BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The apostle Paul was abundantly clear that adding works to faith nullifies grace, and thus it ceases to be the gospel.

---

St Paul was discussing works of the Mosaic Law like circumcision.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your reference to James has been dealt with over and over. The "justification" that James speaks of there is not the justification that makes sinners righteous before God. It's the kind of "justification" that means "proven". But God doesn't need this proof, it's only an external proof for man.

---

Wow, you are a great dancer for someone who went to a Baptist school. Please let out some verses and early Church sources which can verify this claim.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you believe that James is saying that works are how sinners are justified to righteousness before God, then you're saying that James is in contradiction with Paul. You've got a pretty serious dilemma there.

---

I've never said that they are in contradiction. What I've stated is that you misunderstand Paul's discussion of what you believe to be faith-alone.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, no, you TRIED to demonstrate it, but failed. You're only looking dishonest by denying the clear and unambiguous language of Augustine.

Your views just don't line up with accurate church history. The views of the "Real Presence" amongst the church fathers did not all involve transsubstantiation. The symbolic/spiritual view was held by many, and many others had an overlapping view. But in regards to Augustine in particular, prominent historians J.N.D Kelly and Philip Schaff both affirm the non-literal, symbolic/spiritual view of the Eucharist by Augustine:

"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestionably realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour's body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period (4th century) in at least two different ways, and these interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and the reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease of life through the powerful influence of Augustine." - (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp.440-441, 445-446).



"The doctrine of the Lord's Supper became the subject of two controversies in the Western church, especially in France. The first took place in the middle of the ninth century between Paschius Radbertus and Ratramnus, the other in the middle of the eleventh century between Berengar and Lanfranc. In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. the one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith … The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustine in the West…" - (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), pp. 544-545).

---

Color me impressed.

You found two protestants that claim that Augustine "affirms the non-literal, symbolic/spiritual view of the Eucharist". I bet you could find me some fat girls at McDonald's at lunchtime ordering a Big Mac and a Diet Coke.

Having said that, J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior's body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

"Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord's real humanity" (ibid., 19798).

"Hippolytus speaks of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as 'the Lord's body.' The converted pagan, he remarks, 'feeds on the richness of the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist.' The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist 'the flesh feeds upon Christ's body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.' Clearly his assumption is that the Savior's body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian's attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, 'do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.' Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 21112).

So, will you accept that "prominent historian" JND Kelly fully and completely affirms that from the beginning of the Church ("outset"), the Real Presence was believed?

JND Kelly confirms what I've said this entire time, that the Real Presence was believed by the Church since Apostolic times.

I wanted to add at least one Catholic source concerning Augustine's belief in the Real Presence:

From Dr. Lawrence Feingold, theologian and philosopher, who came from a family that had roots in Judaism, but he himself grew up agnostic. He and his wife both converted to Catholicism -

St. Augustine's theology of the Eucharist stresses its proper effect, which is the unity of the Mystical Body. It has this effect of binding together the Mystical Body of Christ precisely because the members of the Church receive the real Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, the charity that binds the Church together is the proper effect of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.

In this way St. Augustine is also stressing the realism of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, present under the sacramental species. (The Eucharist: Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, Emmaus Academic, 2018)

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sorry yes, in this context I meant the Catholic Church's late medieval praxis and categories were genuinely legalistic in the way that Protestants are very legalistic. The Reformation didn't eliminate legalism, it redistributed it. By the late medieval period, both Western Catholicism and emerging Protestantism tended to frame salvation in legal categories, just in different ways. Thankfully Catholics don't have these same issues anymore

---

Thanks for your response. I've never heard nor read that before. I'm not saying that it isn't true, but it does sound strange given that, from what I understand, we have both had the same (for the most part) views on salvation. Couple that with, also (FWIU) the Catholic view has never changed. It may have been more fully defined, but it couldn't have changed.

You don't have to post here, but I would appreciate if you could PM me some articles about the "late medieval praxis" so that I can research them.

---

What I'm referring to by "late medieval praxis" isn't a change in the Church's dogmatic teaching on salvation, but a distorted and overly juridical application of it in certain periods, especially indulgence practices.

In the late medieval period there was a widespread emphasis on satisfactions, merits, indulgences, and fear of purgatorial punishment that often functioned as if salvation were transactional. Ex. Indulgences were preached as if they reduced time in purgatory. Financial offerings became entangled with indulgences.

These issues basically created the reformation. Catholics eventually condemned these abuses.

Orthodoxy never had this kind of legalism or issues. That's where I was coming from on this.

Heiko A. Oberman is probably the leading source on this topic.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The apostle Paul was abundantly clear that adding works to faith nullifies grace, and thus it ceases to be the gospel.

---

St Paul was discussing works of the Mosaic Law like circumcision.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Your reference to James has been dealt with over and over. The "justification" that James speaks of there is not the justification that makes sinners righteous before God. It's the kind of "justification" that means "proven". But God doesn't need this proof, it's only an external proof for man.

---

Wow, you are a great dancer for someone who went to a Baptist school. Please let out some verses and early Church sources which can verify this claim.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you believe that James is saying that works are how sinners are justified to righteousness before God, then you're saying that James is in contradiction with Paul. You've got a pretty serious dilemma there.

---

I've never said that they are in contradiction. What I've stated is that you misunderstand Paul's discussion of what you believe to be faith-alone.

---

Paul wasn't just talking about the Mosaic Law, he was abundantly clear in saying that adding ANY work to grace destroys grace, and thus the gospel. It would make no sense for Paul to be only talking about the Torah, that he'd be perfectly fine with adding the works of Buddhism or Hari Krishnas. You're failing at the concept.

My "claim" about James is nothing more than understanding what James is actually saying. The whole witness of the New Testament, even from Jesus himself, is that faith alone is what saves you (thief on the cross, sinful woman of Luke 7, house of Cornelius). It's the ENTIRE thesis of Paul. James isn't all of sudden coming in there and saying that works justifies you to righteousness, contrary to the whole New Testament. Paul couldn't have been more explicit - "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does NOT work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (emphasis mine). Paul is also abundantly clear that that justification to righteousness happens at the moment you believe, even before you perform a single work (Romans 4:9-10, Ephesians 1:13-14).

If you are saying that James is saying that works justify you to righteousness in God's eyes, then yes, you ARE saying James is in contradiction to Paul, as well as to Jesus.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Well, no, you TRIED to demonstrate it, but failed. You're only looking dishonest by denying the clear and unambiguous language of Augustine.

Your views just don't line up with accurate church history. The views of the "Real Presence" amongst the church fathers did not all involve transsubstantiation. The symbolic/spiritual view was held by many, and many others had an overlapping view. But in regards to Augustine in particular, prominent historians J.N.D Kelly and Philip Schaff both affirm the non-literal, symbolic/spiritual view of the Eucharist by Augustine:

"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestionably realist, i.e. the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Saviour's body and blood. Among theologians, however, this identity was interpreted in our period (4th century) in at least two different ways, and these interpretations, mutually exclusive though they were in strict logic, were often allowed to overlap. In the first place, the figurative or symbolical view, which stressed the distinction between the visible elements and the reality they represented, still claimed a measure of support. It harked back, as we have seen, to Tertullian and Cyprian, and was given a renewed lease of life through the powerful influence of Augustine." - (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp.440-441, 445-446).



"The doctrine of the Lord's Supper became the subject of two controversies in the Western church, especially in France. The first took place in the middle of the ninth century between Paschius Radbertus and Ratramnus, the other in the middle of the eleventh century between Berengar and Lanfranc. In both cases the conflict was between a materialistic and a spiritualistic conception of the sacrament and its effect. the one was based on a literal, the other on a figurative interpretation of the words of institution, and of the mysterious discourse in the sixth chapter of St. John. The contending parties agreed in the belief that Christ is present in the eucharist as the bread of life to believers; but they differed widely in their conception of the mode of that presence: the one held that Christ was literally and corporeally present and communicated to all communicants through the mouth; the other, that he was spiritually present and spiritually communicated to believers through faith … The spiritual theory was backed by the all-powerful authority of St. Augustine in the West…" - (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), pp. 544-545).

---

Color me impressed.

You found two protestants that claim that Augustine "affirms the non-literal, symbolic/spiritual view of the Eucharist". I bet you could find me some fat girls at McDonald's at lunchtime ordering a Big Mac and a Diet Coke.

Having said that, J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior's body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

"Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord's real humanity" (ibid., 19798).

"Hippolytus speaks of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as 'the Lord's body.' The converted pagan, he remarks, 'feeds on the richness of the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist.' The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist 'the flesh feeds upon Christ's body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.' Clearly his assumption is that the Savior's body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian's attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, 'do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.' Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 21112).

So, will you accept that "prominent historian" JND Kelly fully and completely affirms that from the beginning of the Church ("outset"), the Real Presence was believed?

JND Kelly confirms what I've said this entire time, that the Real Presence was believed by the Church since Apostolic times.

I wanted to add at least one Catholic source concerning Augustine's belief in the Real Presence:

From Dr. Lawrence Feingold, theologian and philosopher, who came from a family that had roots in Judaism, but he himself grew up agnostic. He and his wife both converted to Catholicism -

St. Augustine's theology of the Eucharist stresses its proper effect, which is the unity of the Mystical Body. It has this effect of binding together the Mystical Body of Christ precisely because the members of the Church receive the real Body and Blood of Christ. In other words, the charity that binds the Church together is the proper effect of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.

In this way St. Augustine is also stressing the realism of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, present under the sacramental species. (The Eucharist: Mystery of Presence, Sacrifice, and Communion, Emmaus Academic, 2018)

---

So - "MY historians are better than YOUR historians". Sheesh.

And can you see what you're doing? You're retreating from your original argument, a la motte-and-bailey style, that Jesus was being literal in John 6 and in the Last Supper. You're now making the more modest claim, that it's the "Real Presence" that the church always believed in - but the "Real Presence" was defined differently by the church fathers. Some viewed it as being literal, some symbolic/spiritual. The "realism" that the church fathers believed in was not necessarily transsubstantiation. I think you are finally conceding this in a way where you can preserve your pride. Whatever it takes.

I think you knew you HAD to concede it, because the evidence is clear - all the church fathers did NOT believe that Jesus was being literal in John 6 and the Last Supper - and any further denying it would only make you look foolish.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Grace initiates, sustains, and completes salvation, but it does so by actually making us righteous, not by declaring us righteous while leaving us unchanged.

I'm not denying that God saves those who die before works can mature. What I'm denying is that faith can be redefined as something that explicitly excludes the will to obey. This is what sola fide does and what you're doing.

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

This passage is addressed to believers:
1 Corinthians 6:910
"Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There are millions of Christians who openly persist in the very sins Paul lists: sexual immorality, greed, drunkenness, reviling, while confidently assuming that a past act of belief has already secured their salvation. They do not repent, they do not struggle, they do not wage war against sin, because they have been taught that faith alone has already punched their ticket to heaven.

You want to know why so many people are leaving Protestantism? Because Protestant churches have no binding fasting disciplines, no shared prayer rule, no expectation of regular bodily asceticism, and no coherent framework for training the will against the passions. Protestants will insist, correctly on their own terms, that sola fide does not forbid transformation or victory over sin. They'll say sanctification necessarily follows justification. The problem is that sola fide makes transformation non-causal with respect to salvation. Obedience, repentance, ascetic struggle, sacraments, none of these do anything salvific: they only demonstrate something that's already guaranteed. Once that move is made, transformation becomes advisory rather than necessary, exhortative rather than existential.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Paul wasn't just talking about the Mosaic Law, he was abundantly clear in saying that adding ANY work to grace destroys grace, and thus the gospel. It would make no sense for Paul to be only talking about the Torah, that he'd be perfectly fine with adding the works of Buddhism or Hari Krishnas. You're failing at the concept.

---

Are Buddhist or Hari Kristians mentioned in the Bible?

This comment makes no sense. In Romans 11, and throughout his letters, St Paul was referring to works of the Mosaic Law. He states that circumcision, dietary laws, and other ceremonial practices were no longer necessary. Specifically in Rom 11, Paul discusses the mystery of Israel's unbelief and God's plan for salvation history. The grace, mentioned in Romans 11:6 shows that both Gentiles and Jews are saved by faith apart from the ceremonial laws.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

My "claim" about James is nothing more than understanding what James is actually saying. The whole witness of the New Testament, even from Jesus himself, is that faith alone is what saves you (thief on the cross, sinful woman of Luke 7, house of Cornelius). It's the ENTIRE thesis of Paul. James isn't all of sudden coming in there and saying that works justifies you to righteousness, contrary to the whole New Testament. Paul couldn't have been more explicit - "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does NOT work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (emphasis mine). Paul is also abundantly clear that that justification to righteousness happens at the moment you believe, even before you perform a single work (Romans 4:9-10, Ephesians 1:13-14).

---

In James 2:19, he says

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe thatand shudder.

So, are demons saved since they believe?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you are saying that James is saying that works justify you to righteousness in God's eyes, then yes, you ARE saying James is in contradiction to Paul, as well as to Jesus.

---

You are creating a strawman argument again. No one is saying that. Neither Catholics nor Orthodox teach a "works-based" salvation. Doc Holiday says it much better than I can with his quote from his previous post listed below.

Doc Holliday said:

---

This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

This is an excellent statement showing that "faith-alone" is not what St Paul meant.

Quote:

---

What I'm referring to by "late medieval praxis" isn't a change in the Church's dogmatic teaching on salvation, but a distorted and overly juridical application of it in certain periods, especially indulgence practices.

In the late medieval period there was a widespread emphasis on satisfactions, merits, indulgences, and fear of purgatorial punishment that often functioned as if salvation were transactional. Ex. Indulgences were preached as if they reduced time in purgatory. Financial offerings became entangled with indulgences.

---

Thank you for providing specifics.

While I can't speak with any authority on this period with respect to your claim, I don't have a problem with people in the Church preaching merit, indulgences, or fear of purgatorial punishment. Whether that was over-emphasized at the time, I don't know. I will have to research.

I understand that the Orthodox do believe in a process of purification after death, which doesn't use juridical terms or articulate a doctrine like purgatory, they do state that the departed can continued to be purified and perfected through the grace of God.

I fully admit that some in the Church abused what was supposed to be good (indulgences) for their personal evil.

Doc Holliday said:

---

These issues basically created the reformation rebellion. Catholics eventually condemned these abuses.

---

FIFY

Unfortunately, the abuses with a few in the Church, coupled with the political climate in Europe, and a too-slow responding Church led to this rebellion.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Heiko A. Oberman is probably the leading source on this topic.

---

I haven't heard of him, but I will see if I can discover anything more about this period or anything from him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So - "MY historians are better than YOUR historians". Sheesh.

---

Strawman fallacy much? I never said, nor implied that. I merely pointed out that you, presenting protestant historians in to attempt to demonstrate that you were right is silly. OF COURSE, a protestant historian would believe that Augustine meant symbolic. I simply provided a respected Catholic theologian and philosopher to do the same. It's like asking your wife to testify on your behalf a trial. It was silly to bring that to the table.

Then I embarrassed you by showing that your protestant historian, JND Kelly, FULLY believed that MANY of the earliest Church Fathers believed in the literal sense of the Real Presence. I noticed that you didn't respond to that.

PS. JND Kelly also states that, "Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And can you see what you're doing? You're retreating from your original argument, a la motte-and-bailey style, that Jesus was being literal in John 6 and in the Last Supper. You're now making the more modest claim, that it's the "Real Presence" that the church always believed in - but the "Real Presence" was defined differently by the church fathers. Some viewed it as being literal, some symbolic/spiritual. The "realism" that the church fathers believed in was not necessarily transsubstantiation. I think you are finally conceding this in a way where you can preserve your pride. Whatever it takes.

---

I am in no way retreating from my position.

I will be VERY clear and type slowly so that you can understand my position

• In John 6 and the Last Supper, Jesus meant literal.
• Paul and the Apostles eventually knew that Jesus meant literal.
• The Church Fathers believed that Jesus meant literal.
• The Catholic Church has NEVER said that a symbolic nature of the Eucharist doesn't exist; however, it is a BOTH/AND concept.
• The Church Fathers did not use the Aristotelian concepts of "accidents and substance" that the 4th Lateral Council used to define Transubstantiation; however, it doesn't negate the fact that their understanding that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. They believed that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus which could be worshiped as such.

The concept of Transubstantiation is like the concepts of the Hypostatic Union and Dyothelitism. Just because they weren't defined until later, doesn't mean that they are true. Just like Math concepts they've always have existed; however, it took time for people to discover them.

I have NOT walked-back any of my positions on the Eucharist.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think you knew you HAD to concede it, because the evidence is clear - all the church fathers did NOT believe that Jesus was being literal in John 6 and the Last Supper - and any further denying it would only make you look foolish.

---

How do I look foolish when your protestant historian JND Kelly even stated
"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior's body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440)?

Seriously, I don't understand which words that you are getting hung up upon. It is possible that we are talking past one another. If we need to return to the beginning to establish definitions for certain terms, then let's do so.

Finally, I would also suggest that you remove the insults from your posts. They don't strengthen or support your point. They only make your posts appear insecure.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Paul wasn't just talking about the Mosaic Law, he was abundantly clear in saying that adding ANY work to grace destroys grace, and thus the gospel. It would make no sense for Paul to be only talking about the Torah, that he'd be perfectly fine with adding the works of Buddhism or Hari Krishnas. You're failing at the concept.

---

Are Buddhist or Hari Kristians mentioned in the Bible?

This comment makes no sense. In Romans 11, and throughout his letters, St Paul was referring to works of the Mosaic Law. He states that circumcision, dietary laws, and other ceremonial practices were no longer necessary. Specifically in Rom 11, Paul discusses the mystery of Israel's unbelief and God's plan for salvation history. The grace, mentioned in Romans 11:6 shows that both Gentiles and Jews are saved by faith apart from the ceremonial laws. ==> Paul's point is clearly that anything added to grace in terms of human performance causes grace to no longer be grace. It's a simple logical argument. If you think that this only applies to the laws of the Torah, it shows you completely failed to understand Paul's whole point, as well as the gospel itself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

My "claim" about James is nothing more than understanding what James is actually saying. The whole witness of the New Testament, even from Jesus himself, is that faith alone is what saves you (thief on the cross, sinful woman of Luke 7, house of Cornelius). It's the ENTIRE thesis of Paul. James isn't all of sudden coming in there and saying that works justifies you to righteousness, contrary to the whole New Testament. Paul couldn't have been more explicit - "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does NOT work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness" (emphasis mine). Paul is also abundantly clear that that justification to righteousness happens at the moment you believe, even before you perform a single work (Romans 4:9-10, Ephesians 1:13-14).

---

In James 2:19, he says

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe thatand shudder.

So, are demons saved since they believe? ==> is believing that "there is one God" the gospel? Good lord, how many times are you going to make this stupid argument?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

If you are saying that James is saying that works justify you to righteousness in God's eyes, then yes, you ARE saying James is in contradiction to Paul, as well as to Jesus.

---

You are creating a strawman argument again. No one is saying that. Neither Catholics nor Orthodox teach a "works-based" salvation. Doc Holiday says it much better than I can with his quote from his previous post listed below. ==> No, that is exactly what you're saying. You're just re-defining "faith" and "works" to where you can say you're not believing in a works based salvation, but you really are. The fact that you have a system of mortal sins, and loss of salvation if you don't perform the mass, etc are exactly a works-based salvation.

Doc Holliday said:

---

This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

This is an excellent statement showing that "faith-alone" is not what St Paul meant. ==> This is the perfect example of how you redefine faith by adding works to it. Paul clearly said that we're justified merely by our belief, BEFORE any work or effort to obey on our part, in the same way Abraham was. That is his whole point in the beginning of Romans. Faith does work through love, but that is the evidence of a real faith, it is not what justifies as. Paul couldn't have been any clearer. If you're denying this, you're denying Paul and Scripture.

---

Responses in bold above.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

So - "MY historians are better than YOUR historians". Sheesh.

---

Strawman fallacy much? I never said, nor implied that. I merely pointed out that you, presenting protestant historians in to attempt to demonstrate that you were right is silly. OF COURSE, a protestant historian would believe that Augustine meant symbolic. I simply provided a respected Catholic theologian and philosopher to do the same. It's like asking your wife to testify on your behalf a trial. It was silly to bring that to the table. ==> they are legitimate, notable theologians and church historians. You are dismissing them because you're accusing them of being dishonest due to bias. This is absolutely ridiculous, and is a fallacy in of itself. The Catholic historian you quoted isn't really saying that Augustine necessarily believed in transsubstantiation, only that he believed in its "realism", which could have been in a spiritual sense, not physical, as both Kelly and Schaff assert. So there isn't any contradiction there.

Then I embarrassed you by showing that your protestant historian, JND Kelly, FULLY believed that MANY of the earliest Church Fathers believed in the literal sense of the Real Presence. I noticed that you didn't respond to that. ==> HOW does that "embarass" me? I think you're creating your own reality in your own mind. My argument was NOT that ALL church fathers didn't believe in the literal Real Presence in the literal, physical sense. My argument was that AUGUSTINE did not, and he did not believe that Jesus was being literal in John 6, which I proved by showing where he literal says that. Your argument was that the literal interpretation of both was "what the Church always believed" and that it was what Augustine believed. I actually embarassed YOU by clearly showing that this was entirely wrong. Many of the church fathers did not believe that. You can't claim that the "Church" believed something when there was no consensus.

PS. JND Kelly also states that, "Peter was the undisputed leader of the youthful church."

==> SO? You've got a loooong way to go to even show historian consensus that a single, ruling bishop of Rome even existed prior to around 150 AD. As well as the concepts of papal supremacy, inerrancy, and succession.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And can you see what you're doing? You're retreating from your original argument, a la motte-and-bailey style, that Jesus was being literal in John 6 and in the Last Supper. You're now making the more modest claim, that it's the "Real Presence" that the church always believed in - but the "Real Presence" was defined differently by the church fathers. Some viewed it as being literal, some symbolic/spiritual. The "realism" that the church fathers believed in was not necessarily transsubstantiation. I think you are finally conceding this in a way where you can preserve your pride. Whatever it takes.

---

I am in no way retreating from my position.

I will be VERY clear and type slowly so that you can understand my position

• In John 6 and the Last Supper, Jesus meant literal.
• Paul and the Apostles eventually knew that Jesus meant literal.
• The Church Fathers believed that Jesus meant literal.
• The Catholic Church has NEVER said that a symbolic nature of the Eucharist doesn't exist; however, it is a BOTH/AND concept.
• The Church Fathers did not use the Aristotelian concepts of "accidents and substance" that the 4th Lateral Council used to define Transubstantiation; however, it doesn't negate the fact that their understanding that the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. They believed that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus which could be worshiped as such.

The concept of Transubstantiation is like the concepts of the Hypostatic Union and Dyothelitism. Just because they weren't defined until later, doesn't mean that they are true. Just like Math concepts they've always have existed; however, it took time for people to discover them.

I have NOT walked-back any of my positions on the Eucharist.

==> if you haven't walked them back, then you're still saying that Augustine believed that Jesus was being literal in John 6, and that the Church "always believed" in transsubstantiation. I've shown you that these are totally false. For God's sake, Augustine explicity said that John 6 was FIGURATIVE. My God, for you to deny this when it's right there in front of everyone's faces makes you the biggest gaslighter here. You are at the height of dishonesty, even to where you are trying to lie to yourself. Simply unbelievable.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I think you knew you HAD to concede it, because the evidence is clear - all the church fathers did NOT believe that Jesus was being literal in John 6 and the Last Supper - and any further denying it would only make you look foolish.

---

How do I look foolish when your protestant historian JND Kelly even stated
"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior's body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440)? ==> you look foolish, because you can't even read further and comprehend where he goes on to say that "realism" did NOT mean in the literal, physical sense to some fathers, like Augustine. Once again, you're reading your own presupposition into what "realism" means. You also look foolish because you continue to believe that Augustine believed Jesus was being literal in John 6, even after reading his explicit and direct statement that Jesus was being figurative there. This kind of overt denial of the facts just can't be argued with.

Seriously, I don't understand which words that you are getting hung up upon. It is possible that we are talking past one another. If we need to return to the beginning to establish definitions for certain terms, then let's do so.

Finally, I would also suggest that you remove the insults from your posts. They don't strengthen or support your point. They only make your posts appear insecure.

==> physician, heal thyself. Insecurity and defensiveness is what I read in all your posts. I really think it's because you know that the apostles in Acts 15 prohibiting the consuming of blood completely invalidates the Roman Catholic view. That's why you've completely avoided it (after making the absolutely ridiculous argument that the apostles were being "pastoral") and now you're trying to escape it by flooding this thread with counter-arguments over everything else I said, hoping it will go away. Sorry, it will not. You haven't escaped the dilemma.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Grace initiates, sustains, and completes salvation, but it does so by actually making us righteous, not by declaring us righteous while leaving us unchanged.

I'm not denying that God saves those who die before works can mature. What I'm denying is that faith can be redefined as something that explicitly excludes the will to obey. This is what sola fide does and what you're doing.

---

In the Scripture which I shared, it is clear that God does indeed declare us righteous even before we are changed, and even before we have any will to obey. Do you really not see this in what Paul said? Scripture literally defines faith as "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1). Faith is merely your belief and trust in Jesus. Good works, including the will to obey, are fruits of true faith, not faith itself.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

I think maybe you're confused. They practice prayer rules, asceticism, sacraments etc to stay in the faith. If that becomes your daily practice, it's harder to sin and it's harder to reject Jesus. I think deep down you know this is true as well. If you pray all the time, you're not going to sin as much.

That's really why they don't separate faith/works. It's a synergy they want to maintain to protect their faith and to stay in communion. It has nothing to do with earning salvation and everything to do with strengthening the relationship with Him.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

This passage is addressed to believers:
1 Corinthians 6:910
"Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

There are millions of Christians who openly persist in the very sins Paul lists: sexual immorality, greed, drunkenness, reviling, while confidently assuming that a past act of belief has already secured their salvation. They do not repent, they do not struggle, they do not wage war against sin, because they have been taught that faith alone has already punched their ticket to heaven.

---

The transformation of the believer is grace at work, yes. But you're believing that this transformation must occur in order to be deemed righteous before God, and thus saved... correct? If so, then who's going to be deemed righteous before God? At what level of completion of this transformation process do we become righteous? Where is the cutoff point? If there is a cutoff point, why would Jesus accept a certain levol of imperfection but not just a tiny bit more? See the problem?

Also, aren't you actually believing that the transformation is "grace.. that we must cooperate with through our work"? This is essentially making grace subject to our efforts - which means that grace ceases to be grace.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

I think maybe you're confused. They practice prayer rules, asceticism, sacraments etc to stay in the faith. If that becomes your daily practice, it's harder to sin and it's harder to reject Jesus. I think deep down you know this is true as well. If you pray all the time, you're not going to sin as much.

That's really why they don't separate faith/works. It's a synergy they want to maintain to protect their faith and to stay in communion. It has nothing to do with earning salvation and everything to do with strengthening the relationship with Him.

---

Please answer - does Paul say that we are credited righteousness for believing, BEFORE we perform any action like obeying, or doesn't he?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

---

Rejecting sola fide doesn't mean we default to works saving us.

I'm trying to explain to you that faith is a work.

"This is the work of God that you believe on him that he has sent". John 6:29
Paul in his epistles says that the only faith that counts is the one that works through love.

When you look at Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham as the model of justification, he picks Genesis 15 when he says that Abraham was made righteous by faith, he doesn't site Genesis 12. If the reformed view was right and we were looking for the transition from wrath to grace, then he should have quoted Genesis 12 if sola fide is true.

"For we are co-workers in God's service" 1 Corinthians 3:9. There's obviously a synergy going on here. There's no point in which humans don't have willpower. You've already admitted to this in the bolden above: Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. This process is not wholly removed from your willpower. If something convicts you, you have a choice on how to respond to it and that choice alone is a work.

Praying is a work, repentance is a work, resisting temptation requires effort and effort is a work. None of these are works of the law, nor do they earn salvation, but all involve cooperation with Grace. Scripture doesn't oppose faith to obedience, it opposes faith to self justifying works.

Would you agree that we should work out our salvation because God is at work within us?

Monergism is not healthy. A calvinist must argue that human freedom never cooperates with grace. That human will must be passive in salvation. "you always resist the Holy Spirit" Acts 7:51 "How often I wanted...but you were not willing" Matt 23:37 "Do not receive the Grace of God in vain" 2 Cor 6:1. You can't meaningfully resist or receive in vain if the outcome is predetermined.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

---

Rejecting sola fide doesn't mean we default to works saving us.

I'm trying to explain to you that faith is a work.

"This is the work of God that you believe on him that he has sent". John 6:29
Paul in his epistles says that the only faith that counts is the one that works through love.

When you look at Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham as the model of justification, he picks Genesis 15 when he says that Abraham was made righteous by faith, he doesn't site Genesis 12. If the reformed view was right and we were looking for the transition from wrath to grace, then he should have quoted Genesis 12 if sola fide is true.

"For we are co-workers in God's service" 1 Corinthians 3:9. There's obviously a synergy going on here. There's no point in which humans don't have willpower. You've already admitted to this in the bolden above: Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. This process is not wholly removed from your willpower. If something convicts you, you have a choice on how to respond to it and that choice alone is a work.

Praying is a work, repentance is a work, resisting temptation requires effort and effort is a work. None of these are works of the law, nor do they earn salvation, but all involve cooperation with Grace. Scripture doesn't oppose faith to obedience, it opposes faith to self justifying works.

Would you agree that we should work out our salvation because God is at work within us?

---

Faith is not a work with regard to Paul's point. He's distinguishing faith from works to point to the cause of our salvation, which he clearly says is by faith alone, apart from works. This simply can't be denied. You're not answering my question - did Paul or didn't Paul clearly say that Abraham was justified by his belief alone, before he performed a single work of obedience?

I've already answered your argument about Genesis 12. How do you forget this? Genesis 12 does not explicitly say Abraham believed God. It only says that in Genesis 14. That's why Paul referenced 14, not 12. Go back and read my answer again.

Your point about being "co-workers" doesn't seem relevant to the topic of sola fide. Sanctification is not salvation.

Yes, Scripture opposes faith to self-justifying works - which is exactly what faith to obedience IS, if you're believing that your obedience is necessary for your salvation. If you're saying that being water baptized and taking the Eucharist are necessary actions of obedience for your salvation, then your "faith to obedience" is actually "faith in self-justifying works".

Yes, we should "work out our salvation" as Scripture says. But this doesn't mean "work for your salvation".

The key here is the question that you're avoiding.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

---

Rejecting sola fide doesn't mean we default to works saving us.

I'm trying to explain to you that faith is a work.

"This is the work of God that you believe on him that he has sent". John 6:29
Paul in his epistles says that the only faith that counts is the one that works through love.

When you look at Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham as the model of justification, he picks Genesis 15 when he says that Abraham was made righteous by faith, he doesn't site Genesis 12. If the reformed view was right and we were looking for the transition from wrath to grace, then he should have quoted Genesis 12 if sola fide is true.

"For we are co-workers in God's service" 1 Corinthians 3:9. There's obviously a synergy going on here. There's no point in which humans don't have willpower. You've already admitted to this in the bolden above: Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. This process is not wholly removed from your willpower. If something convicts you, you have a choice on how to respond to it and that choice alone is a work.

Praying is a work, repentance is a work, resisting temptation requires effort and effort is a work. None of these are works of the law, nor do they earn salvation, but all involve cooperation with Grace. Scripture doesn't oppose faith to obedience, it opposes faith to self justifying works.

Would you agree that we should work out our salvation because God is at work within us?

---

Faith is not a work with regard to Paul's point. He's distinguishing faith from works to point to the cause of our salvation, which he clearly says is by faith alone, apart from works. This simply can't be denied. You're not answering my question - did Paul or didn't Paul clearly say that Abraham was justified by his belief alone, before he performed a single work of obedience?

I've already answered your argument about Genesis 12. How do you forget this? Genesis 12 does not explicitly say Abraham believed God. It only says that in Genesis 14. That's why Paul referenced 14, not 12. Go back and read my answer again.

Your point about being "co-workers" doesn't seem relevant to the topic of sola fide. Sanctification is not salvation.

Yes, Scripture opposes faith to self-justifying works - which is exactly what faith to obedience IS, if you're believing that your obedience is necessary for your salvation. If you're saying that being water baptized and taking the Eucharist are necessary actions of obedience for your salvation, then your "faith to obedience" is actually "faith in self-justifying works".

Yes, we should "work out our salvation" as Scripture says. But this doesn't mean "work for your salvation".

The key here is the question that you're avoiding.

---

Paul did not teach that Abraham was justified by belief alone in the Reformed sense, nor that obedience is irrelevant to justification.

Paul teaches that Abraham was justified by faith apart from works of the Law, not apart from obedience, cooperation, or transformation.

Paul never says "faith alone." He says:

"Faith apart from works" (Rom 4:6)

The question is: which works?
Paul's entire argument in Romans and Galatians is against works of the Law (circumcision, Torah observance as covenant boundary markers), not against obedient cooperation with grace.

You are adding "alone" and redefining "works" more broadly than Paul does.

Your framing assumes this timeline: wrath faith justification obedience. That's total bs.

Abraham obeys God's call in Genesis 12. He leaves his country, family, and security. God enters into covenant before Gen 15. Genesis 15 is not Abraham's first faithful act, its the reckoning of righteousness within an already-existing covenant relationship. Paul chooses Genesis 15 because it explicitly names faith, not because Abraham had done "no works."

Hebrews 12:14 without holiness, no one will see the Lord
Romans 2:67 eternal life according to perseverance in good works
Galatians 6:8 sowing to the Spirit results in eternal life

If sanctification were irrelevant to salvation, these warnings collapse into meaninglessness. Being "co-workers with God" directly contradicts the claim that salvation involves no cooperation.

"Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21)
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…" (John 6:53)

If God commands means of grace, obeying them is not trusting in oneself, it's trusting God enough to obey. Calling obedience "self-justifying" empties obedience of all meaning.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

---

Rejecting sola fide doesn't mean we default to works saving us.

I'm trying to explain to you that faith is a work.

"This is the work of God that you believe on him that he has sent". John 6:29
Paul in his epistles says that the only faith that counts is the one that works through love.

When you look at Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham as the model of justification, he picks Genesis 15 when he says that Abraham was made righteous by faith, he doesn't site Genesis 12. If the reformed view was right and we were looking for the transition from wrath to grace, then he should have quoted Genesis 12 if sola fide is true.

"For we are co-workers in God's service" 1 Corinthians 3:9. There's obviously a synergy going on here. There's no point in which humans don't have willpower. You've already admitted to this in the bolden above: Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. This process is not wholly removed from your willpower. If something convicts you, you have a choice on how to respond to it and that choice alone is a work.

Praying is a work, repentance is a work, resisting temptation requires effort and effort is a work. None of these are works of the law, nor do they earn salvation, but all involve cooperation with Grace. Scripture doesn't oppose faith to obedience, it opposes faith to self justifying works.

Would you agree that we should work out our salvation because God is at work within us?

---

Faith is not a work with regard to Paul's point. He's distinguishing faith from works to point to the cause of our salvation, which he clearly says is by faith alone, apart from works. This simply can't be denied. You're not answering my question - did Paul or didn't Paul clearly say that Abraham was justified by his belief alone, before he performed a single work of obedience?

I've already answered your argument about Genesis 12. How do you forget this? Genesis 12 does not explicitly say Abraham believed God. It only says that in Genesis 14. That's why Paul referenced 14, not 12. Go back and read my answer again.

Your point about being "co-workers" doesn't seem relevant to the topic of sola fide. Sanctification is not salvation.

Yes, Scripture opposes faith to self-justifying works - which is exactly what faith to obedience IS, if you're believing that your obedience is necessary for your salvation. If you're saying that being water baptized and taking the Eucharist are necessary actions of obedience for your salvation, then your "faith to obedience" is actually "faith in self-justifying works".

Yes, we should "work out our salvation" as Scripture says. But this doesn't mean "work for your salvation".

The key here is the question that you're avoiding.

---

Paul did not teach that Abraham was justified by belief alone in the Reformed sense, nor that obedience is irrelevant to justification.

Paul teaches that Abraham was justified by faith apart from works of the Law, not apart from obedience, cooperation, or transformation.

Paul never says "faith alone." He says:

"Faith apart from works" (Rom 4:6)

The question is: which works?
Paul's entire argument in Romans and Galatians is against works of the Law (circumcision, Torah observance as covenant boundary markers), not against obedient cooperation with grace.

You are adding "alone" and redefining "works" more broadly than Paul does.

Your framing assumes this timeline: wrath faith justification obedience. That's total bs.

Abraham obeys God's call in Genesis 12. He leaves his country, family, and security. God enters into covenant before Gen 15. Genesis 15 is not Abraham's first faithful act, its the reckoning of righteousness within an already-existing covenant relationship. Paul chooses Genesis 15 because it explicitly names faith, not because Abraham had done "no works."

Hebrews 12:14 without holiness, no one will see the Lord
Romans 2:67 eternal life according to perseverance in good works
Galatians 6:8 sowing to the Spirit results in eternal life

If sanctification were irrelevant to salvation, these warnings collapse into meaninglessness. Being "co-workers with God" directly contradicts the claim that salvation involves no cooperation.

"Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21)
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…" (John 6:53)

If God commands means of grace, obeying them is not trusting in oneself, it's trusting God enough to obey. Calling obedience "self-justifying" empties obedience of all meaning.

---

Yes, Abraham obeyed God - but notice that it doesn't say this credited him with righteousness. It only says that after Abraham BELIEVED God. Abraham might have obeyed God in Genesis 12, but that doesn't mean he actually believed God's promise to him yet. In fact, his dialogue with God might have shown that he didn't quite believe God at that time. It isn't until Genesis 14 where we read that Abraham believed God, and that's when he was credited with righteousness. And Paul's point was that was before Abraham obeyed God's command to be circumcised in response to the promise.

In the same way, someone might "obey" God's leading them to read Scripture or listen to a sermon in order to hear the gospel. But this obedience doesn't save that person. It isn't until God presents the promise of salvation to them through Jesus Christ through Scripture or someone's preaching, and that person believing in that promise, when they are justified to righteousness. In the same way as Abraham, this justification happens BEFORE they "obey" the commands to be water baptized in response to that promise. See the correlation? That's Paul's whole point.

Question: if someone hears the gospel, believes, and puts their trust in Jesus alone for their salvation - are you saying this doesn't qualify as "faith" until he performs an act of obedience, like water baptism or the Eucharist?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

---

Rejecting sola fide doesn't mean we default to works saving us.

I'm trying to explain to you that faith is a work.

"This is the work of God that you believe on him that he has sent". John 6:29
Paul in his epistles says that the only faith that counts is the one that works through love.

When you look at Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham as the model of justification, he picks Genesis 15 when he says that Abraham was made righteous by faith, he doesn't site Genesis 12. If the reformed view was right and we were looking for the transition from wrath to grace, then he should have quoted Genesis 12 if sola fide is true.

"For we are co-workers in God's service" 1 Corinthians 3:9. There's obviously a synergy going on here. There's no point in which humans don't have willpower. You've already admitted to this in the bolden above: Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. This process is not wholly removed from your willpower. If something convicts you, you have a choice on how to respond to it and that choice alone is a work.

Praying is a work, repentance is a work, resisting temptation requires effort and effort is a work. None of these are works of the law, nor do they earn salvation, but all involve cooperation with Grace. Scripture doesn't oppose faith to obedience, it opposes faith to self justifying works.

Would you agree that we should work out our salvation because God is at work within us?

---

Faith is not a work with regard to Paul's point. He's distinguishing faith from works to point to the cause of our salvation, which he clearly says is by faith alone, apart from works. This simply can't be denied. You're not answering my question - did Paul or didn't Paul clearly say that Abraham was justified by his belief alone, before he performed a single work of obedience?

I've already answered your argument about Genesis 12. How do you forget this? Genesis 12 does not explicitly say Abraham believed God. It only says that in Genesis 14. That's why Paul referenced 14, not 12. Go back and read my answer again.

Your point about being "co-workers" doesn't seem relevant to the topic of sola fide. Sanctification is not salvation.

Yes, Scripture opposes faith to self-justifying works - which is exactly what faith to obedience IS, if you're believing that your obedience is necessary for your salvation. If you're saying that being water baptized and taking the Eucharist are necessary actions of obedience for your salvation, then your "faith to obedience" is actually "faith in self-justifying works".

Yes, we should "work out our salvation" as Scripture says. But this doesn't mean "work for your salvation".

The key here is the question that you're avoiding.

---

Paul teaches that Abraham was justified by faith apart from works of the Law, not apart from obedience, cooperation, or transformation.

---

But doesn't he, though? He literally says that Abraham was justified to righteousness for merely believing God, before any act of obedience to the promise He gave, or any act of cooperation, or any kind of sanctifying transformation.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

---

Rejecting sola fide doesn't mean we default to works saving us.

I'm trying to explain to you that faith is a work.

"This is the work of God that you believe on him that he has sent". John 6:29
Paul in his epistles says that the only faith that counts is the one that works through love.

When you look at Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham as the model of justification, he picks Genesis 15 when he says that Abraham was made righteous by faith, he doesn't site Genesis 12. If the reformed view was right and we were looking for the transition from wrath to grace, then he should have quoted Genesis 12 if sola fide is true.

"For we are co-workers in God's service" 1 Corinthians 3:9. There's obviously a synergy going on here. There's no point in which humans don't have willpower. You've already admitted to this in the bolden above: Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. This process is not wholly removed from your willpower. If something convicts you, you have a choice on how to respond to it and that choice alone is a work.

Praying is a work, repentance is a work, resisting temptation requires effort and effort is a work. None of these are works of the law, nor do they earn salvation, but all involve cooperation with Grace. Scripture doesn't oppose faith to obedience, it opposes faith to self justifying works.

Would you agree that we should work out our salvation because God is at work within us?

---

Faith is not a work with regard to Paul's point. He's distinguishing faith from works to point to the cause of our salvation, which he clearly says is by faith alone, apart from works. This simply can't be denied. You're not answering my question - did Paul or didn't Paul clearly say that Abraham was justified by his belief alone, before he performed a single work of obedience?

I've already answered your argument about Genesis 12. How do you forget this? Genesis 12 does not explicitly say Abraham believed God. It only says that in Genesis 14. That's why Paul referenced 14, not 12. Go back and read my answer again.

Your point about being "co-workers" doesn't seem relevant to the topic of sola fide. Sanctification is not salvation.

Yes, Scripture opposes faith to self-justifying works - which is exactly what faith to obedience IS, if you're believing that your obedience is necessary for your salvation. If you're saying that being water baptized and taking the Eucharist are necessary actions of obedience for your salvation, then your "faith to obedience" is actually "faith in self-justifying works".

Yes, we should "work out our salvation" as Scripture says. But this doesn't mean "work for your salvation".

The key here is the question that you're avoiding.

---

Paul never says "faith alone." He says:

"Faith apart from works" (Rom 4:6)

The question is: which works?
Paul's entire argument in Romans and Galatians is against works of the Law (circumcision, Torah observance as covenant boundary markers), not against obedient cooperation with grace.

---

No, Paul's explicitly clear point was in principle, that adding any performative act (i.e. works) to grace destroys grace, and thus destroys the gospel. The Judaizers who were insisting on circumcision could argue that circumcision was an act of "obedient cooperation with grace" as well.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

---

Rejecting sola fide doesn't mean we default to works saving us.

I'm trying to explain to you that faith is a work.

"This is the work of God that you believe on him that he has sent". John 6:29
Paul in his epistles says that the only faith that counts is the one that works through love.

When you look at Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham as the model of justification, he picks Genesis 15 when he says that Abraham was made righteous by faith, he doesn't site Genesis 12. If the reformed view was right and we were looking for the transition from wrath to grace, then he should have quoted Genesis 12 if sola fide is true.

"For we are co-workers in God's service" 1 Corinthians 3:9. There's obviously a synergy going on here. There's no point in which humans don't have willpower. You've already admitted to this in the bolden above: Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. This process is not wholly removed from your willpower. If something convicts you, you have a choice on how to respond to it and that choice alone is a work.

Praying is a work, repentance is a work, resisting temptation requires effort and effort is a work. None of these are works of the law, nor do they earn salvation, but all involve cooperation with Grace. Scripture doesn't oppose faith to obedience, it opposes faith to self justifying works.

Would you agree that we should work out our salvation because God is at work within us?

---

Faith is not a work with regard to Paul's point. He's distinguishing faith from works to point to the cause of our salvation, which he clearly says is by faith alone, apart from works. This simply can't be denied. You're not answering my question - did Paul or didn't Paul clearly say that Abraham was justified by his belief alone, before he performed a single work of obedience?

I've already answered your argument about Genesis 12. How do you forget this? Genesis 12 does not explicitly say Abraham believed God. It only says that in Genesis 14. That's why Paul referenced 14, not 12. Go back and read my answer again.

Your point about being "co-workers" doesn't seem relevant to the topic of sola fide. Sanctification is not salvation.

Yes, Scripture opposes faith to self-justifying works - which is exactly what faith to obedience IS, if you're believing that your obedience is necessary for your salvation. If you're saying that being water baptized and taking the Eucharist are necessary actions of obedience for your salvation, then your "faith to obedience" is actually "faith in self-justifying works".

Yes, we should "work out our salvation" as Scripture says. But this doesn't mean "work for your salvation".

The key here is the question that you're avoiding.

---

Hebrews 12:14 without holiness, no one will see the Lord

Romans 2:67 eternal life according to perseverance in good works ==>
Galatians 6:8 sowing to the Spirit results in eternal life

If sanctification were irrelevant to salvation, these warnings collapse into meaninglessness. Being "co-workers with God" directly contradicts the claim that salvation involves no cooperation.

"Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21)
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…" (John 6:53)

If God commands means of grace, obeying them is not trusting in oneself, it's trusting God enough to obey. Calling obedience "self-justifying" empties obedience of all meaning.

---

Obedience is "self-justifying" if you require that particular obedience for salvation, in addition to faith. It's making your salvation depend on your performance. This doesn't make obedience "irrelevant" at all, it just makes it a fruit of saving faith, not a requirement of salvation.

The simple question for you is this: how well do you have to obey in order to be saved? We all have different levels of sanctification, at different points in our lives. What's the cutoff point? You've already answered before that if someone who isn't complete in their works still can be saved..... but based on what, according to your view?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

---

Rejecting sola fide doesn't mean we default to works saving us.

I'm trying to explain to you that faith is a work.

"This is the work of God that you believe on him that he has sent". John 6:29
Paul in his epistles says that the only faith that counts is the one that works through love.

When you look at Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham as the model of justification, he picks Genesis 15 when he says that Abraham was made righteous by faith, he doesn't site Genesis 12. If the reformed view was right and we were looking for the transition from wrath to grace, then he should have quoted Genesis 12 if sola fide is true.

"For we are co-workers in God's service" 1 Corinthians 3:9. There's obviously a synergy going on here. There's no point in which humans don't have willpower. You've already admitted to this in the bolden above: Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. This process is not wholly removed from your willpower. If something convicts you, you have a choice on how to respond to it and that choice alone is a work.

Praying is a work, repentance is a work, resisting temptation requires effort and effort is a work. None of these are works of the law, nor do they earn salvation, but all involve cooperation with Grace. Scripture doesn't oppose faith to obedience, it opposes faith to self justifying works.

Would you agree that we should work out our salvation because God is at work within us?

---

Faith is not a work with regard to Paul's point. He's distinguishing faith from works to point to the cause of our salvation, which he clearly says is by faith alone, apart from works. This simply can't be denied. You're not answering my question - did Paul or didn't Paul clearly say that Abraham was justified by his belief alone, before he performed a single work of obedience?

I've already answered your argument about Genesis 12. How do you forget this? Genesis 12 does not explicitly say Abraham believed God. It only says that in Genesis 14. That's why Paul referenced 14, not 12. Go back and read my answer again.

Your point about being "co-workers" doesn't seem relevant to the topic of sola fide. Sanctification is not salvation.

Yes, Scripture opposes faith to self-justifying works - which is exactly what faith to obedience IS, if you're believing that your obedience is necessary for your salvation. If you're saying that being water baptized and taking the Eucharist are necessary actions of obedience for your salvation, then your "faith to obedience" is actually "faith in self-justifying works".

Yes, we should "work out our salvation" as Scripture says. But this doesn't mean "work for your salvation".

The key here is the question that you're avoiding.

---

"Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21)
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…" (John 6:53)

If God commands means of grace, obeying them is not trusting in oneself, it's trusting God enough to obey. Calling obedience "self-justifying" empties obedience of all meaning.

---

Sorry to break these down into multiple posts, but I think it's better to address each point you're making separately.

"Baptism now saves you" doesn't mean that water baptism is the means of salvation. It just means that their baptism was associated with the fact that they came to faith in Jesus, and it's their faith that saves. If you really believe that water baptism is the means of salvation, then you have to believe that a person who hears the gospel, believes and trusts in Jesus, but dies before getting water baptized is not saved. Is this what you believe? That would falsify what Jesus promised, that whosoever believes will be saved.

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man" - this means to believe in him, and his sacrifice.

Obeying what you call the "means of grace" in water baptism or the Eucharist, is self-justifying because you yourself have to perform it through your own actions. You're saying that if you don't perform it, you don't receive grace, and you aren't saved. That ultimately means that grace is something you have to work for, which would then make it cease to be grace, as Paul points out. And it would make your salvation dependent on your ability to perform those things, without which you won't be saved, even though you believe and trust in Jesus. This can not be true because it would falsify the gospel.

Please take the time to read this first post

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

---

Rejecting sola fide doesn't mean we default to works saving us.

I'm trying to explain to you that faith is a work.

"This is the work of God that you believe on him that he has sent". John 6:29
Paul in his epistles says that the only faith that counts is the one that works through love.

When you look at Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham as the model of justification, he picks Genesis 15 when he says that Abraham was made righteous by faith, he doesn't site Genesis 12. If the reformed view was right and we were looking for the transition from wrath to grace, then he should have quoted Genesis 12 if sola fide is true.

"For we are co-workers in God's service" 1 Corinthians 3:9. There's obviously a synergy going on here. There's no point in which humans don't have willpower. You've already admitted to this in the bolden above: Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. This process is not wholly removed from your willpower. If something convicts you, you have a choice on how to respond to it and that choice alone is a work.

Praying is a work, repentance is a work, resisting temptation requires effort and effort is a work. None of these are works of the law, nor do they earn salvation, but all involve cooperation with Grace. Scripture doesn't oppose faith to obedience, it opposes faith to self justifying works.

Would you agree that we should work out our salvation because God is at work within us?

---

Faith is not a work with regard to Paul's point. He's distinguishing faith from works to point to the cause of our salvation, which he clearly says is by faith alone, apart from works. This simply can't be denied. You're not answering my question - did Paul or didn't Paul clearly say that Abraham was justified by his belief alone, before he performed a single work of obedience?

I've already answered your argument about Genesis 12. How do you forget this? Genesis 12 does not explicitly say Abraham believed God. It only says that in Genesis 14. That's why Paul referenced 14, not 12. Go back and read my answer again.

Your point about being "co-workers" doesn't seem relevant to the topic of sola fide. Sanctification is not salvation.

Yes, Scripture opposes faith to self-justifying works - which is exactly what faith to obedience IS, if you're believing that your obedience is necessary for your salvation. If you're saying that being water baptized and taking the Eucharist are necessary actions of obedience for your salvation, then your "faith to obedience" is actually "faith in self-justifying works".

Yes, we should "work out our salvation" as Scripture says. But this doesn't mean "work for your salvation".

The key here is the question that you're avoiding.

---

"Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21)
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…" (John 6:53)

If God commands means of grace, obeying them is not trusting in oneself, it's trusting God enough to obey. Calling obedience "self-justifying" empties obedience of all meaning.

---

Sorry to break these down into multiple posts, but I think it's better to address each point you're making separately.

"Baptism now saves you" doesn't mean that water baptism is the means of salvation. It just means that their baptism was associated with the fact that they came to faith in Jesus, and it's their faith that saves. If you really believe that water baptism is the means of salvation, then you have to believe that a person who hears the gospel, believes and trusts in Jesus, but dies before getting water baptized is not saved. Is this what you believe? That would falsify what Jesus promised, that whosoever believes will be saved.

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man" - this means to believe in him, and his sacrifice.

Obeying what you call the "means of grace" in water baptism or the Eucharist, is self-justifying because you yourself have to perform it through your own actions. You're saying that if you don't perform it, you don't receive grace, and you aren't saved. That ultimately means that grace is something you have to work for, which would then make it cease to be grace, as Paul points out. And it would make your salvation dependent on your ability to perform those things, without which you won't be saved, even though you believe and trust in Jesus. This can not be true because it would falsify the gospel.

---

What if someone says, "I believe in Jesus, I trust Him for salvation, but I simply cannot obey Him and I've given up trying"? Is that still saving faith? If obedience is not required in any real sense, then on what grounds could you say that person's faith is false, rather than merely weak? And if you do say that such a faith is false, then you're already admitting that obedience is not optional, but essential to what faith actually is.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Great video on this subject:

---

This Orthodox priest - "The greatest heresy of our time is the idea that you can be saved only by believing something."

vs

Jesus - "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."....."Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life."

Paul - "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance"

Paul and Silas - "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved".

---

If belief in Christ is a living, ongoing orientation of the whole person toward Him, then there is no coherent reason to divorce belief from obedience, repentance, or communion. Scripture never does this. Christ does not say, "Believe instead of following Me," but "Believe" and "Follow Me." He does not say, "Trust Me apart from obedience," but "If you love Me, keep My commandments." He does not say, "Believe once and move on," but "Abide in Me." And He does not say, "Believe without participation," but "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you." The New Testament consistently presents belief as embodied fidelity, not mental assent.

So the burden of proof is not on Orthodoxy to explain why faith and works belong together, its on sola fide to explain why they must be separated at all. What problem does that separation solve? It does not protect grace, because grace in Scripture empowers obedience rather than bypassing it. It does not exalt Christ, because Christ Himself commands action, endurance, and participation as necessary to life. And it does not clarify the gospel, because it forces Scripture into artificial categories:
"faith" here, "works" over there.

I'm not claiming works save us. I'm claiming that your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ.
This is why James can say that faith without works is dead without contradicting Paul, and why Paul himself speaks of "the obedience of faith" and of faith "working through love." The conscious effort to obey is not an add-on to faith…its faith breathing.

---

There is no "divorcing" of belief from obedience, repentance, etc. That is a dishonest framing. True faith will, if given time and opportunity, produce the works of obedience, repentance, etc. But Scripture DOES separate out faith and works to show that salvation is a gift from God, received by faith, and not dependant on anything we perform so that "no one will boast". You can't work to receive a gift, because then it ceases to be a gift. None of us can be righteous through our own works. Anyone who says they can, is a liar. No matter how hard you try to obey God, you're going to fail, because we are still sinners. If salvation only comes when we become righteous in our works, as well as in our heart, none of us will never be righteous in God's eyes, and none of us will ever be saved. WE MUST BE IMPUTED the righteousness of Jesus to be righteous. That's the only way. And we receive that imputation by faith alone, just as Abraham was made righteous merely for his belief, before he obeyed. That is the point that Paul tried to make abundantly clear. That's the gospel.

"...your faith must include a conscious effort of wanting to obey and be like Christ." On the surface, this seems correct. As I've repeatedly said, true faith will result in obedience and sanctification (given time and opportunity). But here's my challenge - did the thief on the cross want to obey and be like Christ? Did the sinful woman? Did the house of Cornelius? Wasn't it just their belief in Jesus that saved them, before they even knew what to obey and how to "be like Christ"? The point is, what justified them was their belief, even before any of their actions. That was Paul's entire point.

"I'm not claiming works saves us." - Then you must think that only faith saves, thus you agree with sola fide. You're only defining faith differently, as being beyond mental assent. But isn't Paul saying that it was Abraham's mental assent (he believed God), before he performed any action, that credited him (i.e. IMPUTED) with righteousness? Note that the Orthodox priest in your video actually scoffed at the idea of being imputed righteousness. He said he didn't want it, he wanted to "become righteous", not simply imputed. Well, if he's not imputed Jesus' righteousness, but has to become it later through process, then if he dies right now, by his own admission he's not righteous yet. Being still unrighteous, he can't go to Heaven, he isn't saved. He doesn't have the full righteousness of Jesus imputed to him, in fact he denies and rejects it. I really hope you understand this, and how this is NOT the gospel, it's a full denial of it. We need the full imputation of Jesus' righteousness or we won't be righteous at all, none of us.

---

Scripture doesn't say God merely treats sinners as righteous while they remain unrighteous: it says God makes them righteous. To say that if someone is not "fully righteous" yet they must therefore be unsaved is again a legal assumption, not a biblical one. Salvation isn't a courtroom no matter how badly you want it to be one.

God doesn't merely cover sinners with borrowed righteousness, He actually makes them new. That transformation isn't opposed to grace, its grace at work.

---

If you're gonna wait until you're "made" righteous through process in order to be saved, then you're not going to be saved. Because you're never going to be "righteous" this way. Do you think you will die perfect? None of us will. We MUST be GIVEN righteousness in its full - the full righteousness of Jesus, by imputation, otherwise we can't be saved. This is the gospel, and the clear testimony of Scripture as I've shown. And the clear testimony of Scripture is that we receive Jesus' full righteousness through faith.

That Orthodox priest in the video does not understand this. He does not understand the gospel, as neither do the Roman Catholics here.

---

James 2:17, 26 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead… For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead."

1 John 3:79 "Whoever practices righteousness is righteous… No one born of God makes a practice of sinning."

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

John 15:45 Abiding in Christ produces fruit; separation from Christ produces sin.

Obedience is clearly not optional. I think you know this.

---

The question isn't whether obedience is "optional", the question is whether obedience is what saves. That's the essence of the sola fide discussion we're having. I most certainly do NOT believe that obedience is what saves, nor do I even believe that obedience is absolutely mandatory for salvation. If a new, struggling Christian who truly believes in Jesus and trusts in him for his salvation consistently messes up and fails to perform any work (including water baptism and the Eucharist) before dying a short time later, then he is still saved by virtue of his faith, which imputes upon him the full righteousness of Jesus, as God promises through this Word. Because it has nothing to do with his work or lack thereof. That's the testimony of the true Gospel, and it truly is "good news". On the other hand, the belief that you must be "made" perfect in this life or you face intense suffering in a "purgatory" after you die for who knows how long, or that one sin can land you in Hell despite your belief and trust in Jesus, or that you must "cooperate" with grace through your own efforts to achieve a level of righteousness to enter heaven, thus making you always unsure if you've done enough and so you're under the constant worry of not being saved and going to Hell - none of that is "good news" at all, it's absolutely terrible news. One can never have true peace.

This does NOT mean that I'm saying that one can say they believe, and then go on sinning all they want. Because if that's what they're thinking, then they aren't a true believer. Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. But even through sanctification, still, none us will be perfect. That's why the full righteousness of Jesus must be imputed to us, through faith, and not our works.

---

Rejecting sola fide doesn't mean we default to works saving us.

I'm trying to explain to you that faith is a work.

"This is the work of God that you believe on him that he has sent". John 6:29
Paul in his epistles says that the only faith that counts is the one that works through love.

When you look at Romans 4, Paul uses Abraham as the model of justification, he picks Genesis 15 when he says that Abraham was made righteous by faith, he doesn't site Genesis 12. If the reformed view was right and we were looking for the transition from wrath to grace, then he should have quoted Genesis 12 if sola fide is true.

"For we are co-workers in God's service" 1 Corinthians 3:9. There's obviously a synergy going on here. There's no point in which humans don't have willpower. You've already admitted to this in the bolden above: Because true faith is accompanied by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, who convicts you of sin and guides you through sanctification. This process is not wholly removed from your willpower. If something convicts you, you have a choice on how to respond to it and that choice alone is a work.

Praying is a work, repentance is a work, resisting temptation requires effort and effort is a work. None of these are works of the law, nor do they earn salvation, but all involve cooperation with Grace. Scripture doesn't oppose faith to obedience, it opposes faith to self justifying works.

Would you agree that we should work out our salvation because God is at work within us?

---

Faith is not a work with regard to Paul's point. He's distinguishing faith from works to point to the cause of our salvation, which he clearly says is by faith alone, apart from works. This simply can't be denied. You're not answering my question - did Paul or didn't Paul clearly say that Abraham was justified by his belief alone, before he performed a single work of obedience?

I've already answered your argument about Genesis 12. How do you forget this? Genesis 12 does not explicitly say Abraham believed God. It only says that in Genesis 14. That's why Paul referenced 14, not 12. Go back and read my answer again.

Your point about being "co-workers" doesn't seem relevant to the topic of sola fide. Sanctification is not salvation.

Yes, Scripture opposes faith to self-justifying works - which is exactly what faith to obedience IS, if you're believing that your obedience is necessary for your salvation. If you're saying that being water baptized and taking the Eucharist are necessary actions of obedience for your salvation, then your "faith to obedience" is actually "faith in self-justifying works".

Yes, we should "work out our salvation" as Scripture says. But this doesn't mean "work for your salvation".

The key here is the question that you're avoiding.

---

"Baptism now saves you" (1 Pet 3:21)
"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…" (John 6:53)

If God commands means of grace, obeying them is not trusting in oneself, it's trusting God enough to obey. Calling obedience "self-justifying" empties obedience of all meaning.

---

Sorry to break these down into multiple posts, but I think it's better to address each point you're making separately.

"Baptism now saves you" doesn't mean that water baptism is the means of salvation. It just means that their baptism was associated with the fact that they came to faith in Jesus, and it's their faith that saves. If you really believe that water baptism is the means of salvation, then you have to believe that a person who hears the gospel, believes and trusts in Jesus, but dies before getting water baptized is not saved. Is this what you believe? That would falsify what Jesus promised, that whosoever believes will be saved.

"Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man" - this means to believe in him, and his sacrifice.

Obeying what you call the "means of grace" in water baptism or the Eucharist, is self-justifying because you yourself have to perform it through your own actions. You're saying that if you don't perform it, you don't receive grace, and you aren't saved. That ultimately means that grace is something you have to work for, which would then make it cease to be grace, as Paul points out. And it would make your salvation dependent on your ability to perform those things, without which you won't be saved, even though you believe and trust in Jesus. This can not be true because it would falsify the gospel.

---

What if someone says, "I believe in Jesus, I trust Him for salvation, but I simply cannot obey Him and I've given up trying"? Is that still saving faith? If obedience is not required in any real sense, then on what grounds could you say that person's faith is false, rather than merely weak? And if you do say that such a faith is false, then you're already admitting that obedience is not optional, but essential to what faith actually is.

---

Yes, it is still saving faith, as long as it's not just a "said" faith but a true faith. A person who has "given up trying" can be one who is actually on the right track, in my belief. Because they've stopped trying to make it about themself and relying on their own ability to be righteous, and they finally realized they need to depend completely on the righteousness of Jesus being given to them or they have no hope. I think Jesus tears some people's pride down this way so they will finally see that. Remember the tax collector and the Pharisee in Luke 18:

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other."

A true believer might say they've given up trying, but they're just feeling defeated, as true believers who really care about obeying Jesus often do. I knew someone like this. But when this person came to Jesus with empty hands and put full reliance on him, that's when the fruit started really growing. Needless to say, they didn't really stop trying. This person felt that they finally understood the gospel, when they really hadn't before.

"Depending on Jesus" is not passive; it is itself a spiritual act that involves our will and active cooperation with grace. I cannot agree with the idea that belief alone makes us righteous without any effort or participation on our parts

When someone "comes to Jesus with empty hands and puts full reliance on Him," that is an act of cooperation and work, it must take place, because without it, a person is effectively abandoning the faith. Salvation is not earned, but it is received and lived through our active engagement with God's grace.

You cannot claim that sola fide is anything other than a "said faith," a one-time mental assent, because by definition it divorces faith from obedience, repentance, and ongoing participation in Christ. That is exactly why ideas like Once Saved Always Saved exist, because if faith is reduced to mere words or belief without action, then nothing we do, including turning from sin or cooperating with God, can affect our salvation. The moment you admit that believers must actively pray, repent, avoid sin, or cooperate with grace to remain in Christ, you are acknowledging that true faith is never "alone" or merely said, it is cooperative and requires our willpower/work.

Doc Holliday said:

---

"Depending on Jesus" is not passive; it is itself a spiritual act that involves our will and active cooperation with grace. I cannot agree with the idea that belief alone makes us righteous without any effort or participation on our parts

When someone "comes to Jesus with empty hands and puts full reliance on Him," that is an act of cooperation and work, it must take place, because without it, a person is effectively abandoning the faith. Salvation is not earned, but it is received and lived through our active engagement with God's grace.

You cannot claim that sola fide is anything other than a "said faith," a one-time mental assent, because by definition it divorces faith from obedience, repentance, and ongoing participation in Christ. That is exactly why ideas like Once Saved Always Saved exist, because if faith is reduced to mere words or belief without action, then nothing we do, including turning from sin or cooperating with God, can affect our salvation. The moment you admit that believers must actively pray, repent, avoid sin, or cooperate with grace to remain in Christ, you are acknowledging that true faith is never "alone" or merely said, it is cooperative and requires our willpower/work.

---

Faith itself is "a spiritual act that involves our will and active cooperation with grace". Depending on Jesus is having faith in Jesus. It is not a "work", like performing water baptism or taking the Eucharist. Faith happens in the heart.

If you can't agree that this "belief", i.e. faith, alone makes us righteous, then you don't understand the gospel. You're trying to tie your ability and performance to salvation, i.e. your "obedience" to salvation, rather than on Jesus' completed work. To which I ask and you have yet to answer: how much obedience, then, is required? What is the cutoff point? It can't be "perfectly" because then no one would be saved, right? You're just trading one set of law-keeping (the Torah) with another (Jesus' commandments) as the means to salvation.

If you think sola fide is merely "said faith" then you don't understand sola fide, you're only creating a straw man, making it what you want it to be so you can easily defeat it. Sola fide is referring to true faith being the only thing that saves, apart from works. That is straight from scripture. Denying sola fide is denying the gospel.

I still would like answers to these questions, in addition to the question above: 1) If someone truly believes in Jesus, but dies before water baptism or the Eucharist, are they saved? If not, then doesn't that falsify Jesus when he says that whosoever believes will be saved? 2) if someone hears the gospel, believes, and puts their trust in Jesus alone for their salvation - are you saying this doesn't qualify as "faith" until he performs an act of obedience, like water baptism or the Eucharist?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

"Depending on Jesus" is not passive; it is itself a spiritual act that involves our will and active cooperation with grace. I cannot agree with the idea that belief alone makes us righteous without any effort or participation on our parts

When someone "comes to Jesus with empty hands and puts full reliance on Him," that is an act of cooperation and work, it must take place, because without it, a person is effectively abandoning the faith. Salvation is not earned, but it is received and lived through our active engagement with God's grace.

You cannot claim that sola fide is anything other than a "said faith," a one-time mental assent, because by definition it divorces faith from obedience, repentance, and ongoing participation in Christ. That is exactly why ideas like Once Saved Always Saved exist, because if faith is reduced to mere words or belief without action, then nothing we do, including turning from sin or cooperating with God, can affect our salvation. The moment you admit that believers must actively pray, repent, avoid sin, or cooperate with grace to remain in Christ, you are acknowledging that true faith is never "alone" or merely said, it is cooperative and requires our willpower/work.

---

Faith itself is "a spiritual act that involves our will and active cooperation with grace". Depending on Jesus is having faith in Jesus. It is not a "work", like performing water baptism or taking the Eucharist. Faith happens in the heart.

If you can't agree that this "belief", i.e. faith, alone makes us righteous, then you don't understand the gospel. You're trying to tie your ability and performance to salvation, i.e. your "obedience" to salvation, rather than on Jesus' completed work. To which I ask and you have yet to answer: how much obedience, then, is required? What is the cutoff point? It can't be "perfectly" because then no one would be saved, right? You're just trading one set of law-keeping (the Torah) with another (Jesus' commandments) as the means to salvation.

If you think sola fide is merely "said faith" then you don't understand sola fide, you're only creating a straw man, making it what you want it to be so you can easily defeat it. Sola fide is referring to true faith being the only thing that saves, apart from works. That is straight from scripture. Denying sola fide is denying the gospel.

I still would like answers to these questions, in addition to the question above: 1) If someone truly believes in Jesus, but dies before water baptism or the Eucharist, are they saved? If not, then doesn't that falsify Jesus when he says that whosoever believes will be saved? 2) if someone hears the gospel, believes, and puts their trust in Jesus alone for their salvation - are you saying this doesn't qualify as "faith" until he performs an act of obedience, like water baptism or the Eucharist?

---

Baptism and the Eucharist are normative and commanded means by which grace is given and our union with Christ is strengthened, but God is not bound in a juridical way. This is why I said you have a nominalist and legalist view: "the thief on the cross didn't do anything so that applies to everyone". That's a FATAL error and sinful way of thinking. It doesn't falsify Jesus when he says that whosoever believes will be saved because Faith requires cooperation and participation. Your logic only works if you think faith only means mental assent.

Yes, God can save someone who dies before water baptism or the Eucharist. Orthodoxy also teaches that people who are Baptized and do take the Eucharist aren't automatically saved. Again, there's no legality here. People who think they're saved just by going through the church rituals when they have no real love for God or understanding of the gospel won't be saved.

The Protestant line that truly saving faith leads to works has made me doubt the nature of my own faith. If you're not producing good works, or you're engaged in habitual sin, then you start to doubt whether your faith is legitimate or not. In your sola fide view, what are the good works that accompany faith? To what degree will we see them in a person who has true faith vs a false faith? How much disobedience to Christ shows we have a false faith?

Sola fide overcomplicates everything. Imagine this thought process:
Avoiding grave habitual sin will have no effect on your relationship with God because if you have true faith then you will by necessity not engage in grave habitual sins that are incompatible with being a Christian, but if you do fall into those grave sins...you will eventually stop and ask God for forgiveness even though God doesn't have to forgive you again because forgiveness happened once in the imputation of Christ's righteousness to you because justification by faith alone is a one time act? It doesn't make sense because it came from academics and is nominalist. A protestant can believe they are saved, everyone who knows them believes they are saved, yet they can fall away then everyone will say that they were never saved to begin with. So in Protestantism, the reality is, one can never ever know if they are truly "saved."

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

"Depending on Jesus" is not passive; it is itself a spiritual act that involves our will and active cooperation with grace. I cannot agree with the idea that belief alone makes us righteous without any effort or participation on our parts

When someone "comes to Jesus with empty hands and puts full reliance on Him," that is an act of cooperation and work, it must take place, because without it, a person is effectively abandoning the faith. Salvation is not earned, but it is received and lived through our active engagement with God's grace.

You cannot claim that sola fide is anything other than a "said faith," a one-time mental assent, because by definition it divorces faith from obedience, repentance, and ongoing participation in Christ. That is exactly why ideas like Once Saved Always Saved exist, because if faith is reduced to mere words or belief without action, then nothing we do, including turning from sin or cooperating with God, can affect our salvation. The moment you admit that believers must actively pray, repent, avoid sin, or cooperate with grace to remain in Christ, you are acknowledging that true faith is never "alone" or merely said, it is cooperative and requires our willpower/work.

---

Faith itself is "a spiritual act that involves our will and active cooperation with grace". Depending on Jesus is having faith in Jesus. It is not a "work", like performing water baptism or taking the Eucharist. Faith happens in the heart.

If you can't agree that this "belief", i.e. faith, alone makes us righteous, then you don't understand the gospel. You're trying to tie your ability and performance to salvation, i.e. your "obedience" to salvation, rather than on Jesus' completed work. To which I ask and you have yet to answer: how much obedience, then, is required? What is the cutoff point? It can't be "perfectly" because then no one would be saved, right? You're just trading one set of law-keeping (the Torah) with another (Jesus' commandments) as the means to salvation.

If you think sola fide is merely "said faith" then you don't understand sola fide, you're only creating a straw man, making it what you want it to be so you can easily defeat it. Sola fide is referring to true faith being the only thing that saves, apart from works. That is straight from scripture. Denying sola fide is denying the gospel.

I still would like answers to these questions, in addition to the question above: 1) If someone truly believes in Jesus, but dies before water baptism or the Eucharist, are they saved? If not, then doesn't that falsify Jesus when he says that whosoever believes will be saved? 2) if someone hears the gospel, believes, and puts their trust in Jesus alone for their salvation - are you saying this doesn't qualify as "faith" until he performs an act of obedience, like water baptism or the Eucharist?

---

Baptism and the Eucharist are normative and commanded means by which grace is given and our union with Christ is strengthened, but God is not bound in a juridical way. This is why I said you have a nominalist and legalist view: "the thief on the cross didn't do anything so that applies to everyone". That's a FATAL error and sinful way of thinking. It doesn't falsify Jesus when he says that whosoever believes will be saved because Faith requires cooperation and participation. Your logic only works if you think faith only means mental assent.

Yes, God can save someone who dies before water baptism or the Eucharist. Orthodoxy also teaches that people who are Baptized and do take the Eucharist aren't automatically saved. Again, there's no legality here. People who think they're saved just by going through the church rituals when they have no real love for God or understanding of the gospel won't be saved.

---

The whole "normative" and "God isn't bound judicially" is the Roman Catholic argument, and it makes no sense at all. If God CAN save a believer without water baptism or the Eucharist, then it truly isn't necessary for God at all, and thus for God to make it "normative" really has no meaning, because their salvation would happen anyway without them. If it doesn't happen without them, then God would be rejecting a true believer to Hell based on the purely arbitrary grounds that the person, although having true faith and trust in Jesus, failed to perform certain ritualistic actions, actions that God doesn't even really need to save in the first place. Not only would this clearly falsify Jesus' claim that whosoever believes in him will be saved, it violates the character of God. The whole argument is a way to claim that "works" (water baptism, the Eucharist) are required for salvation.... but not really required, thus making it a self-defeating argument. It's talking out of both sides of the mouth. Therefore, it can't be the truth.

You: "It doesn't falsify Jesus when he says that whosoever believes will be saved because Faith requires cooperation and participation. Your logic only works if you think faith only means mental assent." - you JUST said that God can save without this "cooperation and participation" in water baptism and the Eucharist, which is saying that God does not think valid faith requires this cooperation and participation.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

"Depending on Jesus" is not passive; it is itself a spiritual act that involves our will and active cooperation with grace. I cannot agree with the idea that belief alone makes us righteous without any effort or participation on our parts

When someone "comes to Jesus with empty hands and puts full reliance on Him," that is an act of cooperation and work, it must take place, because without it, a person is effectively abandoning the faith. Salvation is not earned, but it is received and lived through our active engagement with God's grace.

You cannot claim that sola fide is anything other than a "said faith," a one-time mental assent, because by definition it divorces faith from obedience, repentance, and ongoing participation in Christ. That is exactly why ideas like Once Saved Always Saved exist, because if faith is reduced to mere words or belief without action, then nothing we do, including turning from sin or cooperating with God, can affect our salvation. The moment you admit that believers must actively pray, repent, avoid sin, or cooperate with grace to remain in Christ, you are acknowledging that true faith is never "alone" or merely said, it is cooperative and requires our willpower/work.

---

Faith itself is "a spiritual act that involves our will and active cooperation with grace". Depending on Jesus is having faith in Jesus. It is not a "work", like performing water baptism or taking the Eucharist. Faith happens in the heart.

If you can't agree that this "belief", i.e. faith, alone makes us righteous, then you don't understand the gospel. You're trying to tie your ability and performance to salvation, i.e. your "obedience" to salvation, rather than on Jesus' completed work. To which I ask and you have yet to answer: how much obedience, then, is required? What is the cutoff point? It can't be "perfectly" because then no one would be saved, right? You're just trading one set of law-keeping (the Torah) with another (Jesus' commandments) as the means to salvation.

If you think sola fide is merely "said faith" then you don't understand sola fide, you're only creating a straw man, making it what you want it to be so you can easily defeat it. Sola fide is referring to true faith being the only thing that saves, apart from works. That is straight from scripture. Denying sola fide is denying the gospel.

I still would like answers to these questions, in addition to the question above: 1) If someone truly believes in Jesus, but dies before water baptism or the Eucharist, are they saved? If not, then doesn't that falsify Jesus when he says that whosoever believes will be saved? 2) if someone hears the gospel, believes, and puts their trust in Jesus alone for their salvation - are you saying this doesn't qualify as "faith" until he performs an act of obedience, like water baptism or the Eucharist?

---

... Orthodoxy also teaches that people who are Baptized and do take the Eucharist aren't automatically saved. Again, there's no legality here.

---

Didn't you just quote me "Baptism now saves you" in arguing the Orthodox case that water baptism is required for salvation? So it saves you.... but then it doesn't? Orthodoxy doesn't seem to know what saves and what doesn't. Perhaps Orthodoxy needs a little more legality in their views, otherwise they'll just seem to be floating in a sea of uncertainty, talking out of both sides of their mouth. That is definitely not what God wants with his gospel.