


Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired. [/i][/quote]

The 4th century gives us an example of the same books of the Bible being recognized as canonical (the protestant Bible) by Athanasius as I have today. However this was done without any sort of extra-Biblical infallible authority. We also have examples of fathers ascribing authority to what we know as the New Testament long before the 300s.

As for who has the right interpretation? The answer is the one understands the message that was intended by the author. This argument against sola scriptura is fallacious. [i]The misuse of a sufficient source is not a legitimate argument against that source.[/i] I also have no problem with rule books and catechisms being made, so long as their teaching is formed and tested by the truth contained in the scripture. Regarding your belief that the Bible is only to be read by those who already believe, I’ll give you time to retract the statement before I comment.

Since you are attacking the idea that fallible people have the ability to interpret infallible scripture, I would like for you to tell me how you can believe that fallible people can interpret the infallible interpretation of scripture. I also need you to explain to me what passages of scripture Rome has infallibly interpreted.

The 30,000 + denominations statistic is just completely untrue. The actual number of protestant denominations is around 8,196. Even though I have already demonstrated this statistic to be insignificant to your argument, I think it is interesting to note there are around 240 variations within Roman Catholicism.

The Spiral argument you provided from Catholic Answers doesn’t work in at least two places. The first problem is that you have to account for people knowing what scripture was before Rome dogmatically pronounced what it was in 1546. The second problem is that the Bible, as an historic text, does not give the record of an infallible church being established.

[mortify]

Without an infallible Church there is no certainty in Scripture's inspiration.

Martin Luther's criteria for determining inspiration was to see whether a book affirmed his idea of salvation by faith alone. An absurd criteria since I can write such a book and it wouldn't be inspired, it also led him to reject the Epistle of St James.