Salvation is most certainly by grace alone , as that is confirmed in Scripture. However the only place that the expression / phrase -faith alone occurs is an explicit denial of your contention.

Faith with works is a fruit of our souls being open to God’s grace in our lives, to walk in the works he has prepared for us since before the foundationn of the world.

In him, with him, through him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit all power and Glory is yours Father Almighty.

Robert
I think I may have said a very similar thing regarding being saved by grace alone.  It’s hard to get it through sometimes.  I am not sure if the contributors are aware that the Lutheran Council and the Catholic Church have done much to clear up some misunderstandings on the subject of sola fide. 
Donna

Dear Donna,

The joint declaration on Justification is between the Catholic Church and Lutheran Churches which are largely committed to a wider iberal agenda. It has had little impact on harder line Lutheran groups , like the American Missori Synod.

However ncreasingly conservative Evangelicals are coming to see the novelty of Luther’s “re-dicovery.” Such is the current Bishop of Durham, the NT scholar Tom Wright and Alister Mcgrath an Evangelical Anglican scholar and prolific writer. The latter calls justification by faith alone a theological novum “ in his monumental book on justificaton. He validates it, by calling it a development. However an development of doctrine in a Catholic understanding, must never contadict a previous position.  Mcgrath shows that no Church father, including ST.Augustine of Hippo taught the doctrine .

I don’t know where this quote comes from, but it sits in my head & drums along, supposedly from Calvin, “Whilst it is true to say that we are saved through Faith alone, it is also true to say that Faith is never alone.”

& Robert, how is you holiday? 4 days away without the computer or else you are dead? That was only 3 days ago....

I hereby announce that I wilfully reject the authority of the pope over any part of my life. He is the Bishop of Rome, & as such I recognise his position. Yet he is not the successor of Peter for me.

Robert does that mean that I am no longer saved, if ever I was, in your view?

It seems to me that your view of salvation is more than “confessing with your lips and believing in your heart” of what Jesus has done for us. Peter was the apostle for the Jews. Paul was the apostle for the Gentiles. Whilst not wanting to pit Peter against Paul, it seems to me that there are passages in the Bible where we could make a case for the succession of Paul… how stupid! But overreactions one way (according to Hegelian Anglo-Catholic philosophies) always have their antithesis & synthesis.
Ah but that is not Thomistic enough for the true Roman Catholic… ah the joys of scholasticism, where did I put my razor? Ockham must have been a good man, because his name is a contraction of “Ocker Denham”.

Anyone still reading this gibberish? I’ve learnt a new way to argue. Now, how many angels do fit on the head of..

Robert
I understand what you are saying.  I agree about the development of doctrine.  I thought it might be of interest in that it does (from my limited understanding) acknowledge that there is/has been a misunderstanding on the part of the Lutheran church on the Catholic position of salvation.  I might be wrong about this.  I will have another look at it.
Donna

Robert ( Denham ) only God can know your heart...However the Catholic teaching is that those who are out of the visible communion with his Holy catholic Church through no fault of thier own and are seeking God with all the hearts , there may be a possibility that they will be saved.

To obey the Lord is paramount and those who love him will seek to obey and serve him will all their heart , mind and soul ....discover his will...not in their own subjective feeling about what the Lord wants ( and this is a serious trait as of Liberalism), but how he who is truth incarnate wishes it.

So how can I know.

What I do know is that God, willl give opportunities to all humanity, as he will all men to come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved...and non will be without excuse

Robert,

Salvation is most certainly by grace alone , as that is confirmed in Scripture. However the only place that the expression / phrase -faith alone occurs is an explicit denial of your contention.

If you are referring to James 2:24, you are wrong! James is not denying salvation is by faith alone. You are deliberately interpreting this verse out of context to fit the grid of your theology. You simply don’t like or believe what James is really talking about.

When it comes to justifiation this is where RC theology and what the Bible says part company most radically.
Although many RC’s wuould heartily affirm that justification is certainly by the grace of God through faith, they would say that works enter into justification in the sense that God justfies us in part by producing good works in us, so that we are justifiied by faith plus works.

Faith+ Works = Justification

The Bible teaches that we are justified by faith alone (Rom 3:22-24, 28; 4:5) and that justifications is God’s work (Romans 8:33-34). But this does not mean that works no longe have any place in Christianity or in the life of the Christian. If they didn’t, Christianity would seem to promote immoral conduct.

When it comes to justification no workes enter in; not even faith is a work. But good works must follow if we are truly justified (note the tense), though they do not enter at all into justification.

Faith = Justification+Works

In Ephesians 2:8-9 see how the word works is mentioned twice? The first mention of works is negative. It tells us that because we have been saved by grace through faith, therefore we are not saved by works otherwise it would be possible for a saved person to boast over another person who did not do these works and therefore was not saved. This verse smashes the notion that works contribute any measure to our justification. If we think that works have a part to play in our justification, we are trusting in those works rather than in the fully sufficient work of Christ and are not justified. We are not saved. We cannot be saved by grace and grace plust works at the same time.

But on the other hand, no sooner has Paul rejected the role of works in justification than he immediately brings works in again, saying that God has created us for good works. This is stated in such strong language- “for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them"- that if there are no works, the person involved is not justified.

You probably think Robert that this is a contradiction. I think that Paul is merely saying that although justification aptly describes what it means to be saved, it is not the whole aspect as God justifies but he also regenerates. There is no justification without regeneration, just as there is no regeneration without justification.

I look forward to your reply.

Joshua

Sorry but you are following a false interpretation..unknown in the Church for the first 1500 years

You will be judged for the deeds done in the body...and rember the sheep and the goats.

Stever Ray on his website has a good refutation of your exegesis.  Catholiccomvert .com

Sorry but you are following a false interpretation..unknown in the Church for the first 1500 years

And need I point to my reply on Matthew’s gospel again?

You will be judged for the deed done in the body...and rember the sheep and the goats.

Dear Rob Denham

Do you ever consider that your reading of Romans and Galatians may be wrong, and that sends you on the wrong course and diection. If your reading was correct, we would see evidence of the teaching and preachibng in the 1500 year period after the Apostolic period. Are yoy saying the central doctrine of the Gospel and the hallmark of a “ standing or falling church “was lost!

Yes.

You say it was not there for 1500 years,
Then what about Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter XXXII.--“We are justified not by our own works, but by faith.” He clearly outlines justified by faith not works, and not faith + works.

That is 2 examples now that I have given you. One from within the Bible (the apostle Paul) and one from soon after (Clement).

Another theory topples to the ground.

The idea of Grace was very quickly lost, even within the time that the Bible was written. Paul argued against those who wanted to destroy grace, by adding works, even if it was the smallest bit of works, such as removing the tip of an appendage.

Jesus riled against the loss of grace in parables such as the workmen in the field, and the prodigal son’s older brother. We so easily lose grace.

The New Testament tells us “ some shall depart from the Faith “ Some ,but not all,..... but Robert ( denham)the doctrine of justification by faith alone is not there. How could the evil one have overpowered tthe essence of the Gospel., as you believe it....the hallmark of a standing Church.

Christ, said, I will send you a comforter , who will lead you into all truth.....

Peter will confirm his brethren with a faith that will not fail.

The Church will glorify Christ in every generation and lo I am with you, even unto the end of the age.

Come on..admit it.

Hey Robert Denham

You ducked this last time but how about explaining away Mathew 5:17, 7:21, 15:10, 19:16 and 25:31ff, Mark 10:17-22, 12:29-32, Luke 6:20ff, 46, 7:47ff, 9:23ff, 10:25ff, 12:35ff, 14:33, 16:19ff etc etc all showing the words of Jesus calling us to action and saying we will be judged by what we do vs the words of Paul in Romans where he weights in on the early church debate as to whether you need to be circumcised or not to be a christian.

Why don’t we (for a change) gloss Paul by appealing to context (he was writing for a particular point and may well have adopted hyperbolae as a discoursive technique and take the words of our saviour as literal.  Oh hang on, if we did that we would get the wrong answer.  Sorry Robert.

cheers

John