>the only thing that matters is faith>yes, folks, you can stab an elderly woman and steal her purse and then sodomize a 6 year old, but you'll still get into heaven anyway as long as you trust in God>good behavior is meaningless
>>13526214>Buying Pokemon cards to forgive your sins is totally legit though
>>13526214>Cathomutts in charge of understanding anything more complex than kissing corpses
>>13526214>be atheist>do whatever you want because there is no morality
Who are you guys quoting?
>>13526452Luther, Martin. On Jews and their lies, pp. 104-150
>>13526471That's a lot of pages for a short quote, I don't believe that's a real quote. Why are you bearing false witness?
>When our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said, ``Repent'' (Mt 4:17), he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance.Literally the first line of the 95 theses.
>>13526616You're the retard.
>>13526621>>13526630take your meds schizos
>>13526452no one. it's a very dishonest debate strategy used by pseudointellectuals who can't properly deconstruct other people's rhetoric.
>>13526214Calvinism was invented to excuse wicked people in their continued wickedness. It doesn't even make any sense.
>>13526711oh and lutheranism. Basically the same.
>>13526860If a mass murderer prayed for forgiveness 15 minutes before his execution, would he be able to receive eternal life?
>>13526214The big misunderstanding comes from Catholics and Orthodox inability to comprehend Faith. Their religiosity never goes beyond vain and superficial ritual, so when they hear Sola Fide they think of it as another ritual.>What? You only need to believe (express belief in a ritualistic manner) to go to heaven?That's why they practice their Christianity like this:https://youtu.be/Ys496hIsbGs?t=1910
>>13526869>And the condemned criminal said, "Lord, remember me when you are in your kingdom." Jesus replied "Truly I tell you you will be with me in Heaven."
Do the people that make this argument realize that when Luther or Christians in general say things like that it is purely hypothetical for the sole purpose of of thought experiment and such scenarios are explicitly denied to ever actually happen?
>>13526875>Their religiosity never goes beyond vain and superficial ritual, so when they hear Sola Fide they think of it as another ritual.Tain't so, Magee.Louis Bouyer was an ordained Lutheran minister who converted to Catholicism. He understood Lutheranism from the inside, and was a world-class scholar, to boot. He wrote a great book called "The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism," which is still in print, and readily available on Amazon and elsewhere.The OP and several other posts are absurd, and obviously written by those with no understanding of Lutheranism. Bouyer *did* understand it, and wrote a profound book on the subject of Luther's understanding of justification, and the historical/philosophical and possibly emotional/psychological roots of his *mis*understanding of the true Catholic position. Check it out.Another excellent book on this subject is Karl Adam's The Roots of the Reformation. Adam argues - persuasively, to my mind - that Luther could have been and should have been a great reforming Catholic saint, and it is a tragedy that, instead, the church-dividing Reformation took place. Also well worth checking out.
>>13526395>god came from man so why not morality too
>>13527560>Louis Bouyer was an ordained Lutheran minister who converted to CatholicismSo an apostate>Bouyer *did* understand it, and wrote a profound book on the subject of Luther's understanding of justification, and the historical/philosophical and possibly emotional/psychological roots of his *mis*understanding of the true Catholic positionLuther did *not* misunderstand Rome's position, not whatever has developed since his day, and certainly not the Romanism of his own day. It is important to understand that Luther was not someone who was raised in a different religion and was told everything he knew of Rome, he was a monk who spent every day in the confessional or reading scripture and doctors of the church, and later became chair of theology at a major university. He knew exactly what Rome was saying, which is why his opponents did not accuse him of ignorance and leave it at that, they knew he understood it too. In fact it was Johann Eck's arguments against him at Leipzig which led Luther to conclude "Ja, ich ben Hussite". It is true however that Rome's rhetoric since has changed significantly however, as there is far less talk of the grace of justification which is an inward change that makes us truly righteous before God. The substance of that heresy however has not.>it is a tragedy that, instead, the church-dividing Reformation took placeThis is no tragedy, it was necessary and blessed that it happened, for God said "Come out of her, my people". Rome is no true church but a synagogue of Satan, and what concord hath Christ with Belial? Therefore it was no tragedy that we came out of Rome but the separation of Christ's sheep from the children of the devil.
>>13526214>removes the deuterocanon because you get btfo'd by catholics when you try to cite those books in arguments>eventually realise there are several books in the NT that contradict your made up theology>try and redifine the canon further and remove these books using strange parameters like "i just don't see god in them" including the book of revelation>even your most diehard supporters know this is fucking retarded so your reluctantly drop the subject>through this you inadvertantly show the flaw and contradiction of your doctrine of sola scriptura, which shows a person has no way of defining the canon without refering church tradition
>>13526395Imperial cults were far more strict than any form of Christianity.
>>13527560>that Luther could have been and should have been a great reforming Catholic saint, and it is a tragedy that, instead, the church-dividing Reformation took place. Also well worth checking out.luther was consuned by pride sadly. i agree he could've been a saint if his character was better
>>13527640correct. the Church didn't really know how to deal with Luther since he was too well-read and informed, he wasn't some peasant nutcase who showed up one day and claimed God told him to start so-and-so cult. because of this he got powerful friends supporting him that earlier heretics did not.
Luther was correct in his grievances with the Catholic Church, but he went too far the other direction and created his own heresy.
>>13527897he hadn't really wanted that happen and to his dying day he still accepted most of the Catholic doctrines such as the Virgin Birth and the Real Presence as fact. he was also unhappy when his followers began to call themselves Lutherans.
>>13527897And what would that be?
>>13527908That's interesting>>13527909Well he went on to suggest that you could commit adultery and murder a thousand times a day and it not matter so long as you had head knowledge that Jesus was the son of God like the demons do. That's not what Faith is at all. You can't say you have faith in Jesus and then not obey him; just go along doing your own thing.
>>13527928"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus told the woman. "You are free to go, but do not sin anymore."
>>13527946This is correct. We are commanded to sin no more. Be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. We can fall away and do so, and Jesus will forgive us if our heart is truly repentant, but you can't fool him.
>>13526214Why did the Epistle of James trigger him so much? It's my favorite part of the NT.
>>13527928>Well he went on to suggest that you could commit adultery and murder a thousand times a day and it not matter so long as you had head knowledge that Jesus was the son of GodWhat will you say when you stand before Jesus Christ and He calls you to answer why you slandered one of His sheep?>>13527957He wasn't triggered by it, he entertained the idea it wasn't authentic (as well as some other scriptures which papist apologists don't mention because they can't use it for their narrative) but ultimately admitted it.
>>13527971>What will you say when you stand before Jesus Christ and He calls you to answer why you slandered one of His sheep?I mean I don't know if Luther repented before he died and was truly sorry for mourning God over teaching such heresy. But I'm simply defending the word of God. Go and sin no more. Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect. Don't be ashamed of Jesus's words here.
>>13528012Well i mean it just proves that people are capable of twisting the word to ridiculous degrees as a means to suit their pet sins.
>>13528028The word is hypnotic. It is meant to be twisted. You twist it into something righteous.
>>13528030No I don't think it's meant to be twisted, otherwise the Christians for the first 300 years would have all had different interpretations. But it was very clear to them. Twisting didn't start happening till Augustine's time. This is when Rome started commondeering the religion to gatekeep it.
>>13527640>Luther did *not* misunderstand Rome's position, not whatever has developed since his day, and certainly not the Romanism of his own day.Yeah, he absolutely did. Bouyer explains this at length.
>>13527971>>Well he went on to suggest that you could commit adultery and murder a thousand times a day and it not matter so long as you had head knowledge that Jesus was the son of God>What will you say when you stand before Jesus Christ and He calls you to answer why you slandered one of His sheep?How is it slander? Are you saying that Luther did not say:> No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a daySource: https://theologyandchurch.com/2017/02/16/sin-boldly/Even this exhaustive defense of Luther does not deny that Luther wrote those words in a letter to Melancthon:https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-be-sinner-and-let-your-sins-be.htmlCan the remark be dismissed as mere hyperbole? So some would contend, only by rather torturous arguments, however.
>>13527987All you are actually doing is lying about things you don't understand >>13528047No, he didn't.>>13528069>How is it slander?Because he was not encouraging sin as you imply nor did he ever say that mere mental assent was required for salvation. This is the definition of false witness because you are being deliberately dishonest as your post demonstrates you know what he actually said, and don't care.
>>13526214spiritual jews spiritually jewing spiritual jewsnothing new under the sun
>>13528251>Because he was not encouraging sin as you imply nor did he ever say that mere mental assent was required for salvation. This is the definition of false witness because you are being deliberately dishonest as your post demonstrates you know what he actually said, and don't care.This is special pleading that turns on a defensive, but by no means dispositive interpretation of your precious Luther's words.>> No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a dayLuther said it, I believe it, that settles it.I take his words at face value. You are free to interpret their meaning out of existence, but don't accuse those who refuse to follow you on that dubious path of dishonest or false witness or slander. Let Luther's words speak for themselves. You're entitled to your own interpretation, to be sure, but have no grounds or authority whatsoever for supposing your own, private interpretation is the ultimate or final interpretation.>[re Bouyer:] No, he didn't.Yes, he did. Read the book, find out.
>>13528302This is correct.
>>13528302>This is special pleadingYou are a special idiot>Luther said it, I believe it, that settles it.You shouldn't equate Luther with God, friend.>I take his words at face valueYou take his words, separate them from their immediate context, separate them from their historical context, and fill them with your own meaning so as to demonize him. You are a liar because your father has been a liar since the beginning.>Yes, he did.No, he didn't. Repeating "but this apostate said" doesn't change the theological and historical reality, nor is it an argument. As we are seeing it is more so that you don't understand Luther (mostly deliberately) than Luther not understanding Rome.
>>13528345Here is the context, according to the highly pro-Luther Beggars All website:>If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, **even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day.** Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner Source: https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2005/12/luther-be-sinner-and-let-your-sins-be.html>You take his words, separate them from their immediate context, separate them from their historical context, and fill them with your own meaning so as to demonize him.Nope. Nothing about the context changes the meaning.>No, he [Bouyer] didn't. Repeating "but this apostate said" doesn't change the theological and historical reality, nor is it an argument.You need to read Bouyer's argument before you can properly dispute it. You haven't done that. This "apostate" business is just silly - a lame excuse for failing to come to grips with Bouyer.Here's a pretty good summary of Bouyer's argument for anyone who's interested (it falls short in failing to address the key issue of Luther's nominalism, which Bouyer develops at some length):http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features/mbrumley_bouyer1_nov04.asp
>the only thing that matters is faith>yes, folks, you can stab an elderly woman and steal her purse and then sodomize a 6 year old, but you'll still get into heaven anyway as long as you give me a bunch of money>good behavior is meaningless
>>13527957It literally debunks sola fide
>>13526869Repentance isn't just a prayer. You would know this if you ever felt it yourself, sinner.
>>13528429>Here is the contextThank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. Now repent of it>Nothing about the context changes the meaning.Nothing in the context tolerates the meaning you added to it>You need to read Bouyer's argument before you can properly dispute itLOL, "read this book or you can't point out my claims are wrong"
>>13528429>Here's a pretty good summary of Bouyer's argument for anyone who's interested (it falls short in failing to address the key issue of Luther's nominalism, which Bouyer develops at some length):Now I will refute the errors herein. First is the idea that Rome is necessary for faithfulness to the principles of the Reformation- no. It was in fact the cause of the separation that such Reformation principles could only be snuffed out in Rome, and Rome sought to do that very thing. Indeed, I think we will see that "properly understood" here really means "utterly redefined".Next undue significance is placed in sola gratia as the driving force of the Reformation. While it is undeniably essential, the material cause of the Reformation was the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and the instrumental cause was the divine authority of scripture alone. Now it does not matter that Rome says that grace is necessary to be saved, we have never been ignorant of that, and that has never been the cause of our dispute. Our contention has always been that the powerful grace of God absolutely and without assistance raises a man from spiritual death to spiritual life, man being utterly incapable in the depths of his sin to at any point co-operate with the grace of the God whom he despises. This we must maintain against the Semi-Pelagianism of Rome.
>>13526219Protestant lies the indulgence where just a way to pay respect to the pope in order to get judge quicker in the after life
>>13528429Next with regard to sola fide an errant definition is given. The concern was not that independent human will be excluded, as we have established necessity of grace was never in question. But the concern was that absolutely nothing of man, internal or external, willed or unwilled, would find itself into God's verdict of 'righteous', but that the only basis on which a man could stand before God would be the gratuitous imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is by this foreign righteousness alone that a man is justified before God. Rome on the other hand held and holds that justification is an inward change by which as a consequence of the infusion of righteousness into the Christian's soul he may stand before God not because of the righteousness of another but because he now actually is righteous. The citation of Aquinas annunciating this heretical notion of a "formed" faith vs an "unformed" faith is irrelevant except insofar as it demonstrates the previous dishonesty, as this concept was attacked directly and by name by the reformers. But next we also see the point demonstrated that it was not Luther who misunderstood you but you who misunderstood Luther, as for the Protestant saving faith is not mere mental assent, this is called assensus, the only faith that saves is fiducia, which is the fundamental trust in the work of Jesus Christ alone to save us from the wrath of God. This faith apprehends the grace of justification absolutely and immediately, before and without any works of charity. As a matter of history, the article (and therefore your apostate) is wrong. Sola fide was not to defend sola gratia but the other way around; sola fide was Luther's breakthrough itself. Lord willing I will now look at part 2.
>>13526222>Cathomutts in charge of understanding anything more complex than kissing corpsesLike architecture ?
>>13526214Thank you for demonstrating you complete ignorance on Martin Luther and his writings
>>13528747No, Martin Luther agreed. He said you could kill and fornicate a thousand times a day and be fine.
>>13526214That would be far more coherent than his position>Only faith is salvific>But uhh, you see, you still need to be righteous because, uhh... [insert pilpul]>But always remember that doesn't save you
>>13528429>>13528429Now as regards sola scriptura the matter of Rome's very real opposition to the teaching of scripture is at this point irrelevant. It does not matter in defining the principle whether the human traditions of Rome actually contradict scripture or not, all that matters is if they do contradict they are to be discarded rather than used to make the scripture of none effect. This is where Rome stands in defiance of the authority of God in scripture, because they pretend to make the words of mere men (to nobody's surprise, themselves specifically) equal with the very words of God who alone is infallible.
>>13528429Now as regards sola scriptura the matter of Rome's very real opposition to the teaching of scripture is at this point irrelevant. It does not matter in defining the principle whether the human traditions of Rome actually contradict scripture or not, all that matters is if they do contradict they are to be discarded rather than used to make the scripture of none effect. This is where Rome stands in defiance of the authority of God in scripture, because they pretend to make the words of mere men (to nobody's surprise, themselves specifically) equal with the very words of God who alone is infallible. Now the article finally drops the pretense that Rome and the Reformation are really saying the same thing and lets satan out to suddenly attack these fundamental truths of God. Firstly, it targets justification by faith alone and the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. It says that a man is justified by being changed inwardly and actually made righteous. It finally admits the reality of our situation and the reason why every Christian must say of the Romanist "let him be anathema" as Paul commanded us in Galatians. For were we to stand before God on our own merits the only certainty would be doom, doom and damnation, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All our hope and confidence rests in this: that because we stand before God on the basis of the life of another our sins will not be imputed to us, they are all forgotten, past, present and future, so that we may fornicate and murder a thousand times a day and God will not disown us, for nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. As Paul says, "Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died". This is the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no other.
>>13528429The resurrection of the question of sola scriptura is merely the repetition of the previous error, which has already been refuted. However a direct attack on God's authority in scripture is added, as it always must be by those who seek to overthrow said authority, that interpretation of it is impossible. However like many other attacks on bible by Rome it hits itself more so than the bible, as it raises the question of how we may interpret the popes and councils. Why should I defer to your personal interpretation of such things? Maybe I interpret them as teaching what I believe. Of course it is a foolhardy assault against God's word (and really amounts to little more than a declaration of refusal to submit to the text of scripture, for the verbatim text will be swatted aside as "just your interpretation") , because if we will admit that scripture is truly the very words of God then its perspicuity necessarily follows, for did God not make these men to whom He is speaking? Is He not able to communicate with them? Is He just too dumb or too weak for it?
>>13528429But it is on more than just this theological ground that we reject this impotent attack on God by men, we can do more than merely assert the clarity of His word, for it is a false charge that is layed against us that we have no method of interpreting the bible, or that we allow anyone to interpret the text of scripture however we want. A man will certainly end up in error if he approaches the scripture without following these methods: firstly, he must approach in faith, this entails respect for the unique nature of scripture as the very and only word of God and allow it to speak whatever it says, allowing anything he believes to the contrary no matter the source to slough off from his mind. It also means that he must interpret scripture according to the teachings of scripture as a whole, and the analogy of faith. Secondly, he must show respect for the immediate context of the text, the handful of paragraphs and meta-narrative of the book any given verse is situated in, so that its specific meaning may be ascertained. Thirdly, respect must be paid to the greater context, that is the work of a particular author as a whole, so that the text is interpreted according to its author, eg Galatians holds more weight as an aid to interpreting Romans than Revelation. Finally, respect must be paid to the historical context, the time in which the author is writing and his particular audience, so that we may understand the concerns, trends and meanings of words of the day from which the book comes. If a man faithfully interprets the scripture in light of these, he will never err in his interpretation.
>>13528764No he was very harsh on Christians living in sin. In some of his sermons he be so harsh on obeying God’s commandments that you’ll be left with no hope at all. Read Martin Luther’s large catechism at the very least. Or read Edward Engelbrecht’s Luther’s threefold use of the law to see where he is coming from on the law. Luther was not an antinomian.
>>13526869>praying for 15 minutesIf you count the time of your prayer, that's clearly an act and not a form of faith.
>>13529232I don’t think the ‘time’ is the focus of his statement.
>>13526214Lutheran soteriology be like:>If you believe in Jesus and you trust his mercy, He will fool the Father by imputing his righteousness to you but you remain a sinner so the Father gives a faulty veredict in His tribunal when he judges you.Yeah man, makes total sense. What a blasphemous system.
>>13529715Being born again means you're transformed inside and your old will often dies. You're a new person because Jesus transforms you. Unless you've been transformed you've never been saved.
>>13529715The Father is the one who imputed the righteousness, fedora fren
>>13528446And that's a good thing.
>>13526214>posts a picture of LurtherHe literally wrote a book called Against the Antinomians. But I bet you don't even know what that means, you pea brained knuckle dragger.
>>13529727That's the Catholic position.>>13529733Still a faulty veredict.
>>13529742>regeneration is the Catholic positionlmao that description is fucking Calvinist m8
>>13529752>Unless you've been transformed you've never been saved.That's literally the Catholic position.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8
>>13529772>just watch this youtube videoNo. Read literally any serious protestant writer instead of crap you find in your youtube feed.
>>13529772>Dimond brothers schizo propaganda
>>13529775>>13529784Ad hominem much? I don't like the Dimond brothers, but the video is good and it quotes protestant sources.
>>13529785>the video is goodAs I recall the argument is "regeneration is related to justification, therefore they're the same thing". And these arrogant morons think they "disproved" the Reformation with that
>>13529742The Catholic position is that you're saved if you die without a mortal sin on your soul. That you must keep confessing to be saved.
>>13529788The argument is that justification and regeneration is the same thing in catholic theology but it was divided in protestant's.Since the NT says God saves us by cleaning us, the protestant position is disproven.
>>13529913>God saves usSorry but your wording this thoroughly protestant. The Catholic position is that you convince God to save you.
>>13529918Are you memeing or are you serious?
>>13529913>The argument is that justification and regeneration is the same thing in catholic theology but it was divided in protestant's.No, I remember them specifically playing clips of Protestant theologians talking about regeneration and saying "see they say people are changed as part of salvation they're contradicting themselves !!!" They're clowns>Since the NT says God saves us by cleaning usHere's what the NT says about justification: "What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.' 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, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: 'Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.' Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith 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 faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised."
>>13528674If you want to start talk about material achievements, protestant countries are litterally the richest and most advanced in the world, while catholic shitholes are too busy building pointless complicated churches, despite G-d wanting simply halls of workship
>>13530062St. Paul is talking against the jews and judaizers, who claimed they were they were saved by the law of Moses. St. Paul defends, correctly, that it's God who saves everyone, and he saves those who believe in him and obey him.That's why he's speaks of Abraham, because at that time there was no law of Moses or covenant yet Abraham was saved by his faith before he was even circuncided.Jesus christ says "“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.", "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me." meaning you have to believe and obey the moral law, not the ceremonial law of Moses; and now just as a mere demostration of your faith but as a complete requierement.
>>13526869Yes. And that's the same in catholicism.
It's not wrong though. Free will can't exist in the Christian worldview. The logical conclusion to Christian belief is strong Calvinism.
>>13530118>who claimed they were they were saved by the law of MosesIt is important to note that using the term "saved" in this passage is largely inaccurate and unfaithful to the text since this a term with connotations far too broad to fit into Paul's scope. Rather we should use the term justification, since it is this doctrine alone which Paul treats here.
>>13530118>St. Paul defends, correctly, that it's God who saves everyone, and he saves those who believe in him and obey him.No, there is no "obedience" in this text, to the contrary he specifically says "to the one who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness". This man is contrasted with "the one who works", what is the work which the one who works does but the work of obedience to God. The one who does not work therefore is one who is disobedient, who has no righteousness before God, "but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly", the relevance of justifying the ungodly is unquestionably in that such an ungodly man is the one who does not work, hence the fact He justifies the ungodly is of vast importance to him. There is no room here for the idea that "justifies" intimates an inward change to actual righteousness, the entire point again is to contrast the godly one who works with the ungodly one who does not work, but whose faith is counted as righteousness. "his faith is counted as righteousness", that is, even though he is ungodly and does not work and is therefore devoid of actual righteousness, he is nonetheless counted as righteous because of his faith alone, "just as David speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works". What is this blessing? "Blessed is the man to whom God does not impute sin". Who is this man? Rome has no answer, they all have their venial sins imputed to them, and even their mortal sins which destroy the grace of justification, yet according to the scripture this blessed man is the one who believes in Him who justifies the ungodly.
>>13530118>That's why he's speaks of Abraham, because at that time there was no law of Moses or covenant yet Abraham was saved by his faith before he was even circuncided.There was a covenant, and that is the whole point. If his argument was merely that there was no ceremony of the law of Moses then he could simply say as much as a one-hit quitter and leave the whole matter at that, but his point is that the covenant was established with Abraham on the basis of faith alone, and the law which demanded obedience and was added centuries later could not alter the terms of the covenant which had already been established. This law includes all of the moral law, and the ten commandments. But the timing is significant because it is before the work the judaizers sought to add to the gospel of grace, it is before a righteous deed, it is a time where he can only stand before God on faith because that is all he has to offer. >Jesus christ saysThe text of Romans 4, which was the only text we were discussing, has just been abandoned with barely a comment and nothing even similar to an exegesis so that instead we may run off to the words of our Lord on a completely different subject in a completely different context in a completely different book by a completely different author. And why? Why so they may be set against the apostle of course.
>>13530118>St. Paul is talking against the jews and judaizersI can already tell this is New Paul skullduggery. Funny how p*pists always claim some unbroken tradition yet nevertheless spout ahistorical nonsense. Dropped.
>>13530252Yeah totally man. He wasn't fighting a heresy which happened in his ministry, he was fighting pelagianism, which happened several centuries later.>Funny how p*pists always claim some unbroken tradition yet nevertheless spout ahistorical nonsense. >ahistorical nonsense. Just read any prereformation commentary on Romans. Start with On the Spirit and the Letter, by saint Augustine.
>>13528449I really never understood this as an atheist "gotcha". Like take example your their mother.If you compliment your mother, do you not know the difference between an earnest compliment? and one just meant to be nice for the sake of being nice. Have you never been TRULY sorry for something you did, and at other times only apologized to save face?Do atheists not understand people being authentic because everything is "le fake floating star dust"?You people always use the "before" death argument because you're trying to make it seem like desperation and not true faith.You know what authenticity is, that is the only way to heaven.No amount of screaming "NO TRUE SCOTSSMAN" is going to save your soul, I'll pray for you though.
>>13526214I see the christcucks are fighting amongst themselves again over how to best worship a dead jew
>>13532082even the godless end up worshipping something . . .
>>13532107The godless aren't worshipping a foreign tribe that hates them. At least the muslims and early christians understood that
>>13532118>The godless aren't worshipping a foreign tribe that hates themYou sure?
>>13530704>He wasn't fighting a heresy which happened in his ministryHe was, and his arguments if anything apply more strongly to Romanism