BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

---

It makes them say to themselves, "Have I done enough to be saved?" thus placing their faith on their works to be saved. The Bible clearly says that this is a false gospel.

---

It would be a false gospel, but it's not what Catholics and Orthodox believe. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be earned. It can be lost through disobedience. That's the difference between a gift and an entitlement. Catholics are not so proud as to believe our works entitle us to anything.

---

Saying you lose your salvation by disobedience is no different than saying you are saved by your performance, i.e. your works. This would make salvation NOT a gift. It's not a gift if you take it back if the person doesn't do what you want, or do what you require. This would most certainly be a false gospel.

Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy is trying to turn the free gift of salvation into something that their church can only dispense through their sacraments. It's the typical double talk needed to get around what the Bible teaches - "yes, it's a gift....that you must work to keep".

---

You hold human works in much higher esteem than we Catholics do. Humility should dispel any notion that our obedience could substitute for God's grace.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

---

It makes them say to themselves, "Have I done enough to be saved?" thus placing their faith on their works to be saved. The Bible clearly says that this is a false gospel.

---

It would be a false gospel, but it's not what Catholics and Orthodox believe. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be earned. It can be lost through disobedience. That's the difference between a gift and an entitlement. Catholics are not so proud as to believe our works entitle us to anything.

---

Saying you lose your salvation by disobedience is no different than saying you are saved by your performance, i.e. your works. This would make salvation NOT a gift. It's not a gift if you take it back if the person doesn't do what you want, or do what you require. This would most certainly be a false gospel.

Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy is trying to turn the free gift of salvation into something that their church can only dispense through their sacraments. It's the typical double talk needed to get around what the Bible teaches - "yes, it's a gift....that you must work to keep".

---

You hold human works in much higher esteem than we Catholics do. Humility should dispel any notion that our obedience could substitute for God's grace.

---

How is it grace, if you have to work to keep it? This was the apostle Paul's point.

It isn't about how you "esteem" works. That's a completely irrelevant point. It's about distorting the gospel from a gospel of grace, to a gospel of works, which Roman Catholicism clearly does.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

---

It makes them say to themselves, "Have I done enough to be saved?" thus placing their faith on their works to be saved. The Bible clearly says that this is a false gospel.

---

It would be a false gospel, but it's not what Catholics and Orthodox believe. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be earned. It can be lost through disobedience. That's the difference between a gift and an entitlement. Catholics are not so proud as to believe our works entitle us to anything.

---

A person can genuinely believe for a time and later reject the faith. But their system collapses that reality by saying, "Well, then they never truly believed." Yet those same people who reject it, insist they did truly believe for a period of time. So now we're left with an impossible problem: even what feels like genuine faith might be illegitimate. How do they know they're not fooling themselves? How does anyone know? Their assurance rests on their own self-evaluation, not on God's judgment.

The good in me is God's work. The evil in me is my resistance.
This is precisely why Paul speaks with "fear and trembling" TO BELIEVING CHRISTIANS, because salvation involves continually responding to God, not assuming it's already a done deal.

---

The "impossible problem" you describe is more a question of epistemology rather than the Protestant belief system. ANY belief system is subject to it. Your claim that "the good in me is God's work, the evil in me is my resistance" also depends on your own perception and self-evaluation. As created beings, we can not have absolute knowledge of things. Only God has that. We can only operate on belief and faith. So our "assurance" is faith based. And God WANTS us to have that assurance in faith:

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." - 1 John 5:13

A belief system dependant on our performance can never give this assurance, because we would always be asking if we've done enough. But if we place our faith on what JESUS has done, not on what WE do or have done, then we can have complete assurance.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

---

It makes them say to themselves, "Have I done enough to be saved?" thus placing their faith on their works to be saved. The Bible clearly says that this is a false gospel.

---

It would be a false gospel, but it's not what Catholics and Orthodox believe. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be earned. It can be lost through disobedience. That's the difference between a gift and an entitlement. Catholics are not so proud as to believe our works entitle us to anything.

---

A person can genuinely believe for a time and later reject the faith. But their system collapses that reality by saying, "Well, then they never truly believed." Yet those same people who reject it, insist they did truly believe for a period of time. So now we're left with an impossible problem: even what feels like genuine faith might be illegitimate. How do they know they're not fooling themselves? How does anyone know? Their assurance rests on their own self-evaluation, not on God's judgment.

The good in me is God's work. The evil in me is my resistance.
This is precisely why Paul speaks with "fear and trembling" TO BELIEVING CHRISTIANS, because salvation involves continually responding to God, not assuming it's already a done deal.

---

The "impossible problem" you describe is more a question of epistemology rather than the Protestant belief system. ANY belief system is subject to it. Your claim that "the good in me is God's work, the evil in me is my resistance" also depends on your own perception and self-evaluation. As created beings, we can not have absolute knowledge of things. Only God has that. We can only operate on belief and faith. So our "assurance" is faith based. And God WANTS us to have that assurance in faith:

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." - 1 John 5:13

A belief system dependant on our performance can never give this assurance, because we would always be asking if we've done enough. But if we place our faith on what JESUS has done, not on what WE do or have done, then we can have complete assurance.

---

Nobody is arguing that works save us.

Scripture never presents faith as a static, one-time event; true faith is active, ongoing, and transformative (James 2:1426, John 14:15).

Assurance doesn't come from believing we can check a box and be done, it comes from trusting God's grace while actively cooperating with Him, allowing faith to produce love, repentance, and obedience. That's how we grow to be like Christ, and that's how assurance is lived out in a way that is real and rooted in life, not abstract or theoretical.

Sola fide arose from a nominalist paradigm shift that occurred long before Luther, but nominalism didn't exist in the time of the apostles or the early church. Nominalism changed the way belief was understood. Works became secondary not because they were unimportant to God, but because the nominalist framework treated faith primarily as a legal declaration, separable from the ongoing reality of life in Christ.

I don't think you actually disagree with me. My point is that we should spend our lives striving to be like Christ. Assurance is that we can be saved, not that we have unilaterally made that decision for God. True faith is a lifelong commitment and a journey to become more like Christ. This produces more fruit because faith is grounded in reality and active obedience, it's not abstract or theoretical, and it doesn't border on Gnosticism.

I oppose sola fide because it can be interpreted to make works irrelevant, implying that we don't need to strive to be like Christ. That argument has historically been made by many Protestants, and Scripture doesn't support it.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

---

It makes them say to themselves, "Have I done enough to be saved?" thus placing their faith on their works to be saved. The Bible clearly says that this is a false gospel.

---

It would be a false gospel, but it's not what Catholics and Orthodox believe. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be earned. It can be lost through disobedience. That's the difference between a gift and an entitlement. Catholics are not so proud as to believe our works entitle us to anything.

---

A person can genuinely believe for a time and later reject the faith. But their system collapses that reality by saying, "Well, then they never truly believed." Yet those same people who reject it, insist they did truly believe for a period of time. So now we're left with an impossible problem: even what feels like genuine faith might be illegitimate. How do they know they're not fooling themselves? How does anyone know? Their assurance rests on their own self-evaluation, not on God's judgment.

The good in me is God's work. The evil in me is my resistance.
This is precisely why Paul speaks with "fear and trembling" TO BELIEVING CHRISTIANS, because salvation involves continually responding to God, not assuming it's already a done deal.

---

The "impossible problem" you describe is more a question of epistemology rather than the Protestant belief system. ANY belief system is subject to it. Your claim that "the good in me is God's work, the evil in me is my resistance" also depends on your own perception and self-evaluation. As created beings, we can not have absolute knowledge of things. Only God has that. We can only operate on belief and faith. So our "assurance" is faith based. And God WANTS us to have that assurance in faith:

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." - 1 John 5:13

A belief system dependant on our performance can never give this assurance, because we would always be asking if we've done enough. But if we place our faith on what JESUS has done, not on what WE do or have done, then we can have complete assurance.

---

Nobody is arguing that works save us.

Scripture never presents faith as a static, one-time event; true faith is active, ongoing, and transformative (James 2:1426, John 14:15).

Assurance doesn't come from believing we can check a box and be done, it comes from trusting God's grace while actively cooperating with Him, allowing faith to produce love, repentance, and obedience. That's how we grow to be like Christ, and that's how assurance is lived out in a way that is real and rooted in life, not abstract or theoretical.

Sola fide arose from a nominalist paradigm shift that occurred long before Luther, but nominalism didn't exist in the time of the apostles or the early church. Nominalism changed the way belief was understood. Works became secondary not because they were unimportant to God, but because the nominalist framework treated faith primarily as a legal declaration, separable from the ongoing reality of life in Christ.

I don't think you actually disagree with me. My point is that we should spend our lives striving to be like Christ. Assurance is that we can be saved, not that we have unilaterally made that decision for God. True faith is a lifelong commitment and a journey to become more like Christ. This produces more fruit because faith is grounded in reality and active obedience, it's not abstract or theoretical, and it doesn't border on Gnosticism.

I oppose sola fide because it can be interpreted to make works irrelevant, implying that we don't need to strive to be like Christ. That argument has historically been made by many Protestants, and Scripture doesn't support it.

---

And no one is arguing that faith is an "event" that checks a box.

What you're describing, "striving to be like Christ", is sanctification. All those with true faith will produce the fruit of salvation over time, some to more degree than others, and some at a faster rate than others. Some will die before hardly any fruit becomes observable. Some may even die before any fruit at all. But these are all saved by their faith, not by any measure of their fruit. Sanctification and salvation are not the same thing.

I think we are in quite a bit of disagreement. Beliefs of the Orthodox Church on Mary and sola scriptura aside - sola fide is what the Bible teaches. Same with "once saved always saved" (someone with true faith, not someone who "checks a box" by saying they have faith). It isn't "grace" if you have to work to keep it.

Perhaps this question will illustrate our differences further: if a person hears the gospel and believes in Jesus and trusts in him for their salvation, but fails to get water baptized or take the Eucharist before they die, are they saved?

Watch this:

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

My response to the video (part 1):

Josiah Trenham cites the oft repeated argument from James, that says we are justified by works, not by faith alone (James 2:24). But what James is saying is that justifying faith is a faith that does not exist alone, but also exists with works. He is still saying that faith is what saves, not works. But only a faith that produces works is a faith that saves. Works are only the evidence of that saving faith, not the means by which we are justified.

My question to you and Trenham is this: if James is truly saying that we are justified to righteousness before God by our works in addition to our faith, then isn't this in direct contradiction to Paul, who clearly and explicitly says these?:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2: 8,9

"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."- Romans 4:2,3


I think the problem is that RC's and Orthodoxy incorrectly understands "faith alone" to mean "faith that exists alone" - and to be even more precise, "someone claiming to have faith, which exists alone". No, "faith alone" means that its only our faith that is what saves us, not our performance - just as with the thief on the cross, the house of Cornelius, and just as Jesus said in Luke 7 to the sinful woman:

"And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."- Luke 7:48-50

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

Part 2 of my response:

Jay Dyer cites many incorrect views, views that he built his theology on that led him to Orthodox Christianity:

1. that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins, i.e. that he wasn't "damned" by God - Scripture teaches that Jesus bore the wrath of God that we deserved. Isaiah 53:

"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed."

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief.
....Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
....yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors"


It is clear that Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, which Orthodox Christianity denies.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

My response part 3:

More incorrect views by Jay Dyer:

2. that "Augustine didn't teach sola scriptura" - Oh, yes he most certainly did:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

"They honour your sacred Scripture, which you gave to us through your holy servant Moses, and just as I do, they look on it as the highest authority that we must follow." (Augustine, Confessions 12.16)

"There is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

My response to the video (part 1):

Josiah Trenham cites the oft repeated argument from James, that says we are justified by works, not by faith alone (James 2:24). But what James is saying is that justifying faith is a faith that does not exist alone, but also exists with works. He is still saying that faith is what saves, not works. But only a faith that produces works is a faith that saves. Works are only the evidence of that saving faith, not the means by which we are justified.

My question to you and Trenham is this: if James is truly saying that we are justified to righteousness before God by our works in addition to our faith, then isn't this in direct contradiction to Paul, who clearly and explicitly says these?:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2: 8,9

"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."- Romans 4:2,3


I think the problem is that RC's and Orthodoxy incorrectly understands "faith alone" to mean "faith that exists alone" - and to be even more precise, "someone claiming to have faith, which exists alone". No, "faith alone" means that its only our faith that is what saves us, not our performance - just as with the thief on the cross, the house of Cornelius, and just as Jesus said in Luke 7 to the sinful woman:

"And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."- Luke 7:48-50

---

Nope.

Paul is refuting legalism (Torah-keeping saves you).
James is refuting antinomianism ("I believe, therefore obedience doesn't matter.")

You're collapsing two different arguments into one category ("works") and assuming they are identical.

The theif on the cross was united to Christ sacramentally in the only way possible: through martyrdom (the Fathers literally call this "baptism by blood"). It's the exception, not the norm.

Cornelius was not saved when he believed. Peter explicitly says he still needed baptism (Acts 10:48). The descent of the Spirit preceded baptism only to demonstrate that Gentiles could enter the Church.

The faith of the sinful woma was her repentance, her devotion, her actions. Jesus praises her because she loved much (v. 47).
Her works weren't "evidence", they were the faith.

In Scripture, faith is always faithfulness. Not mental assent. Not an interior event. Not a Reformation slogan.

James contradicts your system, not Paul.
Paul contradicts your definitions, not James.

If your interpretation were correct, then all Christians everywhere misunderstood the Gospel until the 1500s.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

My response part 3:

More incorrect views by Jay Dyer:

2. that "Augustine didn't teach sola scriptura" - Oh, yes he most certainly did:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

"They honour your sacred Scripture, which you gave to us through your holy servant Moses, and just as I do, they look on it as the highest authority that we must follow." (Augustine, Confessions 12.16)

"There is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)

---

Seriously?

You're projecting 16th-century Western categories onto a 4th-century North African bishop who believed in sacramental realism, apostolic succession, the visible Catholic Church, and tradition as authoritative. Augustine is the worst possible Church Father to recruit for sola scriptura.

Here is Augustine's actual theology of authority:
"For I would not believe the Gospel unless moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5

This sentence alone destroys sola scriptura. If the Church's authority is required to believe the Gospel, then Scripture is not self-authenticating, self-interpreting, or sufficient apart from Tradition.

"The custom of the mother Church… is to be held as a law."
On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.7

"What the universal Church holds, not instituted by councils, but always retained, is rightly considered apostolic."
On Baptism 5.2

Your citations are out of context and Jay has explained this many times;

Letter 82 ("I only hold Scripture as inerrant"). Because he is arguing with Jerome, not rejecting Church authority. He's talking about which writings can be wrong, not which authority is ultimate.

Confessions 12.16 ("Scripture is the highest authority"). Yes, Scripture is the highest written authority. Orthodoxy agrees.
He does not say Scripture is the only authority.

Against Faustus ("boundary line… Scripture vs later writings"). Correct, Scripture is canonical, Fathers aren't. That's not sola scriptura. That's the doctrine of canon, which all Christians hold. You've turned statements about the canon into statements about authority.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

Part 2 of my response:

Jay Dyer cites many incorrect views, views that he built his theology on that led him to Orthodox Christianity:

1. that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins, i.e. that he wasn't "damned" by God - Scripture teaches that Jesus bore the wrath of God that we deserved. Isaiah 53:

"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed."

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief.
....Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
....yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors"


It is clear that Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, which Orthodox Christianity denies.

---

You're confusing substitutionary atonement with penal substitution, and Orthodoxy affirms the former but rejects the latter, because the early Church never taught, as Calvin did 1500 years later, that the Father punished or poured divine wrath onto the Son.

Do you really take Calvin's view over all of Christianity prior to him?

Isaiah 53 does not say "God punished Him", it says we mistakenly "esteemed" Him stricken by God, and the Septuagint's wording is sacrificial, not judicial. The Fathers unanimously teach that Christ died for us, as our Passover Lamb, as the One who destroys death by death, and as the One who heals human nature, not that the Trinity was divided or that the Father vented anger on the Son.

Who removed the sinners prayer from the Bible?

It was included in the 1537 Matthew Bible, the 1599 Geneva Bible, and the 1611 King James Bible. Martin Luther included it in in his Bible translation to German. Yet it has vanished from most modern English translations. It is still recognized and chanted by the original church as part of its Great Compline prayer.

The text of the original sinners prayer: "O Lord Almighty, God of our ancestors, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of their righteous offspring, you who made heaven and earth with all their order, who shackled the sea by your word of command, who confined the deep and sealed it with your terrible and glorious name, at whom all things shudder and tremble before your power, for your glorious splendor cannot be borne, and the wrath of your threat to sinners is unendurable; yet immeasurable and unsearchable is your promised mercy, for you are the Lord Most High, of great compassion, long-suffering, and very merciful, and you relent at human suffering. O Lord, according to your great goodness you have promised repentance and forgiveness to those who have sinned against you, and in the multitude of your mercies you have appointed repentance for sinners, so that they may be saved. Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you, but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner.

For the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied! I am not worthy to look up and see the height of heaven because of the multitude of my iniquities. I am weighted down with many an iron fetter, so that I am rejected because of my sins, and I have no relief, for I have provoked your wrath and have done what is evil in your sight, setting up abominations and multiplying offenses.

And now I bend the knee of my heart, imploring you for your kindness. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my transgressions. I earnestly implore you, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me! Do not destroy me with my transgressions! Do not be angry with me forever or store up evil for me; do not condemn me to the depths of the earth. For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent, and in me you will manifest your goodness, for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy, and I will praise you continually all the days of my life. For all the host of heaven sings your praise, and yours is the glory forever. Amen."

Quite the mystery, isn't it, particularly given its depth compared to the typical "ask Jesus into your heart" version.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

My response to the video (part 1):

Josiah Trenham cites the oft repeated argument from James, that says we are justified by works, not by faith alone (James 2:24). But what James is saying is that justifying faith is a faith that does not exist alone, but also exists with works. He is still saying that faith is what saves, not works. But only a faith that produces works is a faith that saves. Works are only the evidence of that saving faith, not the means by which we are justified.

My question to you and Trenham is this: if James is truly saying that we are justified to righteousness before God by our works in addition to our faith, then isn't this in direct contradiction to Paul, who clearly and explicitly says these?:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2: 8,9

"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."- Romans 4:2,3


I think the problem is that RC's and Orthodoxy incorrectly understands "faith alone" to mean "faith that exists alone" - and to be even more precise, "someone claiming to have faith, which exists alone". No, "faith alone" means that its only our faith that is what saves us, not our performance - just as with the thief on the cross, the house of Cornelius, and just as Jesus said in Luke 7 to the sinful woman:

"And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."- Luke 7:48-50

---

Nope.

Paul is refuting legalism (Torah-keeping saves you).
James is refuting antinomianism ("I believe, therefore obedience doesn't matter.")

You're collapsing two different arguments into one category ("works") and assuming they are identical.

The theif on the cross was united to Christ sacramentally in the only way possible: through martyrdom (the Fathers literally call this "baptism by blood"). It's the exception, not the norm.

Cornelius was not saved when he believed. Peter explicitly says he still needed baptism (Acts 10:48). The descent of the Spirit preceded baptism only to demonstrate that Gentiles could enter the Church.

The faith of the sinful woma was her repentance, her devotion, her actions. Jesus praises her because she loved much (v. 47).
Her works weren't "evidence", they were the faith.

In Scripture, faith is always faithfulness. Not mental assent. Not an interior event. Not a Reformation slogan.

James contradicts your system, not Paul.
Paul contradicts your definitions, not James.

If your interpretation were correct, then all Christians everywhere misunderstood the Gospel until the 1500s.

---

- No, Paul was not talking about legalism, i.e. Torah law keeping, because he specifically cites Abraham's righteousness resulting merely from believing God (Romans 4) - and this was over 400 years before the Torah. The concept Paul was clearly illustrating is that it is our faith apart from any works/performance/rule keeping that is what makes us righteous before God, and thus saved. So if you are saying that James is saying that works ARE part of what makes us righteous before God (that faith IS the works and not just the belief), then clearly you are contradicting what Paul declared. You haven't resolved your dilemma here.

- umm.... the thief on the cross was NOT a martyr. You realize this, don't you?

- if Cornelius was not saved when he received the Holy Spirit, then Paul is wrong when he says that we receive the Holy Spirit upon hearing the gospel and believing, which is a SEAL and GUARANTEE of eternal life (Ephesians 1:13-14 and 2 Corinthians 1:22). And notice that Paul says nothing here about water baptized or taking the Eucharist meal being required.

- so, are you arguing that had the sinful woman NOT shown Jesus her repentance, devotion, and actions, but instead truly had her repentance and devotion in her heart, that Jesus would NOT consider her faith to have saved her? Or if the thief on the cross had not said anything to Jesus, but instead had them in his heart, that Jesus would not have saved him either? Jesus "searches the mind and heart" (Revelation 2:23).

"Her works weren't the "evidence", they were the faith" - Paul, speaking of Abraham in Romans 4 contradicts your view that the works/actions ARE the faith. Paul clearly says that Abraham was deemed righteous by God before he performed a single action.

-"If your interpretation were correct, then all Christians everywhere misunderstood the Gospel until the 1500s" - this is obviously way too broad a brush to be considered a serious argument. It's also false according to church history.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

My response part 3:

More incorrect views by Jay Dyer:

2. that "Augustine didn't teach sola scriptura" - Oh, yes he most certainly did:

"I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)

"They honour your sacred Scripture, which you gave to us through your holy servant Moses, and just as I do, they look on it as the highest authority that we must follow." (Augustine, Confessions 12.16)

"There is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)

---

Seriously?

You're projecting 16th-century Western categories onto a 4th-century North African bishop who believed in sacramental realism, apostolic succession, the visible Catholic Church, and tradition as authoritative. Augustine is the worst possible Church Father to recruit for sola scriptura.

Here is Augustine's actual theology of authority:
"For I would not believe the Gospel unless moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." Against the Epistle of Manichaeus 5

This sentence alone destroys sola scriptura. If the Church's authority is required to believe the Gospel, then Scripture is not self-authenticating, self-interpreting, or sufficient apart from Tradition.

"The custom of the mother Church… is to be held as a law."
On Baptism, Against the Donatists 2.7

"What the universal Church holds, not instituted by councils, but always retained, is rightly considered apostolic."
On Baptism 5.2

Your citations are out of context and Jay has explained this many times;

Letter 82 ("I only hold Scripture as inerrant"). Because he is arguing with Jerome, not rejecting Church authority. He's talking about which writings can be wrong, not which authority is ultimate.

Confessions 12.16 ("Scripture is the highest authority"). Yes, Scripture is the highest written authority. Orthodoxy agrees.
He does not say Scripture is the only authority.

Against Faustus ("boundary line… Scripture vs later writings"). Correct, Scripture is canonical, Fathers aren't. That's not sola scriptura. That's the doctrine of canon, which all Christians hold. You've turned statements about the canon into statements about authority.

---

Your entire argument here is showing that you continue to get the concept of sola scriptura wrong. You are arguing about authority, when sola scriptura is about infallibility. This is a very common mistake. Augustine can be "moved" by the authority of the church, but as he clearly writes, the church is not infallible, only Scripture is. He can say church custom is to be held as "law", but he isn't saying that this law is infallble, and a higher authority over Scripture. He can state that whatever the church holds should be considered "apostolic", but as he clearly indicates in his writings, the whatever the church holds is subject to error:

"Who would not know that the holy canonical scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequence writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right, but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions of provinces must give way without quibbling to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often corrected by later ones. If as a result of practical experience something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden has become known?" (Augustine, De baptismo contra Donatistas Book III, Ch. 2)

Finally, Augustine even says that what he says in his writings isn't infallible, and thus subject to questioning:

"As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth.... Such writings are read with the right of judgement, and without any obligation to believe." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)


You: "He does not say Scripture is the only authority." - right. He's saying is the highest authority. You just can't get around this.

You: "Correct, Scripture is canonical, Fathers aren't. That's not sola scriptura. That's the doctrine of canon, which all Christians hold. You've turned statements about the canon into statements about authority." - no, this isn't a statement about canon. It's a statement that says that what is in canon Scripture is on a different, separate, higher level than what the church fathers wrote and what their councils have ruled. He is essentially reaffirming his other statement that canon Scripture is the highest authority we must follow. Along with this statement that only Scripture is infallible, he is essentially talking about sola scriptura.

So I obvioulsy disagree with you completely - Augustine is the perfect father to demonstrate sola scriptura. He stated all its elements. You're just trying your best to spin around them instead of just accepting the clear meaning of what he said.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

Part 2 of my response:

Jay Dyer cites many incorrect views, views that he built his theology on that led him to Orthodox Christianity:

1. that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins, i.e. that he wasn't "damned" by God - Scripture teaches that Jesus bore the wrath of God that we deserved. Isaiah 53:

"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed."

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief.
....Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
....yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors"


It is clear that Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, which Orthodox Christianity denies.

---

You're confusing substitutionary atonement with penal substitution, and Orthodoxy affirms the former but rejects the latter, because the early Church never taught, as Calvin did 1500 years later, that the Father punished or poured divine wrath onto the Son.

Do you really take Calvin's view over all of Christianity prior to him?

Isaiah 53 does not say "God punished Him", it says we mistakenly "esteemed" Him stricken by God, and the Septuagint's wording is sacrificial, not judicial. The Fathers unanimously teach that Christ died for us, as our Passover Lamb, as the One who destroys death by death, and as the One who heals human nature, not that the Trinity was divided or that the Father vented anger on the Son.

---

Jesus cried out on the cross - "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?"

Being forsaken by God - that is the "wrath of God" that is the punishment for sin, which Jesus took in our stead. This is clearly what Isaiah 53 is saying. "Wrath" doesn't mean that God "vented anger" on his son, it means just payment/punishment. And it certainly doesn't mean that the Trinity was divided, but rather that one person of the Trinity bore the judgement of the other, in our stead. This is the Gospel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

Part 2 of my response:

Jay Dyer cites many incorrect views, views that he built his theology on that led him to Orthodox Christianity:

1. that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins, i.e. that he wasn't "damned" by God - Scripture teaches that Jesus bore the wrath of God that we deserved. Isaiah 53:

"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed."

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief.
....Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
....yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors"


It is clear that Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, which Orthodox Christianity denies.

---

You're confusing substitutionary atonement with penal substitution, and Orthodoxy affirms the former but rejects the latter, because the early Church never taught, as Calvin did 1500 years later, that the Father punished or poured divine wrath onto the Son.

Do you really take Calvin's view over all of Christianity prior to him?

Isaiah 53 does not say "God punished Him", it says we mistakenly "esteemed" Him stricken by God, and the Septuagint's wording is sacrificial, not judicial. The Fathers unanimously teach that Christ died for us, as our Passover Lamb, as the One who destroys death by death, and as the One who heals human nature, not that the Trinity was divided or that the Father vented anger on the Son.

---

Jesus cried out on the cross - "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?"

Being forsaken by God - that is the "wrath of God" that is the punishment for sin, which Jesus took in our stead. This is clearly what Isaiah 53 is saying. "Wrath" doesn't mean that God "vented anger" on his son, it means just payment/punishment. And it certainly doesn't mean that the Trinity was divided, but rather that one person of the Trinity bore the judgement of the other, in our stead. This is the Gospel.

---

Brother..."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is directly from Psalm 22. Its one of the most highlighted prophetic scriptures.

Psalm 22 is literally a depiction of the crucifixion and starts out with: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". It's Jesus quoting the events of Psalm 22 in real time.

Many muslims have tried to to take your same argument to disprove Christianity. They're wrong.

Examples in Psalm 22 showing the crucifixion:
16 "Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet."

17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

Part 2 of my response:

Jay Dyer cites many incorrect views, views that he built his theology on that led him to Orthodox Christianity:

1. that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins, i.e. that he wasn't "damned" by God - Scripture teaches that Jesus bore the wrath of God that we deserved. Isaiah 53:

"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed."

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief.
....Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
....yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors"


It is clear that Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, which Orthodox Christianity denies.

---

You're confusing substitutionary atonement with penal substitution, and Orthodoxy affirms the former but rejects the latter, because the early Church never taught, as Calvin did 1500 years later, that the Father punished or poured divine wrath onto the Son.

Do you really take Calvin's view over all of Christianity prior to him?

Isaiah 53 does not say "God punished Him", it says we mistakenly "esteemed" Him stricken by God, and the Septuagint's wording is sacrificial, not judicial. The Fathers unanimously teach that Christ died for us, as our Passover Lamb, as the One who destroys death by death, and as the One who heals human nature, not that the Trinity was divided or that the Father vented anger on the Son.

---

Jesus cried out on the cross - "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?"

Being forsaken by God - that is the "wrath of God" that is the punishment for sin, which Jesus took in our stead. This is clearly what Isaiah 53 is saying. "Wrath" doesn't mean that God "vented anger" on his son, it means just payment/punishment. And it certainly doesn't mean that the Trinity was divided, but rather that one person of the Trinity bore the judgement of the other, in our stead. This is the Gospel.

---

Brother..."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is directly from Psalm 22. Its one of the most highlighted prophetic scriptures.

Psalm 22 is literally a depiction of the crucifixion and starts out with: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". It's Jesus quoting the events of Psalm 22 in real time.

Many muslims have tried to to take your same argument to disprove Christianity. They're wrong.

Examples in Psalm 22 showing the crucifixion:
16 "Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet."

17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

---

Um, yes, I'm well aware of Psalm 22.

The anguish of Jesus having had the Father forsake him is him suffering the wrath of God that was due to us, in our stead. Jesus took the punishment for our sin, so that we can take Jesus' righteousness. This IS penal substitutionary atonement. It's what the prophetic scriptures (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) describe, yet Orthodoxy denies it. I have no idea what this has to do with the Muslim argument against Christianity.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

Part 2 of my response:

Jay Dyer cites many incorrect views, views that he built his theology on that led him to Orthodox Christianity:

1. that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins, i.e. that he wasn't "damned" by God - Scripture teaches that Jesus bore the wrath of God that we deserved. Isaiah 53:

"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed."

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief.
....Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
....yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors"


It is clear that Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, which Orthodox Christianity denies.

---

You're confusing substitutionary atonement with penal substitution, and Orthodoxy affirms the former but rejects the latter, because the early Church never taught, as Calvin did 1500 years later, that the Father punished or poured divine wrath onto the Son.

Do you really take Calvin's view over all of Christianity prior to him?

Isaiah 53 does not say "God punished Him", it says we mistakenly "esteemed" Him stricken by God, and the Septuagint's wording is sacrificial, not judicial. The Fathers unanimously teach that Christ died for us, as our Passover Lamb, as the One who destroys death by death, and as the One who heals human nature, not that the Trinity was divided or that the Father vented anger on the Son.

---

Jesus cried out on the cross - "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?"

Being forsaken by God - that is the "wrath of God" that is the punishment for sin, which Jesus took in our stead. This is clearly what Isaiah 53 is saying. "Wrath" doesn't mean that God "vented anger" on his son, it means just payment/punishment. And it certainly doesn't mean that the Trinity was divided, but rather that one person of the Trinity bore the judgement of the other, in our stead. This is the Gospel.

---

Brother..."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is directly from Psalm 22. Its one of the most highlighted prophetic scriptures.

Psalm 22 is literally a depiction of the crucifixion and starts out with: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". It's Jesus quoting the events of Psalm 22 in real time.

Many muslims have tried to to take your same argument to disprove Christianity. They're wrong.

Examples in Psalm 22 showing the crucifixion:
16 "Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet."

17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

---

Um, yes, I'm well aware of Psalm 22.

The anguish of Jesus having had the Father forsake him is him suffering the wrath of God that was due to us, in our stead. Jesus took the punishment for our sin, so that we can take Jesus' righteousness. This IS penal substitutionary atonement. It's what the prophetic scriptures (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) describe, yet Orthodoxy denies it. I have no idea what this has to do with the Muslim argument against Christianity.

---

Penal substitution makes God seem vengeful and Jesus a mere legal substitute, rather than a liberator from sin's power. Its been a topic and discussion for only about 230 years.

In order to hold your view, you must believe "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is the ultimate description of God's character which isn't surpassed by the law of love. If you deny this, your logic of penal substitution won't hold.

You have major problems with all the instances in the Bible where God forgives people without demanding a sacrifice: the prodigal son, The Ninevites (Book of Jonah), King David (2 Samuel 12), The Sinful Woman (Luke 7:36-50).

If God requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners, how did Jesus manage to hang out with sinners without a sacrifice, since he is as fully divine and as holy as God the Father?

How did you become a specific denomination?

For me I came to Christ later in life and found myself in the middle of splintering everywhere, with no idea where to go because everyone was claiming their theology was perfect. If you know anything about me from this board, you should know that I'm extremely skeptical and I don't just bend the knee to any claimed authority. The Baptist church I went to had some elders that were hardcore Calvinists teaching that evangelism is pointless while the pastor was simultaneously warning against Calvinism. It was bizarre. Every church I visited was their own mini papacy and so was every member. The disagreement was profound and not over little things.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

Part 2 of my response:

Jay Dyer cites many incorrect views, views that he built his theology on that led him to Orthodox Christianity:

1. that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins, i.e. that he wasn't "damned" by God - Scripture teaches that Jesus bore the wrath of God that we deserved. Isaiah 53:

"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed."

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief.
....Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
....yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors"


It is clear that Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, which Orthodox Christianity denies.

---

You're confusing substitutionary atonement with penal substitution, and Orthodoxy affirms the former but rejects the latter, because the early Church never taught, as Calvin did 1500 years later, that the Father punished or poured divine wrath onto the Son.

Do you really take Calvin's view over all of Christianity prior to him?

Isaiah 53 does not say "God punished Him", it says we mistakenly "esteemed" Him stricken by God, and the Septuagint's wording is sacrificial, not judicial. The Fathers unanimously teach that Christ died for us, as our Passover Lamb, as the One who destroys death by death, and as the One who heals human nature, not that the Trinity was divided or that the Father vented anger on the Son.

---

Jesus cried out on the cross - "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?"

Being forsaken by God - that is the "wrath of God" that is the punishment for sin, which Jesus took in our stead. This is clearly what Isaiah 53 is saying. "Wrath" doesn't mean that God "vented anger" on his son, it means just payment/punishment. And it certainly doesn't mean that the Trinity was divided, but rather that one person of the Trinity bore the judgement of the other, in our stead. This is the Gospel.

---

Brother..."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is directly from Psalm 22. Its one of the most highlighted prophetic scriptures.

Psalm 22 is literally a depiction of the crucifixion and starts out with: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". It's Jesus quoting the events of Psalm 22 in real time.

Many muslims have tried to to take your same argument to disprove Christianity. They're wrong.

Examples in Psalm 22 showing the crucifixion:
16 "Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet."

17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

---

Um, yes, I'm well aware of Psalm 22.

The anguish of Jesus having had the Father forsake him is him suffering the wrath of God that was due to us, in our stead. Jesus took the punishment for our sin, so that we can take Jesus' righteousness. This IS penal substitutionary atonement. It's what the prophetic scriptures (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) describe, yet Orthodoxy denies it. I have no idea what this has to do with the Muslim argument against Christianity.

---

Penal substitution makes God seem vengeful and Jesus a mere legal substitute, rather than a liberator from sin's power. Its been a topic and discussion for only about 230 years.

In order to hold your view, you must believe "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is the ultimate description of God's character which isn't surpassed by the law of love. If you deny this, your logic of penal substitution won't hold.

You have major problems with all the instances in the Bible where God forgives people without demanding a sacrifice: the prodigal son, The Ninevites (Book of Jonah), King David (2 Samuel 12), The Sinful Woman (Luke 7:36-50).

If God requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners, how did Jesus manage to hang out with sinners without a sacrifice, since he is as fully divine and as holy as God the Father?

---

Forgiveness is not atonement. They are related, but separate things. Forgiveness and fellowship with sinners is love, but penal substitution is required for ultimate atonement of sin - a debt is owed, and it must be paid. Otherwise, God's JUSTICE is violated.

God's character is BOTH justice and love. It's both "eye for an eye" and love. God's justice demands the debt of sin to be paid.... but he is also Love by paying for it himself so that we don't have to. This is the Gospel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

Part 2 of my response:

Jay Dyer cites many incorrect views, views that he built his theology on that led him to Orthodox Christianity:

1. that Jesus didn't take the punishment for our sins, i.e. that he wasn't "damned" by God - Scripture teaches that Jesus bore the wrath of God that we deserved. Isaiah 53:

"Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed."

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief.
....Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
....yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors"


It is clear that Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, which Orthodox Christianity denies.

---

You're confusing substitutionary atonement with penal substitution, and Orthodoxy affirms the former but rejects the latter, because the early Church never taught, as Calvin did 1500 years later, that the Father punished or poured divine wrath onto the Son.

Do you really take Calvin's view over all of Christianity prior to him?

Isaiah 53 does not say "God punished Him", it says we mistakenly "esteemed" Him stricken by God, and the Septuagint's wording is sacrificial, not judicial. The Fathers unanimously teach that Christ died for us, as our Passover Lamb, as the One who destroys death by death, and as the One who heals human nature, not that the Trinity was divided or that the Father vented anger on the Son.

---

Jesus cried out on the cross - "Father, Father, why have you forsaken me?"

Being forsaken by God - that is the "wrath of God" that is the punishment for sin, which Jesus took in our stead. This is clearly what Isaiah 53 is saying. "Wrath" doesn't mean that God "vented anger" on his son, it means just payment/punishment. And it certainly doesn't mean that the Trinity was divided, but rather that one person of the Trinity bore the judgement of the other, in our stead. This is the Gospel.

---

Brother..."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is directly from Psalm 22. Its one of the most highlighted prophetic scriptures.

Psalm 22 is literally a depiction of the crucifixion and starts out with: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". It's Jesus quoting the events of Psalm 22 in real time.

Many muslims have tried to to take your same argument to disprove Christianity. They're wrong.

Examples in Psalm 22 showing the crucifixion:
16 "Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet."

17 All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment.

---

Um, yes, I'm well aware of Psalm 22.

The anguish of Jesus having had the Father forsake him is him suffering the wrath of God that was due to us, in our stead. Jesus took the punishment for our sin, so that we can take Jesus' righteousness. This IS penal substitutionary atonement. It's what the prophetic scriptures (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22) describe, yet Orthodoxy denies it. I have no idea what this has to do with the Muslim argument against Christianity.

---

Penal substitution makes God seem vengeful and Jesus a mere legal substitute, rather than a liberator from sin's power. Its been a topic and discussion for only about 230 years.

In order to hold your view, you must believe "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is the ultimate description of God's character which isn't surpassed by the law of love. If you deny this, your logic of penal substitution won't hold.

You have major problems with all the instances in the Bible where God forgives people without demanding a sacrifice: the prodigal son, The Ninevites (Book of Jonah), King David (2 Samuel 12), The Sinful Woman (Luke 7:36-50).

If God requires that a sacrifice be made before he can fellowship with sinners, how did Jesus manage to hang out with sinners without a sacrifice, since he is as fully divine and as holy as God the Father?

---

Forgiveness is not atonement. They are related, but separate things. Forgiveness and fellowship with sinners is love, but penal substitution is required for ultimate atonement of sin - a debt is owed, and it must be paid. Otherwise, God's JUSTICE is violated.

God's character is BOTH justice and love. It's both "eye for an eye" and love. God's justice demands the debt of sin to be paid.... but he is also Love by paying for it himself so that we don't have to. This is the Gospel.

---

Atonement allows for forgiveness.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Brother..."My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" is directly from Psalm 22. Its one of the most highlighted prophetic scriptures.

---

That statement of Jesus bothered me for decades until I went through my Orthodox Catechism class and learned what it was about in its full context.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

My response to the video (part 1):

Josiah Trenham cites the oft repeated argument from James, that says we are justified by works, not by faith alone (James 2:24). But what James is saying is that justifying faith is a faith that does not exist alone, but also exists with works. He is still saying that faith is what saves, not works. But only a faith that produces works is a faith that saves. Works are only the evidence of that saving faith, not the means by which we are justified.

My question to you and Trenham is this: if James is truly saying that we are justified to righteousness before God by our works in addition to our faith, then isn't this in direct contradiction to Paul, who clearly and explicitly says these?:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2: 8,9

"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."- Romans 4:2,3


I think the problem is that RC's and Orthodoxy incorrectly understands "faith alone" to mean "faith that exists alone" - and to be even more precise, "someone claiming to have faith, which exists alone". No, "faith alone" means that its only our faith that is what saves us, not our performance - just as with the thief on the cross, the house of Cornelius, and just as Jesus said in Luke 7 to the sinful woman:

"And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."- Luke 7:48-50

---

Nope.

Paul is refuting legalism (Torah-keeping saves you).
James is refuting antinomianism ("I believe, therefore obedience doesn't matter.")

You're collapsing two different arguments into one category ("works") and assuming they are identical.

The theif on the cross was united to Christ sacramentally in the only way possible: through martyrdom (the Fathers literally call this "baptism by blood"). It's the exception, not the norm.

Cornelius was not saved when he believed. Peter explicitly says he still needed baptism (Acts 10:48). The descent of the Spirit preceded baptism only to demonstrate that Gentiles could enter the Church.

The faith of the sinful woma was her repentance, her devotion, her actions. Jesus praises her because she loved much (v. 47).
Her works weren't "evidence", they were the faith.

In Scripture, faith is always faithfulness. Not mental assent. Not an interior event. Not a Reformation slogan.

James contradicts your system, not Paul.
Paul contradicts your definitions, not James.

If your interpretation were correct, then all Christians everywhere misunderstood the Gospel until the 1500s.

---

Outstanding post.

Realitybites said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Watch this:

---

My response to the video (part 1):

Josiah Trenham cites the oft repeated argument from James, that says we are justified by works, not by faith alone (James 2:24). But what James is saying is that justifying faith is a faith that does not exist alone, but also exists with works. He is still saying that faith is what saves, not works. But only a faith that produces works is a faith that saves. Works are only the evidence of that saving faith, not the means by which we are justified.

My question to you and Trenham is this: if James is truly saying that we are justified to righteousness before God by our works in addition to our faith, then isn't this in direct contradiction to Paul, who clearly and explicitly says these?:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2: 8,9

"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."- Romans 4:2,3


I think the problem is that RC's and Orthodoxy incorrectly understands "faith alone" to mean "faith that exists alone" - and to be even more precise, "someone claiming to have faith, which exists alone". No, "faith alone" means that its only our faith that is what saves us, not our performance - just as with the thief on the cross, the house of Cornelius, and just as Jesus said in Luke 7 to the sinful woman:

"And he said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, "Who is this, who even forgives sins?" And he said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."- Luke 7:48-50

---

Nope.

Paul is refuting legalism (Torah-keeping saves you).
James is refuting antinomianism ("I believe, therefore obedience doesn't matter.")

You're collapsing two different arguments into one category ("works") and assuming they are identical.

The theif on the cross was united to Christ sacramentally in the only way possible: through martyrdom (the Fathers literally call this "baptism by blood"). It's the exception, not the norm.

Cornelius was not saved when he believed. Peter explicitly says he still needed baptism (Acts 10:48). The descent of the Spirit preceded baptism only to demonstrate that Gentiles could enter the Church.

The faith of the sinful woma was her repentance, her devotion, her actions. Jesus praises her because she loved much (v. 47).
Her works weren't "evidence", they were the faith.

In Scripture, faith is always faithfulness. Not mental assent. Not an interior event. Not a Reformation slogan.

James contradicts your system, not Paul.
Paul contradicts your definitions, not James.

If your interpretation were correct, then all Christians everywhere misunderstood the Gospel until the 1500s.

---

Outstanding post.

---

But wrong. As I detailed in my response. How do you answer it?

Oh, that's right. You "blocked" me so you can pretend it doesn't exist. If your church is really unable to answer me, one simple man thinking on his own, then does it really have the truth?

Yikes

Realitybites said:

---

Who removed the sinners prayer from the Bible?

It was included in the 1537 Matthew Bible, the 1599 Geneva Bible, and the 1611 King James Bible. Martin Luther included it in in his Bible translation to German. Yet it has vanished from most modern English translations. It is still recognized and chanted by the original church as part of its Great Compline prayer.

The text of the original sinners prayer: "O Lord Almighty, God of our ancestors, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of their righteous offspring, you who made heaven and earth with all their order, who shackled the sea by your word of command, who confined the deep and sealed it with your terrible and glorious name, at whom all things shudder and tremble before your power, for your glorious splendor cannot be borne, and the wrath of your threat to sinners is unendurable; yet immeasurable and unsearchable is your promised mercy, for you are the Lord Most High, of great compassion, long-suffering, and very merciful, and you relent at human suffering. O Lord, according to your great goodness you have promised repentance and forgiveness to those who have sinned against you, and in the multitude of your mercies you have appointed repentance for sinners, so that they may be saved. Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you, but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner.

For the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied! I am not worthy to look up and see the height of heaven because of the multitude of my iniquities. I am weighted down with many an iron fetter, so that I am rejected because of my sins, and I have no relief, for I have provoked your wrath and have done what is evil in your sight, setting up abominations and multiplying offenses.

And now I bend the knee of my heart, imploring you for your kindness. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my transgressions. I earnestly implore you, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me! Do not destroy me with my transgressions! Do not be angry with me forever or store up evil for me; do not condemn me to the depths of the earth. For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent, and in me you will manifest your goodness, for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy, and I will praise you continually all the days of my life. For all the host of heaven sings your praise, and yours is the glory forever. Amen."

Quite the mystery, isn't it, particularly given its depth compared to the typical "ask Jesus into your heart" version.

---

I've come to the conclusion you've erected a strawman. I don't know of a single protestant church that's I've attended, including those really irreverent bible-based churches that serve coffee in the lobby, have a rock concert for worship, and have cleanly shaven pastors who wear modern clothing, who believe that true repentance and a recognition of one's depravity is not required for salvation.

You might want to venture outside of that incense-burning decadent church with the fat, bearded pastor who likes to be called "Your imminence" from time to time, and see how the rest of Christendom works. I suspect you'd be quite shocked.

Realitybites said:

---

Who removed the sinners prayer from the Bible?

It was included in the 1537 Matthew Bible, the 1599 Geneva Bible, and the 1611 King James Bible. Martin Luther included it in in his Bible translation to German. Yet it has vanished from most modern English translations. It is still recognized and chanted by the original church as part of its Great Compline prayer.

The text of the original sinners prayer: "O Lord Almighty, God of our ancestors, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of their righteous offspring, you who made heaven and earth with all their order, who shackled the sea by your word of command, who confined the deep and sealed it with your terrible and glorious name, at whom all things shudder and tremble before your power, for your glorious splendor cannot be borne, and the wrath of your threat to sinners is unendurable; yet immeasurable and unsearchable is your promised mercy, for you are the Lord Most High, of great compassion, long-suffering, and very merciful, and you relent at human suffering. O Lord, according to your great goodness you have promised repentance and forgiveness to those who have sinned against you, and in the multitude of your mercies you have appointed repentance for sinners, so that they may be saved. Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you, but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner.

For the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied! I am not worthy to look up and see the height of heaven because of the multitude of my iniquities. I am weighted down with many an iron fetter, so that I am rejected because of my sins, and I have no relief, for I have provoked your wrath and have done what is evil in your sight, setting up abominations and multiplying offenses.

And now I bend the knee of my heart, imploring you for your kindness. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my transgressions. I earnestly implore you, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me! Do not destroy me with my transgressions! Do not be angry with me forever or store up evil for me; do not condemn me to the depths of the earth. For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent, and in me you will manifest your goodness, for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy, and I will praise you continually all the days of my life. For all the host of heaven sings your praise, and yours is the glory forever. Amen."

Quite the mystery, isn't it, particularly given its depth compared to the typical "ask Jesus into your heart" version.

---

Do you guys notice what's missing in this prayer?

Any guesses?

The difference is sola fide makes repentance, obedience, and transformation non-instrumental to salvation, and therefore collapses them into optional evidences rather than necessary means through which God saves and changes a person.

Pointing out that your churches prefer repentance doesn't answer the theological issue any more than sarcastic caricatures of Orthodoxy do. The fact remains that in your system repentance is not actually part of what saves a person, while in the historic Church salvation is a real participation in Christ that includes faith, repentance, and transformation for life.

I honestly feel like I'm taking crazy pills when arguing against sola fide, because Jesus gives us commandments, parables, warnings, and a whole pattern of life to follow, yet in many Protestant systems all of that ends up being treated as optional, good for spiritual growth, but not actually necessary for salvation. Christ doesn't just save us by giving us information to believe; He shows us how to live, and expects us to follow Him. In Orthodoxy that's taken seriously as a lifelong path of obedience and transformation, not something we can safely ignore because of a one-time moment of belief.

In most Protestant frameworks, daily repentance, spiritual discipline, and moral effort are signs that you're already saved, but they are not part of remaining in salvation. So a Protestant can believe they're saved even if their spiritual life grows cold, because their assurance is grounded in a past moment of faith. In Orthodoxy, daily repentance, prayer, fasting, confession, and participation in the sacraments are not just "evidence," they are the way we continue to cooperate with God's grace and actually grow in salvation. So the Orthodox Christian's daily life is shaped by the awareness that salvation is a lifelong commitment that requires ongoing synergy with God's grace, while the Protestant's daily life is often shaped by the belief that salvation is secure regardless of how spiritually disciplined, repentant, or obedient they are on a given day.

When you put that into the real world of temptation, you end up with people falling into sin while telling themselves, "It's okay, I'm already saved," because sola fide gives a built-in confidence even in willful sin. That's exactly why I can't accept it: Christ didn't just ask us to believe something once, He asked us to follow Him in a lifelong path of obedience, repentance, and transformation, not to treat His teachings as electives.

Rejecting sola fide is a more difficult and narrow path.

Doc Holliday said:

---

The difference is sola fide makes repentance, obedience, and transformation non-instrumental to salvation, and therefore collapses them into optional evidences rather than necessary means through which God saves and changes a person.

Pointing out that your churches prefer repentance doesn't answer the theological issue any more than sarcastic caricatures of Orthodoxy do. The fact remains that in your system repentance is not actually part of what saves a person, while in the historic Church salvation is a real participation in Christ that includes faith, repentance, and transformation for life.

I honestly feel like I'm taking crazy pills when arguing against sola fide, because Jesus gives us commandments, parables, warnings, and a whole pattern of life to follow, yet in many Protestant systems all of that ends up being treated as optional, good for spiritual growth, but not actually necessary for salvation. Christ doesn't just save us by giving us information to believe; He shows us how to live, and expects us to follow Him. In Orthodoxy that's taken seriously as a lifelong path of obedience and transformation, not something we can safely ignore because of a one-time moment of belief.

In most Protestant frameworks, daily repentance, spiritual discipline, and moral effort are signs that you're already saved, but they are not part of remaining in salvation. So a Protestant can believe they're saved even if their spiritual life grows cold, because their assurance is grounded in a past moment of faith. In Orthodoxy, daily repentance, prayer, fasting, confession, and participation in the sacraments are not just "evidence," they are the way we continue to cooperate with God's grace and actually grow in salvation. So the Orthodox Christian's daily life is shaped by the awareness that salvation is a lifelong commitment that requires ongoing synergy with God's grace, while the Protestant's daily life is often shaped by the belief that salvation is secure regardless of how spiritually disciplined, repentant, or obedient they are on a given day.

When you put that into the real world of temptation, you end up with people falling into sin while telling themselves, "It's okay, I'm already saved," because sola fide gives a built-in confidence even in willful sin. That's exactly why I can't accept it: Christ didn't just ask us to believe something once, He asked us to follow Him in a lifelong path of obedience, repentance, and transformation, not to treat His teachings as electives.

Rejecting sola fide is a more difficult and narrow path.

---

Don't have time to respond to all of this now, but you couldn't be more wrong in your initial premise.

Mothra said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The difference is sola fide makes repentance, obedience, and transformation non-instrumental to salvation, and therefore collapses them into optional evidences rather than necessary means through which God saves and changes a person.

Pointing out that your churches prefer repentance doesn't answer the theological issue any more than sarcastic caricatures of Orthodoxy do. The fact remains that in your system repentance is not actually part of what saves a person, while in the historic Church salvation is a real participation in Christ that includes faith, repentance, and transformation for life.

I honestly feel like I'm taking crazy pills when arguing against sola fide, because Jesus gives us commandments, parables, warnings, and a whole pattern of life to follow, yet in many Protestant systems all of that ends up being treated as optional, good for spiritual growth, but not actually necessary for salvation. Christ doesn't just save us by giving us information to believe; He shows us how to live, and expects us to follow Him. In Orthodoxy that's taken seriously as a lifelong path of obedience and transformation, not something we can safely ignore because of a one-time moment of belief.

In most Protestant frameworks, daily repentance, spiritual discipline, and moral effort are signs that you're already saved, but they are not part of remaining in salvation. So a Protestant can believe they're saved even if their spiritual life grows cold, because their assurance is grounded in a past moment of faith. In Orthodoxy, daily repentance, prayer, fasting, confession, and participation in the sacraments are not just "evidence," they are the way we continue to cooperate with God's grace and actually grow in salvation. So the Orthodox Christian's daily life is shaped by the awareness that salvation is a lifelong commitment that requires ongoing synergy with God's grace, while the Protestant's daily life is often shaped by the belief that salvation is secure regardless of how spiritually disciplined, repentant, or obedient they are on a given day.

When you put that into the real world of temptation, you end up with people falling into sin while telling themselves, "It's okay, I'm already saved," because sola fide gives a built-in confidence even in willful sin. That's exactly why I can't accept it: Christ didn't just ask us to believe something once, He asked us to follow Him in a lifelong path of obedience, repentance, and transformation, not to treat His teachings as electives.

Rejecting sola fide is a more difficult and narrow path.

---

Don't have time to respond to all of this now, but you couldn't be more wrong in your initial premise.

---

Sola Fide was a response to roman catholic abuses: indulgences, financial corruption, legalistic understanding of merit etc. The reformers didn't think a few hundred years later that people would twist it into a casual consequence-free version of sola fide that dominates modern evangelicalism.

Luther and Calvin both insisted that salvation required ongoing repentance, mortification of sin, obedience, and participation in the sacraments, and both believed that a person could fall away through deliberate, unrepentant sin. They share the view of the Orthodox.

Doc Holliday said:

---

The difference is sola fide makes repentance, obedience, and transformation non-instrumental to salvation, and therefore collapses them into optional evidences rather than necessary means through which God saves and changes a person.

Pointing out that your churches prefer repentance doesn't answer the theological issue any more than sarcastic caricatures of Orthodoxy do. The fact remains that in your system repentance is not actually part of what saves a person, while in the historic Church salvation is a real participation in Christ that includes faith, repentance, and transformation for life.

I honestly feel like I'm taking crazy pills when arguing against sola fide, because Jesus gives us commandments, parables, warnings, and a whole pattern of life to follow, yet in many Protestant systems all of that ends up being treated as optional, good for spiritual growth, but not actually necessary for salvation. Christ doesn't just save us by giving us information to believe; He shows us how to live, and expects us to follow Him. In Orthodoxy that's taken seriously as a lifelong path of obedience and transformation, not something we can safely ignore because of a one-time moment of belief.

In most Protestant frameworks, daily repentance, spiritual discipline, and moral effort are signs that you're already saved, but they are not part of remaining in salvation. So a Protestant can believe they're saved even if their spiritual life grows cold, because their assurance is grounded in a past moment of faith. In Orthodoxy, daily repentance, prayer, fasting, confession, and participation in the sacraments are not just "evidence," they are the way we continue to cooperate with God's grace and actually grow in salvation. So the Orthodox Christian's daily life is shaped by the awareness that salvation is a lifelong commitment that requires ongoing synergy with God's grace, while the Protestant's daily life is often shaped by the belief that salvation is secure regardless of how spiritually disciplined, repentant, or obedient they are on a given day.

When you put that into the real world of temptation, you end up with people falling into sin while telling themselves, "It's okay, I'm already saved," because sola fide gives a built-in confidence even in willful sin. That's exactly why I can't accept it: Christ didn't just ask us to believe something once, He asked us to follow Him in a lifelong path of obedience, repentance, and transformation, not to treat His teachings as electives.

Rejecting sola fide is a more difficult and narrow path.

---

I'll let Mothra respond to the meat of your post, but I wanted to point out that you continue to mischaracterize what sola fide means. In order to set up your straw man, you continually present sola fide as "I believed at one time, now I can sin all I want". In other words, not "faith alone", but "claimed faith that exists alone".

Sola fide just means that faith is what saves, not the fruit of that faith. Fruit will be present in those with real faith, given time. As I said before, how much and how fast this fruit appears is going to vary among believers. Different believers have different problems, different "demons" to fight. In some cases, someone with real faith might struggle against their demons and die only showing little fruit, or even none at all depending on the case.

The issue with your Orthodox view, that the fruit is the means by which we are saved (i.e., the fruit IS the faith), is that it puts the onus on the individual believer's performance to become saved, and their ultimate trust rests on this rather than on Jesus' completed work. It makes them always ask "Have I done enough to be saved?". Not only does this contradict the clear teaching of Paul, that we are saved by faith, not by our works, it makes a believer's assurance impossible. According to your view, we can never know if we've done enough and thus are saved. But that is in direct contradiction to Scripture which says, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life". My question to you, then, is this: how can John write that, if he has no idea where those believers are in their spiritual journey, or how well they've "followed Jesus"? The only stipulation he puts on salvation, it seems, is that we "believe". That's sola fide.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yikes

---

"Yikes", what?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Who removed the sinners prayer from the Bible?

It was included in the 1537 Matthew Bible, the 1599 Geneva Bible, and the 1611 King James Bible. Martin Luther included it in in his Bible translation to German. Yet it has vanished from most modern English translations. It is still recognized and chanted by the original church as part of its Great Compline prayer.

The text of the original sinners prayer: "O Lord Almighty, God of our ancestors, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of their righteous offspring, you who made heaven and earth with all their order, who shackled the sea by your word of command, who confined the deep and sealed it with your terrible and glorious name, at whom all things shudder and tremble before your power, for your glorious splendor cannot be borne, and the wrath of your threat to sinners is unendurable; yet immeasurable and unsearchable is your promised mercy, for you are the Lord Most High, of great compassion, long-suffering, and very merciful, and you relent at human suffering. O Lord, according to your great goodness you have promised repentance and forgiveness to those who have sinned against you, and in the multitude of your mercies you have appointed repentance for sinners, so that they may be saved. Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you, but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner.

For the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied! I am not worthy to look up and see the height of heaven because of the multitude of my iniquities. I am weighted down with many an iron fetter, so that I am rejected because of my sins, and I have no relief, for I have provoked your wrath and have done what is evil in your sight, setting up abominations and multiplying offenses.

And now I bend the knee of my heart, imploring you for your kindness. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my transgressions. I earnestly implore you, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me! Do not destroy me with my transgressions! Do not be angry with me forever or store up evil for me; do not condemn me to the depths of the earth. For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent, and in me you will manifest your goodness, for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy, and I will praise you continually all the days of my life. For all the host of heaven sings your praise, and yours is the glory forever. Amen."

Quite the mystery, isn't it, particularly given its depth compared to the typical "ask Jesus into your heart" version.

---

Do you guys notice what's missing in this prayer?

Any guesses?

---

No guesses? Something, maybe a special someone that is missing entirely in this prayer?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Yikes

---

"Yikes", what?

---

Always a good, hearty discussion here. I LOVE it!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The difference is sola fide makes repentance, obedience, and transformation non-instrumental to salvation, and therefore collapses them into optional evidences rather than necessary means through which God saves and changes a person.

Pointing out that your churches prefer repentance doesn't answer the theological issue any more than sarcastic caricatures of Orthodoxy do. The fact remains that in your system repentance is not actually part of what saves a person, while in the historic Church salvation is a real participation in Christ that includes faith, repentance, and transformation for life.

I honestly feel like I'm taking crazy pills when arguing against sola fide, because Jesus gives us commandments, parables, warnings, and a whole pattern of life to follow, yet in many Protestant systems all of that ends up being treated as optional, good for spiritual growth, but not actually necessary for salvation. Christ doesn't just save us by giving us information to believe; He shows us how to live, and expects us to follow Him. In Orthodoxy that's taken seriously as a lifelong path of obedience and transformation, not something we can safely ignore because of a one-time moment of belief.

In most Protestant frameworks, daily repentance, spiritual discipline, and moral effort are signs that you're already saved, but they are not part of remaining in salvation. So a Protestant can believe they're saved even if their spiritual life grows cold, because their assurance is grounded in a past moment of faith. In Orthodoxy, daily repentance, prayer, fasting, confession, and participation in the sacraments are not just "evidence," they are the way we continue to cooperate with God's grace and actually grow in salvation. So the Orthodox Christian's daily life is shaped by the awareness that salvation is a lifelong commitment that requires ongoing synergy with God's grace, while the Protestant's daily life is often shaped by the belief that salvation is secure regardless of how spiritually disciplined, repentant, or obedient they are on a given day.

When you put that into the real world of temptation, you end up with people falling into sin while telling themselves, "It's okay, I'm already saved," because sola fide gives a built-in confidence even in willful sin. That's exactly why I can't accept it: Christ didn't just ask us to believe something once, He asked us to follow Him in a lifelong path of obedience, repentance, and transformation, not to treat His teachings as electives.

Rejecting sola fide is a more difficult and narrow path.

---

I'll let Mothra respond to the meat of your post, but I wanted to point out that you continue to mischaracterize what sola fide means. In order to set up your straw man, you continually present sola fide as "I believed at one time, now I can sin all I want". In other words, not "faith alone", but "claimed faith that exists alone".

Sola fide just means that faith is what saves, not the fruit of that faith. Fruit will be present in those with real faith, given time. As I said before, how much and how fast this fruit appears is going to vary among believers. Different believers have different problems, different "demons" to fight. In some cases, someone with real faith might struggle against their demons and die only showing little fruit, or even none at all depending on the case.

The issue with your Orthodox view, that the fruit is the means by which we are saved (i.e., the fruit IS the faith), is that it puts the onus on the individual believer's performance to become saved, and their ultimate trust rests on this rather than on Jesus' completed work. It makes them always ask "Have I done enough to be saved?". Not only does this contradict the clear teaching of Paul, that we are saved by faith, not by our works, it makes a believer's assurance impossible. According to your view, we can never know if we've done enough and thus are saved. But that is in direct contradiction to Scripture which says, "I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life". My question to you, then, is this: how can John write that, if he has no idea where those believers are in their spiritual journey, or how well they've "followed Jesus"? The only stipulation he puts on salvation, it seems, is that we "believe". That's sola fide.

---

Jesus says, "Every branch that does not bear fruit is cut off" (John 15), not because fruit earns salvation, but because life in Christ always produces fruit when we actually abide in Him. Your model says fruit does not matter for salvation; Christ says it is the very sign of remaining in Him. That is not salvation through works, its salvation as communion.

Once saved, always saved is a dominant belief in huge portions of American Evangelicalism, Baptist traditions, nondenominational churches, many Reformed groups. Tens of millions worldwide hold it and they got it from sola fide. Many of them have and will deny Christ later on after they claimed salvation. That's nowhere close to your definitions of sola fide.
This creates a problem for sola fide: there's a built-in contradiction when people who were once considered "saved" later deny Christ: either A) their original faith wasn't real, meaning they were never truly saved in the first place, which destroys any claim to assurance because no one can ever know whether their faith is genuine, or B) they remain saved despite rejecting Christ, which contradicts Scripture, Christ's warnings, and the entire historic Christian Tradition. Either way, sola fide ends up undermining itself.

We should reject despair and reject presumption. The apostles never taught the kind of airtight, mathematical certainty you're describing. "That you may know you have eternal life" is not a guarantee based on a past moment of belief but the confidence that comes from present communion with Christ, walking in the light, keeping His commandments (1 John 2:36), loving the brethren (3:14), and purifying ourselves as He is pure (3:3). John immediately follows his assurance with warnings: "If anyone says 'I know Him' but does not keep His commandments, he is a liar" (2:4). That is not sola fide.

If faith can be lost, salvation can be lost.
If faith is alive, salvation is alive.
If faith dies, salvation dies.