Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 139

Thread: Justification by Faith Alone Verses

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Luther adding the word is irrelevant. He shouldn't have done that, but he got the meaning of the text correct. Doctrine is developed systematically and logically, not always clearly stated.
    And not always in accordance with what Jesus tried to teach us.

    Which is more of a problem than you seem to think it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    And not always in accordance with what Jesus tried to teach us.

    Which is more of a problem than you seem to think it is.
    John 3:18, John 14:6



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Anybody else seeing any Biblical contradiction in any of this?

    LOL!

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Anybody else seeing any Biblical contradiction in any of this?

    LOL!
    No

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    No
    Then what is the disagreement and this whole thread discussion about?

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Anybody else seeing any Biblical contradiction in any of this?

    LOL!
    No. What contradiction do you see?

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    No. What contradiction do you see?
    I see someone asking a question I know he knows the answer to, because I've seen him respond to thread after thread that the other guy has started on that very same subject.

    Why this person would pretend to be more ignorant than he is, I do not know. But I'll be damned if it isn't quite a contradiction.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    No. What contradiction do you see?
    Faith alone and/or something else?

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    I see someone asking a question I know he knows the answer to, because I've seen him respond to thread after thread that the other guy has started on that very same subject.

    Why this person would pretend to be more ignorant than he is, I do not know. But I'll be damned if it isn't quite a contradiction.
    I've never claimed to know it all. So actually once in a while I DO learn something new from someone else more learned on a subject than me.

    Socratic method , also known as method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. It is a form of inquiry and discussion between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.

    The Socratic method is a method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. The extent to which this method is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, is called the Maieutic (Midwife) Method. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method.


    The phrase Socratic questioning is used to describe a kind of questioning in which an original question is responded to as though it were an answer. This in turn forces the first questioner to reformulate a new question in light of the progress of the discourse.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

    "Can only learn more, never less."

    "We're all ignorant, just about different things."
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 05-23-2015 at 11:48 AM.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Faith alone and/or something else?
    What's the contradiction? The Bible teaches one of those things and not the other.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    What's the contradiction? The Bible teaches one of those things and not the other.
    What is the other that the Bible DOESN'T teach?

  15. #42
    Eagles' Wings
    Member

    This is for acp - my comp is acting up. In response to your response.




    It looked like the post was from an RPF member by the name of Martin Luther, who was quoting something that made no sense. Maybe I have cobwebs in the brain.

    I prefer quotes that are cited and hopefully in context.
    Last edited by Eagles' Wings; 05-23-2015 at 12:16 PM.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Louise View Post
    This is for acp - my comp is acting up. In response to your response.




    It looked like the post was from an RPF member by the name of Martin Luther, who was quoting something that made no sense. Maybe I have cobwebs in the brain.

    I prefer quotes that are cited and hopefully in context.
    Sometimes we get what we want, and sometimes we don't. Don't worry about it. All is forgiven.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    What is the other that the Bible DOESN'T teach?
    The Bible DOESN'T teach justification by works.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    The Bible DOESN'T teach justification by works.
    Provided you ignore everything Jesus ever said, of course.

    Matthew 25 King James Version (KJV)31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

    32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

    33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

    34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

    35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

    36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

    37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

    38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

    39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

    40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

    41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

    42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

    43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

    44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

    45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

    46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
    You're going back into broken record mode. You knew the answer to this before you even posted the question.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Provided you ignore everything Jesus ever said, of course.



    You're going back into broken record mode. You knew the answer to this before you even posted the question.
    This is the only verse you know in the entire Bible, so I'll explain it to you. There is way to read that verse as prescriptive or descriptive.

    You can read that as something that Jesus is telling you to do to be saved, or you can read that verse as something that describes what saved people do.

    That verse should be read as something that is describing what saved people already do. When you read the other thousands of pages in the Bible instead of that one verse, you understand that. Start with the epistles to the Romans and Galatians to understand what Christianity says about works and faith.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    This is the only verse you know in the entire Bible, so I'll explain it to you. There is way to read that verse as prescriptive or descriptive.

    You can read that as something that Jesus is telling you to do to be saved, or you can read that verse as something that describes what saved people do.
    Or you can just read it as the truth straight from Jesus' mouth, and stop trying to tell the people who agree with our Lord and Savior that they're wrong to do so.

    People who have faith do works. People who do works without tallying them (the way you keep track of the views of your threads) have actual faith. You aren't saving anyone by trying to draw a line between those things. You're just deliberately trying to piss people off.

    You said...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    The Bible DOESN'T teach justification by works.
    You couldn't even to be bothered to say, '...by works alone.'

    It's still a lie. Always has been.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-23-2015 at 01:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  21. #48
    Eagles' Wings
    Member

    For those interested to consider:

    http://heidelblog.net/2015/04/heidel...justification/



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Or you can just read it as the truth straight from Jesus' mouth, and stop trying to tell the people who agree with our Lord and Savior that they're wrong to do so.

    People who have faith do works. People who do works without tallying them (the way you keep track of the views of your threads) have actual faith. You aren't saving anyone by trying to draw a line between those things. You're just deliberately trying to piss people off.
    No you can't. There are only two ways to read it, prescriptively or descriptively. You are reading it prescriptively. That is the wrong way to read it, because Jesus said if you BELIEVE ONLY, you already have eternal life:

    John 5:24

    "Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.
    Whoever believes has eternal life. It's not "whoever does these works" has eternal life.

    This is the benefit of reading the entire Bible instead of just one verse like you always read.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    No you can't. There are only two ways to read it, prescriptively or descriptively. You are reading it prescriptively. That is the wrong way to read it, because Jesus said if you BELIEVE ONLY, you already have eternal life:



    Whoever believes has eternal life. It's not "whoever does these works" has eternal life.

    This is the benefit of reading the entire Bible instead of just one verse like you always read.
    You know perfectly well that I know other verses. You just keep getting this one shoved in your face over and over because it disproves the lie you keep telling over and over.

    And if believing Him is the path to salvation, why do you keep calling Him a liar? You don't want to go to heaven?

    'Whoever hears my word and believes.' Which part are you failing to do when it comes to Matthew 25, the listening or believing?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 05-23-2015 at 01:53 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You know perfectly well that I know other verses. You just keep getting this one shoved in your face over and over because it disproves the lie you keep telling over and over.

    And if believing Him is the path to salvation, why do you keep calling Him a liar? You don't want to go to heaven?
    John 6:28-29

    Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

    Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

    Jesus preached FAITH ALONE. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe the gospel.

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Jesus preached FAITH ALONE. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe the gospel.
    Matthew 25 is part of a Gospel, and therein Jesus calls you a baldfaced liar. Faith without works is dead.

    Dude, I'm sorry that it seems to be so important to you that I believe that the fate of my soul depends upon your silly assed sophistry. But have heart. You'll get over it sooner or later.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Matthew 25 is part of a Gospel, and therein Jesus calls you a baldfaced liar. Faith without works is dead.

    Dude, I'm sorry that it seems to be so important to you that I believe that the fate of my soul depends upon your silly assed sophistry. But have heart. You'll get over it sooner or later.
    John 6:28-29

    Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

    Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”


    You don't believe what Jesus preached. The work of God is TO BELIEVE. You are reading Matthew 25 WRONGLY.

  28. #54
    Eagles' Wings
    Member

    "The medieval and Roman view made our cooperation part of the ground and instrument of justification thereby contradicting the biblical teaching that salvation and justification are by grace alone, through faith alone and the works are nothing more or less than the fruit and evidence of salvation and justification."

    This is a bit from the Heidelberg blog posted in #48



    This excerpt from Rev. Michael De Vries, in the Standard Bearer, May 2015

    "He drank and drank and drank until all the punishment of our sins was removed from that cup. He tasted every drop! Christ came in our flesh, in the grace of God, to taste our death and remove it forever!"

    This is justification in Christ's cross alone, by faith alone.
    Last edited by Eagles' Wings; 05-23-2015 at 03:28 PM.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Louise View Post
    "The medieval and Roman view made our cooperation part of the ground and instrument of justification thereby contradicting the biblical teaching that salvation and justification are by grace alone, through faith alone and the works are nothing more or less than the fruit and evidence of salvation and justification."

    This is a bit from the Heidelberg blog posted in #48



    This excerpt from Rev. Michael De Vries, in the Standard Bearer, May 2015

    "He drank and drank and drank until all the punishment of our sins was removed from that cup. He tasted every drop! Christ came in our flesh, in the grace of God, to taste our death and remove it forever!"

    This is justification.

    Yes.

  30. #56



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post

    You don't choose James, because James says that Christians are born fourth out of a monergistic act of God's willful choice and nothing else. James was a Christian who preached absolute predestination. You don't believe this.


    James 1:17-18

    Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    You don't choose James, because James says that Christians are born fourth out of a monergistic act of God's willful choice and nothing else. James was a Christian who preached absolute predestination. You don't believe this.


    James 1:17-18

    Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
    No, I primarily choose James because I wouldn't ever dream of choosing Paul, even on a bet. At least James actually knew Jesus.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    I've never claimed to know it all. So actually once in a while I DO learn something new from someone else more learned on a subject than me.



    "Can only learn more, never less."

    "We're all ignorant, just about different things."
    You like quotes, so I'll give you one that directly applies to you:


  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (Romans 4:5)

    For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.… (Ephesians 2:8-9)

    So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. (Romans 9:16)

    Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, (Romans 9:32)

    This is the gospel Paul preached to us. Then this:

    But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

    If you deny sola fide, be careful.
    Not only that, but the words faith and belief are merely translations of the one Greek word pistis. The Christian view of salvation is that men are saved by BELIEF ALONE.

    Read this:

    You might think the seemingly innocuous phrase “justification by belief alone” would be music to a Christian’s ear. But, you would be wrong.

    What you say? Don’t the Scriptures teach; “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.”

    Didn’t the Apostle John say; “I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.”

    And, didn’t our Lord Jesus Christ say; “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the Gospel.”

    Well, yes, but you see according to a majority of Reformed elders in the PCA, OPC and elsewhere belief saves no one. What you need is faith.

    But, wait. Aren’t the words faith and belief just English translations of the single word pistis in the Greek New Testament?

    Indeed they are and in fact while most translators prefer the Latin-based faith, if the word belief were used in its place it would do no violence to the meaning of any verse in Scripture. Consider the following examples where belief is used in place of faith:

    Mark 11:22: And Jesus answered them, “Have belief in God.

    Luke 18:42: And Jesus said to him, “Recover your sight; your belief has made you well.”

    Acts 26:18: to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by belief in me.’

    Romans 4:5: And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his belief is counted as righteousness,

    Romans 4:9: Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that belief was counted to Abraham as righteousness.

    Romans 4:11-13: He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by belief while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the belief that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of belief.

    Galatians 2:16: yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through belief in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by belief in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

    Ephesians 1:15: For this reason, because I have heard of your belief in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints.

    Colossians 2:12: having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through belief in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

    1 Peter 1:21: who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your belief and hope are in God.
    The attentive reader would no doubt have noticed in a number of the above examples that the verb form of belief is also used repeatedly and in fact can only be used simply because there is no verb form for the word faith. For this reason alone you would think that belief would be a preferable translation of pistis to the Latin-based faith.

    But, there is another reason why belief is preferable to faith as Gordon Clark explains:


    Because fides or faith permits, though it does not necessitate, a non-intellectual interpretation, the liberals today want us to have “faith” in a god who is unknowable and silent because he is impotent to give us any information to believe. This Latin anti-intellectualism, permitted by the noun fides, undermines all good news and makes Gospel information useless. Although the theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries would have repudiated twentieth-century anti-intellectualism, their Latin heritage adversely affected some of their views.

    Sadly, it’s not just theologians of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, or even those wicked modern liberals for that matter who have been adversely affected by this Latin heritage. Even purportedly conservative and Reformed theologians of today prefer the Latin-based faith precisely because of the anti-intellectualism “permitted by the noun fides.”

    Dr. Alan Strange, who is an OPC minister and full-time professor of church history at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, affirms this anti-intellectualism and accuses those who don’t of departing “from the historic confessions and catechisms of the Reformation as well as the theologians of the Reformation.” In addition, he pronounces anathemas on those who maintain we are justified by belief alone in the propositions of the Gospel alone and accuses them of grave heresy on par with the infamous Arius and Eutyches. Strange writes:


    That what is at the heart of saving faith requires rich metaphorical description and cannot be rationistically reduced to “propositional belief” seems galling to some, but that is the Reformed faith. Maybe you think the Bible teaches something far more “simple.” That’s what Arius, on the one hand, and Eutyches, on the other, thought about the person of Christ. But their Christianity (teaching that Christ was not truly God or Christ was not truly man) was not orthodoxy, the latter teaching something more full: Christ was God and man in one person, a profound mystery (even as was that of the blessed Holy Undivided Trinity), not amenable to rationalistic reduction. Such attempts to rationalistically reduce the faith have always ended unhappily for their promoters.

    Saving faith is not simply propositonal belief but is what … our Dutch brethren, and others herein have described it as, consonant with the Word of God as understood in the Reformation: a receiving and resting upon Christ, a coming to Christ, a personal trust in Christ, a leaning upon Christ that means that one looks away from all that one is and has and does and looks to Christ and Him alone, hoping, resting and trusting in no other. That is the response to the good news of the person and work of Christ that the Reformation sought (together with repentance and the fruits of faith) and that all gospel preachers call for today.

    For Strange belief in the Gospel message, the Gospel propositions, saves no one. Rather, sinners are saved through something that defies definition and that can only be expressed in metaphorical language signifying nothing. That’s because if this “rich metaphorical description” on which he relies, and that is required in addition to mere belief, were to signify some further truth that we are to believe, it could be stated in literal language; i.e., it could be reduced to a “propositional belief.” But Strange can’t and won’t allow that.

    Notice too, for Strange the Confessional figure of speech that we are to “receive and rest” on Christ (WLC 72) is explained by even more figures of speech like “coming to” and “leaning upon” that only moves the problem further back. He even includes the idea of “personal trust” as if trust could be anything but personal. Strange can’t distinguish belief from receiving and receiving simply because the latter are figures of speech describing the former. He can only assert “justifying faith is something more than merely belief: not something less, but something more.” He never explains exactly what this “something more” is or even why it is necessary in order for a sinner to be saved.

    Think about this. When asked to explain what this additional element is, this respected professor of church history can only respond with more figures of speech to explain the one he has been asked to define. Further, according to Strange, someone can believe the Gospel, believe that Christ alone died for his sins and is his only righteousness, and still be lost. Yet, the Scriptures say “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved” and Jesus said, “He that believes has eternal life.” Dr. Strange makes Christ a liar by insisting “justifying faith is something more than merely belief.”

    Dr. Strange, along with many like-minded and similarly confused TEs, REs and others who side with him, provide a great example of the profound confusion and darkness that has triumphed in the Presbyterian and Reformed world. A world where men actually deny salvation by belief alone while thinking they are defending the biblical doctrine of salvation when nothing could be further from the truth. For these men faith, as opposed to belief, provides the vehicle by which they can attach an intangible and undefinable something-they-know-not-what that must first be wrought in the sinner before they can be saved. It is not Christ’s work alone completely outside of us that saves, but rather it is some anti-intellectual psychological state of mind that completes mere belief making it saving and this is their doctrine of faith. Worse, these men, at least those who have a comprehensive theology like Dr. Strange, rest their un-Scriptural doctrine of faith on the equally un-Scriptural epistemology of Cornelius Van Til.

    As an example of this, and after proving himself unable to define this additional element to simple belief which alone is able to save sinners, Dr. Strange’s appeal is to “mystery.” Strange maintains that to clearly define faith so that that it might be understood is like trying to plumb the depths of “the Trinity, the Incarnation, divine sovereignty and human responsibility,” as if these doctrines too defied human logic and explanation. This is pure Van Til.

    Men like Dr. Strange aren’t defending the historic Reformed faith; they’re defending the religion of the Dark Ages.

    Yet, rather than receiving correction Dr. Strange doubled down by asserting: “this intellectualized definition of faith [i.e., Clark’s definition] is a significant departure from the teaching of the Reformation on the matter and rather deadly for our faith.” Deadly to his Vantillian and distorted conception of the Reformed faith perhaps.

    This is scandalous. Here we have a situation where they key term in the doctrine on which the church stands or falls cannot be clearly defined so as to be unambiguously understood. No wonder heretics like those of the Federal Vision, to include Peter Leithart, Doug Wilson, Jeffry Meyers, Steve Wilkins (remember him), and the others, have kept these imagined defenders of justification by faith chasing their tails these many years. Even worse, here we have a pastor and professor openly contradicting the words of the Lord Jesus Christ. He rejects justification by belief alone and insists that belief alone is not enough, yet he’s at a loss to clearly explain what more is needed in order for a sinner to be saved. This is a gaping hole that needs to be filled.

    Gordon Clark exposed this sad situation and dangerous weakness in the foundation of the historic Reformed faith years ago and proposed a simple solution to plug this hole. But, because it was a position first advanced by Gordon Clark, being a pastor in the OPC and a committed Vantillian, Dr. Strange, with knee-jerk predictability. rejects Clark’s solution out of hand along with justification by belief alone.

    In addition to Dr. Clark, the late Dr. Robbins recognized this breach in the foundation of the Reformed faith and spent the final years of his life attempting to repair it. Recently I was struck by the following passage taken from the forward Dr. Robbins wrote for the 2004 edition of Clark’s What is Saving Faith, which is a combination of Clark’s monographs Faith and Saving Faith and The Johannine Logos:


    Unintentionally and unwittingly, the defenders of justification by faith alone, by their un-Scriptural doctrine of faith (which makes faith a complex psychological act rather than simple assent to the truth) have created and sustained the theological climate in which those who deny justification by faith alone can flourish. The defenders of justification by faith alone have asserted that it is not enough to believe the Gospel, for even the demons believe the Gospel, and the demons are lost. Belief is not enough, they say. In order to be saved, one must do more than believe; one must commit, surrender, trust, encounter, relate, or emote.

    The deniers of justification by faith alone agree: It is not enough to believe the Gospel in order to be saved. But rather than urging people to perform some further psychological task in addition to belief, they tell them to do good works in order to be saved. Their works (or their baptism) will complete what is lacking in belief alone. In this way, both the defenders and the deniers of justification by faith alone have lost sight of what in fact saves: The perfect, imputed righteousness of Christ completely outside the sinner, and received by the simple instrument of belief alone.

    The current controversy over justification has broken out in conservative churches because Christians recognize that the Bible denies justification by works, whether works are regarded as a ground, condition, or an instrument of justification. But what most Christians have not yet recognized is that the common Protestant view of saving faith as something more than belief of the Gospel has fueled and will continue to fuel denials of justification by faith alone so long as it prevails. Until faith is understood as mere belief – the Bible makes no distinction between the two words – the justification controversy will continue, and those defending justification by faith alone will continue to be embarrassed by their agreement with the deniers of justification, that belief of the Gospel is not enough for salvation.


    Dr. Robbins provides a scathing rebuke. Too bad so few have listened.

    Dr. Robbins’ rebuke doesn’t stop there. The addition of some undefinable psychological element to faith, which is clearly absent from the unambiguously and positively intellectual term belief, has allowed these so-called stalwarts and defenders of the faith to rob Christians of the one true source of their assurance.

    For those who haven’t read Clark’s examination of faith simpliciter, of which saving faith is but a subspecies, I highly recommend that you do. When I first read Clark’s volume I found his simple solution and clear definition to the question what is faith and saving faith positively liberating. No longer was my faith in Christ tied to the ebb and flow of my emotions or to some unfathomable and mysterious psychological state mind, but rather it was now directly tied to the truths of Scripture; the mind of Christ. Which makes sense since our justification doesn’t rest on anything in us, despite the aggressive and unfounded claims of Dr. Strange and others to the contrary.
    https://godshammer.wordpress.com/201...-belief-alone/
    Last edited by Sola_Fide; 05-24-2015 at 03:01 PM.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Cool Bible Verses
    By Natural Citizen in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 04-13-2015, 07:52 AM
  2. Justification is Not by Faith Alone
    By eduardo89 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-22-2013, 05:36 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-12-2010, 07:56 PM
  4. COAKLEY verses LYNCH
    By Aratus in forum Massachusetts
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-15-2009, 08:13 AM
  5. Write the Next Two Verses!
    By A. Havnes in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-2009, 09:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •