Sola Fide - InquisitorKind vs. Defens0rFidei

[InquisitorKind]

5 Round Debate resolving:

Do the Scriptures teach that we are justified by faith alone?

Opening Statements-IK:

First I would like to offer special thanks to Defens0rFidei for taking up the debate and to Christian Forums for hosting it.

I would also thank you, the reader, for taking time to consider such important topics as these. I pray that the following words may be true of you:

"...we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others...with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of the Holy Scriptures." -Dionysius of Alexandria

The first question that must be answered is, What do we mean by “justified by faith alone”? First, justification is the forensic declaration of the sinner being free from the guilt of sin, the making right of the sinner before God’s eyes. Now, for a definition of faith, I supply the first listed in Strong’s #4012:

conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it

What is the object of this faith—this idea of trust and conviction? It is in God Himself. Being “justified by faith alone” means that the sinner is declared righteous before God simply by resting upon God Himself for salvation. This position excludes any works, on the part of the believer, in the process of justification.

Now that the topic has been clarified, we may proceed to answer the original question.

There are a variety of Scripture passages that affirm the principle of justification by faith alone, or as it is often termed, Sola Fide. But let’s focus on the primary text of Romans 4:2-12 (all Scriptures are taken from the NASB, emphasis mine):

2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7
"BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN,
AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.
8
"BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT."
9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."
10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;
11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Throughout this passage, Paul is contrasting working with believing. In particular, notice verses five and nine; it is very clear that Abraham was justified—declared righteous before God—through faith, and faith alone. The significance of this cannot be understated, especially since Paul is using Abraham as an archetype for every believer’s justification before God (see verses ten through twelve in particular, and see Galatians 3:5-9 for further support of this concept). In other words, the normal means of justification for the sinner before God is by faith alone.

(Word count 625)

[Dominus Fidelis]

Introduction

First of all, I want to thank InquisitorKind, aka Matt, for taking up the challenge to debate this topic. We will certainly not be the first to debate it, nor the last, but hopefully someone reading this debate will be enlightened from our exchange. I want to state outright that Matt is my brother in Christ, even if he doesn't agree with my Church's beliefs or interpretations of and any perceived attack on his arguments is not intended to be directed at Matt himself nor his denomination. I seek only the truth, not the tearing down of a fellow believer in Jesus Christ.

Also, I do not have the qualifications or authority to speak for the Catholic Church. I do so as an amateur and any misrepresentations or mistakes are my own. Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with him listing the quote by Dionysius of Alexandria.

I would also like to offer a prayer to Our Lady of Good Counsel to intercede with God for our enlightenment.

"Mother of Good Counsel, obtain for us from Thy Divine Son the love of virtue and the strength to choose, in doubtful and difficult situations, the course agreeable to our salvation. Supported by Thy hand we shall thus journey without harm along the paths taught us by the word and example of Jesus our Saviour, following the Sun of Truth and Justice in freedom and safety across the battlefield of life under the guidance of Thy maternal Star, until we come at length to the harbour of salvation to enjoy with Thee unalloyed and everlasting Peace." - Pope Pius XII

Opening Statement

I would like to state that Catholics do not believe in works-based righteousness, even though we are often accused of holding that view. I offer some council declarations to define our beliefs clearly for the purposes of this debate.

“If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.” (Council of Trent, Canon I)

"...God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits.” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter XVI)

But we also do not believe in faith-alone righteousness...

"If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Canon IX)

The Catholic view of justification is by grace alone, which produces faith and works together, through the consent of the will, aided by grace.

“…faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter VIII)

Rebuttal to Matt's Opening Statement

Matt starts off defining justification as...

First, justification is the forensic declaration of the sinner being free from the guilt of sin, the making right of the sinner before God’s eyes.

Our disagreement begins with this opening definition. The idea of a mere one-time forensic declaration of man being righteous before God is an invention and tradition of man. This idea is also known as "imputed righteousness." The analogy often used is that of a criminal being tried in a courtroom. The judge has all of the evidence to convict the criminal, but instead, an innocent man takes the punishment for the criminal, and the criminal is legally declared to be innocent for all time.

Is it biblical? No, it is not.

"Let no one deceive you. He who does what is right is righteous, just as Christ is righteous" - (1 John 3:7)

What could be further from the view that he who stands judicially righteous is righteous, just as Christ is righteous?

Where did this judicial, overly legalistic view of justification come from in the first place? Some 1500 years after St Paul wrote his epistles, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other "reformers" came up with these ideas based on misinterpretations and personal biases. In what seems like a glaringly ignorant understanding of Hebrew culture, they took a few verses to support their own views, even though those are contradicted numerous times by other verses in the Bible.

Is the Bible contradictory? No, it is not. The Scriptures are the Word of God and they are clear that justification is a process, a relationship, a life-long covenant, in which the believer must persevere to the end in order to be ultimately saved.

"Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end." - (Heb 3:12-14)

Now for some further Scriptural teachings...

Clearly our Lord makes the point that good works are not only important, but essential to salvation. If works come automatically from faith, then why did Jesus tell us that we must do good works to enter Heaven? Wouldn't it be redundant to teach about the works part of the equation? Faith was not mentioned once in the below teaching, only works.

Faith is also necessary, but it is not sufficient.

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." - Matthew 25:31-46)

"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 in Heaven." - (Matthew 7:21)

St James summarizes the Lord's teachings nicely in the second chapter of his epistle. A writing that Martin Luther tried to have thrown out of the Bible, calling it an "epistle of straw." Its not hard to imagine why Luther had a problem with the epistle. It contradicts faith-alone outright! Luther even went so far as to insert the word "alone" after "faith" into Romans 3:28, despite the warnings in Revelation not to alter the Scriptures.

"Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?"

"You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble."

So even the demons have faith, but faith without works is useless for obtaining salvation.

"For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

Just as the Council of Trent affirmed, St James says that faith must be accompanied by works in order for the faith to be saving faith.

"You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works."

Matt employs the following Scripture passages as evidence of "faith-alone”…Romans 4:2-12

Throughout this passage, Paul is contrasting working with believing.

Matt misunderstands St Paul, whom is making a distinction between the racial boast of the Jew, ie those that have the Law, and those that act out of faith.

Notice the distinction is clearly being addressed here...

"Does this blessedness apply only to the circumcised, or to the uncircumcised as well?

Now we assert that "faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was he circumcised or not? He was not circumcised, but uncircumcised."

Thus, St Paul is not teaching faith-alone versus faith and works, but faith versus works of the Old Covenant, Jewish law.

If Matt is correct, then St Paul would completely contradict St James, who said that we are justified by faith and works. In fact, the only time that the Bible uses the phrase "faith alone" is when St James states...

"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24

I ask Matt...does he believe that St Paul and St James contradict each other? Or is it more likely that Matt has misunderstood St Pauls writings?

The interpretation of the Catholic Church allows both to exist in perfect harmony...is that a coincidence Matt?


The significance of this cannot be understated, especially since Paul is using Abraham as an archetype for every believer’s justification before God.


And St James also uses this same example to explain that faith and works are both required. Is this also a coincidence, Matt?

The Scriptural distinction is not between faith and good works, but between faith and works of the Jewish Law.

Edit: Fixed a minor spelling error.

[InquisitorKind]

Round One Rebuttal-IK:

DF argued on 1 John 3:7:

"Let no one deceive you. He who does what is right is righteous, just as Christ is righteous" - (1 John 3:7)

What could be further from the view that he who stands judicially righteous is righteous, just as Christ is righteous?
How is this at variance with what has been argued? He who does what is right is righteous. Since when was it argued otherwise?

The whole reason Christ came to die for our sins is because we couldn't do what is right; we were condemned to Hell, failing to meet the righteousness that God required. Aside from Christ's sacrifice, there was no way for us to become righteous like Christ. This debate is over whether or not Sola Fide is the means by which people become righteous like Christ. It's not over whether or not someone who does right is righteous.

DF quotes the following from Hebrews to claim that justification is a process:

"Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end." - (Heb 3:12-14)
This passage isn't clearly speaking on justification, yet DF claims that this is not only referring to justification, but details as to what that justification is (i.e. a reference to progressive justification). If anything, this is to be used against progressive justification. How does one share in Christ? By holding to "our first confidence," which is a reference to our faith.

DF quotes Matthew 25:31-46 and Matthew 7:21, and summarizes as follows:

Clearly our Lord makes the point that good works are not only important, but essential to salvation. If works come automatically from faith, then why did Jesus tell us that we must do good works to enter Heaven? Wouldn't it be redundant to teach about the works part of the equation? Faith was not mentioned once in the below teaching, only works.
The passage of Matthew 25:31-46 is clearly teaching that works are necessary to enter Heaven. However, it needs to be noted that this passage is about salvation, not simply justification, which is a component of salvation. DF should not equate the two concepts. The question that should be asked is, How does this effect justification? Jesus could be stating that our works are required to justify ourselves before God. He could also, as I would argue as much more probable, be saying that good works are required as a result of those justified by faith alone, indicating who put their full trust in God for salvation. In either case, this passage does not speak specifically about justification, but salvation in general.

Matthew 7:21 is actually describing people that were never saved to begin with. Notice the context, that they were trusting in their works to save them, with no faith at all. This is a contrast to those who would have faith, which produces works:

19 " Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits.

The objection will be that such distinctions are being read into the text, but how is that different than what DF would have to do to harmonize this passage with Roman Catholic sorteriology? From what DF stated, this passage can't be read as it is without some clarification on DF's part. Since faith is an integral part of salvation for Roman Catholics, DF would have to read that into the works-based salvation texts of Matthew 25:31-46 and Matthew 7:21. It can't just be referring to works or else it refutes the Roman Catholic position.

DF quotes a number of verses from James 2:

So even the demons have faith, but faith without works is useless for obtaining salvation.
James defines the faith of the demons as belief in monotheism (James 2:19), not a trust in God for salvation (Romans 4). Would DF claim that simple belief in monotheism and works will save someone? Such a position isn't compatible with DF's opening statements.

Another question needs to be asked: Is DF trying to say that Protestants have a faith that doesn't trust in God, a kind of faith that demons have? Right now, DF is equating the faith of Protestants in Romans 4 to the faith in James 2:29, so what exactly is DF saying?

Reading James 2:19 in light of verse 18, it becomes clear that James is referring to a different kind of faith than what Paul is speaking about in Romans 4.

"For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

"You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works."
The former verse is to be interpreted as referring to a "dead" type of faith--that which James describes as that of the demons--which really isn't faith at all. Yes, a kind faith without works is dead. But the kind of faith that saves is the kind that produces works.

In fact, the only time that the Bible uses the phrase "faith alone" is when St James states...

"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24

It might be noted that the only time the Bible uses the phrase "queen of heaven" is passages like Jeremiah 7:18. I mention this because "queen of heaven" means something very different to Roman Catholics than what is found in Jeremiah; the same phrase doesn't have to have the same meaning everytime, but is to be determined by the context.

In light of verse 18, verse 24 is about justification before men, which can only occur through works; people cannot know what's inside of a person's heart.

In response to Romans 4, DF supplied the following argument:

Matt misunderstands St Paul, whom is making a distinction between the racial boast of the Jew, ie those that have the Law, and those that act out of faith.

...

Thus, St Paul is not teaching faith-alone versus faith and works, but faith versus works of the Old Covenant, Jewish law.
The context of Romans 4 makes it impossible that Paul is referring solely to works of the Old Covenant. Verse five excludes all works (emphasis mine):

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

Paul even goes on to say, in Galatians 3, that there is no law of works that can save or justify (emphasis mine):

21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law.
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

How could Paul only be referring to the works of the law of the Old Covenant when he excludes all types of laws as means of justification?

If this is not enough the context of the book of Romans indicates that the law being referred to is the law of morality, which would include all works. Note Romans 2:

14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,
15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,

20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth,
21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God?

No doubt, the law in question here is the moral law. How else could the Gentiles know the specific Jewish law in their hearts?

Even if Paul was referring to works of the Jewish law, what works would that not exclude? The law of the Old Covenant included commands such as:

You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

and,

The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God.

(Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:34)

Would DF say that these two commandments Paul was excluding from works that aided in justification? What works could possibly be excluded from these two categories?

DF also supplied the following summary of the Roman Catholic view of justification:

The Catholic view of justification is by grace alone, which produces faith and works together, through the consent of the will, aided by grace.

In other words, justification is through faith and works, both of which are aided by grace. But many Scriptural verses reject this view of justification. Ask yourself one question when reading the following verses. How were these people justified was it by a combination of faith and works done through grace or by grace alone through faith alone?

Mark 2:

1 When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home.
2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them.
3 And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men.
4 Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying.
5 And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

Acts 10 (emphasis mine):

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.

Misc. Response

Finally, a response to these and similar statements made by DF is warranted:

Where did this judicial, overly legalistic view of justification come from in the first place? Some 1500 years after St Paul wrote his epistles, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the other "reformers" came up with these ideas based on misinterpretations and personal biases. St James summarizes the Lord's teachings nicely in the second chapter of his epistle. A writing that Martin Luther tried to have thrown out of the Bible, calling it an "epistle of straw." Its not hard to imagine why Luther had a problem with the epistle. It contradicts faith-alone outright! Luther even went so far as to insert the word "alone" after "faith" into Romans 3:28, despite the warnings in Revelation not to alter the Scriptures.
DF is violating the debate parameters. We specifically restricted the debate to Scriptural arguments, but DF feels at license to discuss how "novel" this interpretation of Sola Fide is by including biased historical information. It's not just poisoning the well; it's introducing information that was restricted from the debate.

I haven't discussed how unbiblical or how foreign Roman Catholic sorteriology is the Scriptures or the earliest of Church Fathers. I haven't made statements about how the interpretations of Trent contradict 1,500 years of Church history or how Roman Catholics "alter" the Scriptures with their "invention[s] and tradition[s] of man." Why does DF think making such comments about Sola Fide is an acceptable form of debate, especially after the debate parameters were clarified?

Since DF has felt it necessary to include in the debate, among other things, historical information, I would at least like it to be known that some Scriptures of the 1400's, before Luther's time, included the phrase "faith alone." Luther wasn't the first to "insert the word" into the Scriptures.

[Dominus Fidelis]

Round II - DF

Matt says...



DF argued on 1 John 3:7:


"Let no one deceive you. He who does what is right is righteous, just as Christ is righteous" - (1 John 3:7)

What could be further from the view that he who stands judicially righteous is righteous, just as Christ is righteous?


How is this at variance with what has been argued? He who does what is right is righteous. Since when was it argued otherwise?



I am glad that IK admits the Scriptural position that what we do makes us righteous.

He asks when was it argued otherwise?

Right here in his opening definition of justification...


Being “justified by faith alone” means that the sinner is declared righteous before God simply by resting upon God Himself for salvation. This position excludes any works, on the part of the believer, in the process of justification.


IK has defined this as a one-time process, where the person is judicially DECLARED righteous when he first has faith in God for his salvation.

IK then flatly contradicts his original assertion by saying above that "He who does what is right is righteous."

So, is it a one-time declaration based on faith, or is it faith plus what we do, Matt?

Matt has just conceded to a salvitic formula of faith and works!

Matt will no doubt counter this contradiction by claiming that real "saving faith" TM is what produces these saving works...automatically.

Where would Matt get the idea that these saving works are produced automatically? From the Bible? No, I challenge Matt to produce Scriptural evidence to support this claim, if this is indeed his assertion.

As I stated in Round 1, St James teaches that works complete the faith, not that works come automatically from real faith. It is true that we can observe a true faith from its fruits, but nowhere does the Bible say that the fruits come automatically.

Our Lord tells us that we can do nothing with Him, but He doesn't say that bearing fruit comes automatically. Indeed, Our Lord commands us to bear fruit!

"Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, no neither can you unless you remain in me.
I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.
Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned." - John 15:1-6

The Lord teaches to REMAIN in Him, which logically demands that the person being spoken to is already In Christ!

He then commands the person to bear fruit and remain in Him, else they will be thrown out and burned. How is this fruit automatic in light of this teaching, Matt?

-----

Matt's next point...



DF quotes the following from Hebrews to claim that justification is a process:

"Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end." - (Heb 3:12-14)


This passage isn't clearly speaking on justification, yet DF claims that this is not only referring to justification, but details as to what that justification is (i.e. a reference to progressive justification). If anything, this is to be used against progressive justification. How does one share in Christ? By holding to "our first confidence," which is a reference to our faith.


I simply ask, how is salvation not a process if we must hold to what saves us until the end, Matt?

Here is some other evidence from St Paul that salvation is a process...a past, present, and future event.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God" - Ephesians 2:8

"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 1:18

"For our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed" - Romans 13:11

-----

Matt's then makes an incredible statement for a professing protestant...


The passage of Matthew 25:31-46 is clearly teaching that works are necessary to enter Heaven. However, it needs to be noted that this passage is about salvation, not simply justification, which is a component of salvation. DF should not equate the two concepts.


The RCC view is that justification and salvation are separate concepts and separate events...is Matt arguing for the RCC position, or the protestant position?

-----

Matt responds to my clarification of St Paul's distinguishing between faith in Christ and works of the Old Covenant as the primary means to salvation.


The context of Romans 4 makes it impossible that Paul is referring solely to works of the Old Covenant. Verse five excludes all works:

"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness"


The context excludes all works as a means of justification? Well first, since Matt agrees with the RCC that justification and salvation are separate events, I ask for clarification of his meaning by that statement.

He goes on to quote Galatians...


Paul even goes on to say, in Galatians 3, that there is no law of works that can save or justify:

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.
Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.
But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
How could Paul only be referring to the works of the law of the Old Covenant when he excludes all types of laws as means of justification?


He does not exclude good works, He is speaking against works of the Law, notice the capital 'L' in Law. Matt seems to be arguing from an a priori belief that good works have no part in the equation, even though he admitted that they do above.

Matt speaks about context, but the context clearly indicates that St Paul is arguing against the Old Covenant Law as a means of justification...APART from faith. Nobody can be justified by anything APART from faith, clearly, as the RCC teaches, which can be clearly seen in my opening statements quoting the Council of Trent.

-----

Matt then tries to find Scripture to support faith alone saving people...


In other words, justification is through faith and works, both of which are aided by grace. But many Scriptural verses reject this view of justification. Ask yourself one question when reading the following verses. How were these people justified was it by a combination of faith and works done through grace or by grace alone through faith alone?

Mark 2:

When He had come back to Capernaum several days afterward, it was heard that He was at home.
And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them.
And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men.
Being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying.
And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

Acts 10:

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message.


Where do these examples say anything about salvation? Nowhere that I can see...the example from Mark is about Jesus healing and forgiving sins. The example from Acts is about the Holy Spirit aiding believers through listening to the Word of God.

None of these are against the RCC teachings.

-----

Lastly, Matt says I have violated the terms of the debate parameters by discussing Luther's version of the Scriptures. It is my understanding that talking about the Scriptures includes Luther's version, since it is directly applicable to Matt's beliefs about salvation.

[InquisitorKind]

Round Two Rebuttal-IK:

IK has defined this as a one-time process, where the person is judicially DECLARED righteous when he first has faith in God for his salvation.

IK then flatly contradicts his original assertion by saying above that "He who does what is right is righteous."
DF hasn't explained why what I said about works and righteousness is contradictory to what I've said about Sola Fide. He has just arbitrarily claimed that it is and based some irrelevant questions off of that assumption.

I already stated why what I have said about works righteousness is not contrary to my original position:

The whole reason Christ came to die for our sins is because we couldn't do what is right; we were condemned to Hell, failing to meet the righteousness that God required. Aside from Christ's sacrifice, there was no way for us to become righteous like Christ. This debate is over whether or not Sola Fide is the means by which people become righteous like Christ. It's not over whether or not someone who does right is righteous.
Instead of responding to these remarks, DF decided to ignore them and pose questions such as these:

So, is it a one-time declaration based on faith, or is it faith plus what we do, Matt?
and reach unreasonable conclusions such as these:

Matt has just conceded to a salvitic formula of faith and works!
I've already stated that justification is by faith alone. I've also defended this position throughout this debate. It's unreasonable for you to claim that I've conceded to a position contrary to my original position without proving that I actually have, especially when I have clarified my position on works of righteousness and salvation by faith alone.

DF then proceeds to discuss a tangential issue:

Matt will no doubt counter this contradiction by claiming that real "saving faith" TM is what produces these saving works...automatically.

Where would Matt get the idea that these saving works are produced automatically? From the Bible? No, I challenge Matt to produce Scriptural evidence to support this claim, if this is indeed his assertion.
This debate isn't over whether or not justified people will produce works. I don't remember setting the debate question as "Do justified people automatically produce works?" Maybe I missed something when we set up the debate parameters.

If you want to read the main assertion of this debate, read my opening statements. Determining whether or not people who are justified will automatically produce works doesn't answer the question of whether or not people are justified by faith alone or by something else. DF's comments on this point are irrelevant and inconsequential.

DF goes on to discuss salvation:

I simply ask, how is salvation not a process if we must hold to what saves us until the end, Matt?

Here is some other evidence from St Paul that salvation is a process...a past, present, and future event.
Salvation and justification are two different concepts. DF has committed the fallacy of composition; it's illogical to prove that salvation is a process and thus conclude that justification, a part of salvation, must be a process as well.

(You can read about the composition fallacy here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html)

DF argues as if discussions on overall salvation will determine the answers to justification, yet ironically makes this remark:

The RCC view is that justification and salvation are separate concepts and events
DF opted not to respond to my remarks made on Romans 4. Instead, he writes:

The context excludes all works as a means of justification? Well first, since Matt agrees with the RCC that justification and salvation are separate events, I ask for clarification of his meaning by that statement.
In my response to DF's citations of Matthew 7:21 and 25:31-46, I didn't say justification and salvation are separate events. I said they are separate concepts. Justification is a part of overall salvation.

But you didn't need clarification on this point to respond. My critique of your argument against Sola Fide isn't based on whether or not salvation and justification are separate events. Such clarification has no bearing on whether or not Paul is excluding all works from justification.

The context still excludes all works as a means of justification. DF needs to interact with this critical point, as it is the basis of his argument against Sola Fide in Romans.

He does not exclude good works, He is speaking against works of the Law, notice the capital 'L' in Law. Matt seems to be arguing from an a priori belief that good works have no part in the equation, even though he admitted that they do above.

Matt speaks about context, but the context clearly indicates that St Paul is arguing against the Old Covenant Law as a means of justification...APART from faith. Nobody can be justified by anything APART from faith, clearly, as the RCC teaches, which can be clearly seen in my opening statements quoting the Council of Trent.
Titus 3 (emphasis mine):

5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Not only is reading an exclusion of "good works" from the works stated in Romans 4 unwarranted and arbitrary, Titus 3:5 states that salvation can't be based even on deeds done in righteousness. Those deeds would fall under the category of "good works" that DF says Paul isn't excluding from works that can justify.

I explained why Paul's reference to works of the law referred to the moral law bound on every person's heart, not just the law of the Old Covenant made with Israel. The same law is under consideration in Galatians, yet DF makes a distinction between "good works" and "works of the law." Would DF argue that doing the moral works of the law is bad? DF's distinction is unreasonable and irrational.

Where do these examples say anything about salvation? Nowhere that I can see...the example from Mark is about Jesus healing and forgiving sins. The example from Acts is about the Holy Spirit aiding believers through listening to the Word of God.
I quoted these passages in reference to justification before God, not overall salvation. The paralitic in Mark had his sins forgiven with no work involved. That's justification without works, and by faith alone. The believers in Acts 10 didn't have to do anything to receive the sign of justification--the Holy Spirit. That's not the type of justification that DF is putting forth, but it is in line with Sola Fide justification.

Lastly, Matt says I have violated the terms of the debate parameters by discussing Luther's version of the Scriptures. It is my understanding that talking about the Scriptures includes Luther's version, since it is directly applicable to Matt's beliefs about salvation.
Luther's version was written in German approximately five-hundred ago. Do you know of anyone who regularly uses Luther's original version of the Scriptures? How would such a document be pertinent to my beliefs about salvation? If you were making an argument about inclusion of the word "alone," I already refuted that by explaining that Luther wasn't the first to include the word. No, restricting the debate parameters to the Scriptures doesn't mean you can add historical information about "added" phrases, or poison the well by defaming the leaders of the Reformation. The former was wrong due to the debate parameters; the latter is just a cheap debate trick.

I've already explained why the historical information you've raised in this debate is irrelevant, but you ignored it anyway. DF, please stick to the debate parameters. You did agree to them.

[Dominus Fidelis]

Round III - DF

Note:

It is now obvious that Matt is unable to refute my arguments, or offer any kind of escape from contradicting himself. Instead of attempting to do so, he attempts to attack my integrity, instead of my arguments. See, in order to talk about Scriptures, sometimes we have to bring in topics like the "versions" of Scriptures, and related Biblical topics, such as evidence of salvation, ie "producing works." It is unreasonable to assume that a debate won't bring in these closely-related issues.

Let's get the debate back on track and stop with the obfuscation tactics.

--

Matt claims...


Salvation and justification are two different concepts. DF has committed the fallacy of composition; it's illogical to prove that salvation is a process and thus conclude that justification, a part of salvation, must be a process as well.


It is interesting that Matt calls justification a process, and then at the same time accuses me of commiting logical fallacies for then refering to it as such...is Matt asserting that his whole position is a logical fallacy?


Being “justified by faith alone” means that the sinner is declared righteous before God simply by resting upon God Himself for salvation. This position excludes any works, on the part of the believer, in the process of justification.


(Emphasis mine)

Since Matt claims that I have commited the fallacy of composition by saying justification must be a process...(nevermind the fact that I never said that and that the RCC position is that justification is through baptism and IS a ONE TIME EVENT given purely by grace, and that I was using his own terminology, which would then mean his position is illogical)...

Matt argues that justification is separate from salvation, which ironically is the RCC position. I would like to now challenge Matt with a simple question.

If he believes that salvation is a process and justification an event, does he believe that a person can be justified and not saved? Are there justified people in Hell?

If not then by his own reasoning, salvation is an event and his assertion that it is a process is a venture into absurdity.

-----

Now on to the old business. Matt repeats his claims that St Paul excluded all works from justification in Romans.

Since Matt has now explained his belief that justification and salvation are different "concepts" but not different "events," whatever that means, lets just go with the assumption that Matt is trying to exclude all works from salvation as a whole. Is that a correct assumption, Matt? Or am I commiting some other sort of fallacy in attempting to unravel your beliefs?


I explained why Paul's reference to works of the law referred to the moral law bound on every person's heart, not just the law of the Old Covenant made with Israel. The same law is under consideration in Galatians, yet DF makes a distinction between "good works" and "works of the law." Would DF argue that doing the moral works of the law is bad? DF's distinction is unreasonable and irrational.


Nope, the law wasn't bad, it was simply unable to save anyone. People following the law of their own merits were unable to live up to it, so Jesus came in the flesh to bring the New Covenant. St Paul is preaching against the old, and for the new, not against "good works" in the new. As I pointed out,

Jesus commands good works in order to grant salvation. Perhaps Matt needs more Scriptural evidence to accept this point...

"By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness." - Romans 2:5-8

Can Matt find a way around St Pauls words in Romans that Jesus will repay everyone according to his works?

Does St Paul contradict himself in his own letter to the Romans or is it more likely that Matt is confused on what "works of the Law" actually means?

I would also be interested to see Matt try and hand-wave away this clear teaching of Jesus saying the exact same thing as St Paul...

"Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds." - Revelation 22:12

Could Matt please explain where "faith alone" is in this teaching? I see the word DEEDS but not "faith alone" or even just "faith."

-----

Matt also claims I did not prove that he contradicted himself by saying that "he who does what is righteous is righteous."

I will try and break it down very simply for anyone interested.

Matt defines justification as being a judicial, one-time, declaration of a believer through faith alone.


I have clarified my position on works of righteousness and salvation by faith alone.


But then he contradicted this by introducing works into the process...


He who does what is right is righteous.


I went on to ask if Matt was asserting that a saved person automatically does what is right. Instead of answering this question, since it traps him into yet another contradiction that is not supported by Scripture, he complains that it is a "tangential issue".

Matt has side-stepped his contradiction but it is plain for anyone to see that "faith alone" has not a leg to stand on in the Bible, or in this debate, unless you write your own Bible, ala Luther.

------

Matt's last point...


I quoted these passages in reference to justification before God, not overall salvation. The paralitic in Mark had his sins forgiven with no work involved. That's justification without works, and by faith alone. The believers in Acts 10 didn't have to do anything to receive the sign of justification--the Holy Spirit. That's not the type of justification that DF is putting forth, but it is in line with Sola Fide justification.


So, in your opinion Matt, were these people justified or saved, or both?

[InquisitorKind]

Round Three Rebuttal-IK:

It is now obvious that Matt is unable to refute my arguments, or offer any kind of escape from contradicting himself. Instead of attempting to do so, he attempts to attack my integrity, instead of my arguments. See, in order to talk about Scriptures, sometimes we have to bring in topics like the "versions" of Scriptures, and related Biblical topics, such as evidence of salvation, ie "producing works." It is unreasonable to assume that a debate won't bring in these closely-related issues.
I've explained why it is unreasonable to bring up alternate versions of the Scriptures. I've also explained why it's unreasonable to discuss the Reformers. You haven't interacted with what I said about Luther's version being irrelevant or your comments on the Reformers being the fallacy of poisoning the well; you decided to simply claim obfuscation and ad hominem instead. The majority of my previous rebuttal was in response to your arguments, so there's hardly a place where you can claim I have previously attacked your integrity. That's not a fallacy for you to claim it anyway, DF. That's being dishonest.

If he believes that salvation is a process and justification an event, does he believe that a person can be justified and not saved? Are there justified people in Hell?

If not then by his own reasoning, salvation is an event and his assertion that it is a process is a venture into absurdity.
I've repeatedly explaining that salvation and justification are not to be equated, and that justification is an event in the salvation process, yet you continue to treat my position as if they are required to be equated.

Answering "no" to your question, DF, doesn't make salvation a singular event. Salvation includes such concepts as glorification and sanctification, which are processes. You're asserting, rather baselessly, that justification being an event must equate to salvation being an event. I already pointed out that this is a logical fallacy. Why did you ignore what I wrote?

Now on to the old business. Matt repeats his claims that St Paul excluded all works from justification in Romans.

Since Matt has now explained his belief that justification and salvation are different "concepts" but not different "events," whatever that means, lets just go with the assumption that Matt is trying to exclude all works from salvation as a whole. Is that a correct assumption, Matt? Or am I commiting some other sort of fallacy in attempting to unravel your beliefs?
Maybe this one, but I'm not quite sure yet:

http://www.tektonics.org/fallacies.html#530

I have already stated, twice, which passage of my previous remarks you should interact with to clarify my position on works righteousness and salvation. Why have you ignored it, twice?

I also explained why you need to interact with my arguments from Romans 4 regardless of my position on salvation and justification. Since you've avoided the counter-arguments I've raised against your take on Romans 4, I'll give you a chance at the end of this rebuttal to respond to them directly.

Nope, the law wasn't bad, it was simply unable to save anyone. People following the law of their own merits were unable to live up to it, so Jesus came in the flesh to bring the New Covenant. St Paul is preaching against the old, and for the new, not against "good works" in the new. As I pointed out,
I raised Titus 3:5 against any notion of good works being able to justify. It said that salvation cannot be based even on deeds done in righteousness. Since you've ignored this argument, I've summed it again at the bottom of this debate. You can respond to it there.

Jesus commands good works in order to grant salvation. Perhaps Matt needs more Scriptural evidence to accept this point...

"By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness." - Romans 2:5-8

"Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds." - Revelation 22:12

Could Matt please explain where "faith alone" is in this teaching? I see the word DEEDS but not "faith alone" or even just "faith."
Some of the comments I made earlier in this debate apply here. Remember what I wrote about Matthew 7:21 and 25:31-46? Since it doesn't even talk about faith, a requirement for salvation in Roman Catholic soteriology, taking this passage at face value refutes both of our positions. We are both required to harmonize this passage with the rest of the Scriptures by reading into these passages what is being talked about. My previous comments on works righteousness not being contradictory to Sola Fide are also applicable.

I went on to ask if Matt was asserting that a saved person automatically does what is right. Instead of answering this question, since it traps him into yet another contradiction that is not supported by Scripture, he complains that it is a "tangential issue".
DF, I explained why it wasn't relevant. You haven't interacted with why I said it wasn't. If you think it's that important, please refute why it's an irrelevant issue. Simply claiming that it should be responded to borders on special pleading.

Again, you shouldn't need clarification on this point. Do I need to restate the debate question again for you?

So, in your opinion Matt, were these people justified or saved, or both?
They began the process of salvation. If they had died then, they still would've been saved because they were justified. Again, this debate is over whether or not justification is by faith alone, not whether salvation is a process or not.

DF needs to address a pertinent question to this debate. Why does he keep avoiding the Romans 4 issue, requiring more clarification on my position? Why does he keep delaying from answering it? Perhaps we can get straight answers from him if I ask the following and summarize the arguments thus far:

Which works are being excluded in Romans 4?

DF originally argued that Paul was only referring to works of the Old Covenant. I pointed out that the Old Covenant included works like loving your neighbor, and loving God (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:34). What works are possible left as means of justification?

DF then changed his argument to only mean that Paul is excluding works that aren't "good works," or works that weren't done with faith. I responded with Titus 3:5, which excludes even works done in righteousness as being able to save; that would include the good works done by faith that are supposedly excluded from Romans 4. DF didn't have a response to this argument.

I also responded to DF's arguments by demonstrating that the context of Romans 4 excludes all kinds of works from being able to justify (Romans 2:14-23). Romans 4:5 is absolutely clear, that the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. DF didn't have a response to this either, yet it refutes his position and completely affirms Sola Fide.

Why had DF ignored these arguments, chasing irrelevant topics instead (which he claims are relevant, but won't explain why they are relevant)? We need to see some interaction with these arguments. I've been gracious to answer some of DF's irrelevant questions that don't answer the debate question. It's time he actually addressed the arguments I'm raising that are pertinent to the debate question.

[Dominus Fidelis]

Round Four - DF

Matt says I haven't responsed to his reference to Titus 3:5. He is correct on that point, so I will address it now, but I don't think Matt will enjoy the result.

Let's look at the context surronding that verse, and specifically, the next few lines, which by an interesting coincidence insists that we should be careful to do good works after our justification.

That sounds strangely like the RCC position to me...

"Remind them to be under the control of magistrates and authorities, to be obedient, to be open to every good enterprise. They are to slander no one, to be peaceable, considerate, exercising all graciousness toward everyone. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deluded, slaves to various desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful ourselves and hating one another.

But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.

This saying is trustworthy. I want you to insist on these points, that those who have believed in God be careful to devote themselves to good works; these are excellent and beneficial to others."

Matt still doesnt seem to understand the RCC position about justification, because he still seems to think we believe that works justify. Who is Matt arguing against?

We do not believe in faith OR works leading to justification. Titus 3:5 supports the RCC fully! I have already stated that our justification is a ONE-TIME EVENT that is offered completely by GRACE, not anything of ourselves, which is St Paul's entire point in many of his epistles!

If anything, Matt's position requires something from us...faith, while the RCC position requires only God's freely given grace.

The reason that I brought up salvation being a process is that protestants typically equate justification and salvation. We will see shortly that this is indeed does resemble Matt's assertions, despite some obfuscation tactics.

I am glad that Matt concedes that salvation is a process, and that justification is NOT salvation, but he is now in direct contradiction to the actual meaning of Sola Fide.


Why had DF ignored these arguments, chasing irrelevant topics instead (which he claims are relevant, but won't explain why they are relevant)?


Because you are not arguing Sola Fide from the Protestant position, and by exploring these related issues, I have forced a clarification of your position.

I can say with confidence that many of the protestants reading this debate would take issue with Matt's presentation of justification and salvation being separate concepts.

-----

For some reason, Matt insists that I haven't adequately addressed his references to Romans 4, even though I have explained numerous times that St Paul is not discounting good works in salvation, only works of the Law, APART from faith...in other words, St Paul is putting an emphasis on faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in the Law.

Matt claims that Romans refers to the entire moral law when it excludes works. I would address this point, but since he seems to agree with the RCC position of justification not being by works, what is the point?

Again, the RCC position is that we are justified (initial one-time event) purely by grace, nothing of ourselves. Then, once we are justified, we must pick up crosses, live according to faith in Jesus, respond to grace by performing good works, and avoiding mortal sin. If we do that, we can have confidence in our ultimate salvation upon death.

Romans 4 says nothing contrary. It seems like Matt is confusing justification and salvation again by repeatedly bringing this verse up. Why argue that justification is not by works with a Catholic? The RCC never stated anything to the contrary.

Did Matt not read the opening definition I provided in Round 1?


"we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” (Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter VIII)


If Matt agrees with the RCC position on justification, then this debate is effectively over...but the problem is that Matt seems to back-pedel away from this conclusion. When I asked if a justified person can be in Hell, Matt responded...


They began the process of salvation. If they had died then, they still would've been saved because they were justified. Again, this debate is over whether or not justification is by faith alone, not whether salvation is a process or not.


See...Matt IS actually combining the two concepts of justification and salvation. He tried to separate them when I provided verses in Round 1 that proved good works are needed for our SALVATION, but now he once again equates the concepts. Matt's sleight-of-hand is not working, and I do not appreciate the dishonest tactics being employed.

Matt complains that talking about salvation is irrelevant to the debate simply because he doesn't want this contradiction exposed.

-----

Since I have answered all of his questions as best I know how, I would like to end this round with one simple question.

I would like to know if Matt believes that works are required for one's salvation? He will likely say that this is irrelevant to the debate question, but by answering affirmitively, I want him to show that he is not arguing for "Sola Fide" as it was intended by the "Reformers" at all, but some other sort of "Sola Fide". If he answers negatively, then it will be even more obvious that he really does equate salvation and justification.

That is the reasoning for the question, so please don't complain that it is irrelevant, Matt.

Please answer this simple question Matt...must we do good works to be saved?

When you said..


I have clarified my position on works of righteousness and salvation by faith alone

Were you talking about justification OR salvation?

[InquisitorKind]

Round Four Rebuttal-IK:

Matt still doesnt seem to understand the RCC position about justification, because he still seems to think we believe that works justify. Who is Matt arguing against?
I'm arguing against what you've been posting contra Sola Fide justification. This debate isn't over the RCC position. This is resolving whether or not the Scriptures teach if justification is by faith alone or not. Every rebuttal you've put forth has indicated that justification is by faith plus something else, not simply grace, which you originally posited in your opening remarks. Note some of your objections:

Matt employs the following Scripture passages as evidence of "faith-alone”…Romans 4:2-12...Thus, St Paul is not teaching faith-alone versus faith and works, but faith versus works of the Old Covenant, Jewish law.
So, is it a one-time declaration based on faith, or is it faith plus what we do, Matt?

Matt speaks about context, but the context clearly indicates that St Paul is arguing against the Old Covenant Law as a means of justification...APART from faith. Nobody can be justified by anything APART from faith, clearly, as the RCC teaches, which can be clearly seen in my opening statements quoting the Council of Trent.

St Paul is preaching against the old, and for the new, not against "good works" in the new.
The topic of Romans 4 was justification. You raised all of these objections in response to my comments on justification. It doesn't matter what you say about the Roman Catholic position as you've clearly responded to my faith alone argument by claiming that justification is not by faith alone, but by faith and something else.

Don't assume that I don't understand the RCC position when all I'm objecting to is what you've been posting. Even if I did misunderstand it (let's even assume that I do), does that answer the debate question? Does my understanding of the RCC position have even any bearing on the original debate question?

DF continues:

We do not believe in faith OR works leading to justification. Titus 3:5 supports the RCC fully! I have already stated that our justification is a ONE-TIME EVENT that is offered completely by GRACE, not anything of ourselves, which is St Paul's entire point in many of his epistles!
DF, I quoted Titus 3:5 not in response whatever you claim the Roman Catholic position is, but to what you posted about Paul's only referring to "good works" in Romans 4 as means of justification. Allow me to re-quote what you said:

He does not exclude good works, He is speaking against works of the Law, notice the capital 'L' in Law. Matt seems to be arguing from an a priori belief that good works have no part in the equation, even though he admitted that they do above.

Matt speaks about context, but the context clearly indicates that St Paul is arguing against the Old Covenant Law as a means of justification...APART from faith. Nobody can be justified by anything APART from faith, clearly, as the RCC teaches, which can be clearly seen in my opening statements quoting the Council of Trent.
Remember, you stated that Paul does not exclude good works from justification. That's what you objected to, and you should stick to your arguments against Sola Fide instead of bringing up the RCC position, which is irrelevant to the debate question.

DF continues:

Because you are not arguing Sola Fide from the Protestant position, and by exploring these related issues, I have forced a clarification of your position.
Typically in a debate you argue against what the other person presents, not the standard "position" should be. I stated my original position and provided Scripture verses in support of it. I don't see why you would need further clarification because what I say isn't part of the "Protestant position."

For some reason, Matt insists that I haven't adequately addressed his references to Romans 4, even though I have explained numerous times that St Paul is not discounting good works in salvation, only works of the Law, APART from faith...in other words, St Paul is putting an emphasis on faith in Jesus Christ, not faith in the Law.
If you're talking about overall salvation, not justification, then what kind of debate are we having? I specifically mentioned these verses regarding justification. Why are you ignoring what's been said about justification?

Matt claims that Romans refers to the entire moral law when it excludes works. I would address this point, but since he seems to agree with the RCC position of justification not being by works, what is the point?
The point, which you have repeatedly failed to address in this debate, is whether or not justification is by faith alone or not. You say it's not by faith alone, and I do. My supposed agreement with the RC position on whether or not works play a part doesn't resolve the debate question. Why do you keep ignoring whether or not justification is by faith alone?

Romans 4 says nothing contrary. It seems like Matt is confusing justification and salvation again by repeatedly bringing this verse up. Why argue that justification is not by works with a Catholic? The RCC never stated anything to the contrary.
As I showed you above, the vast majority of your objections to Sola Fide have been that Paul wasn't referring to justification by faith but to justification by faith and something else. I'm not arguing with whatever supposed position you're putting forth as the RCC's. I'm discussing the objections you've brought against Sola Fide regardless of the RCC position.

See...Matt IS actually combining the two concepts of justification and salvation. He tried to separate them when I provided verses in Round 1 that proved good works are needed for our SALVATION, but now he once again equates the concepts. Matt's sleight-of-hand is not working, and I do not appreciate the dishonest tactics being employed.
DF, I've repeatedly explained that justification and salvation are separate concepts, and that doesn't mean that they are separate period. You seem to be caught up on how I can refer to salvation as a process, yet refer to justification as an event. It's quite simple, since the process of salvation involves moments that are instant and not requiring works (ex. justification) and those that are slower, involving works (ex. sanctification).

Please answer this simple question Matt...must we do good works to be saved?
Yes, because they are reflective of the believer's justified state.

But why do you think that my answer necessitates that justification and salvation be equated? You've never adequately explained your reasoning behind why requiring works for salvation means that justification requires works as well. You keep claiming that I have equated the two concepts by answering so, but you have never said why. Make your case quick, DF. We don't have many rounds left.

Again, the debate question is not "Is the RCC position that works and faith justify?" Why do you keep treating my answers like we're debating that subject? You didn't even need to bring up the RCC position to debate this question. It's simply about what the Scriptures say and you should stick to the arguments that have been put forth around Romans 4 supporting justification by faith alone.

[Dominus Fidelis]

Round Five - DF

Matt states incorrectly that I have argued for justification through faith and works. Matt doesn't seem to grasp my position that justification is through neither faith nor works, but rather unmerited grace alone, as stated by my numerous quotations from the RCC councils.

Of course, I don't believe that a justified person is saved automatically.


But why do you think that my answer necessitates that justification and salvation be equated? You've never adequately explained your reasoning behind why requiring works for salvation means that justification requires works as well. You keep claiming that I have equated the two concepts by answering so, but you have never said why. Make your case quick, DF. We don't have many rounds left.


The confusion arises because I do not equate justification with salvation, whereas Matt clearly does connect the two topics together. Much of this debate has centered around Matt's jumbling of the terms "salvation" and "justification." The reason why I initially proved salvation requires works is that the actual Protestant position is that salvation and justification are the same thing...and Matt actually does seem to believe this since he claims that a justified person is also a saved person.

I asked him if a justified person can be in Hell...


They began the process of salvation. If they had died then, they still would've been saved because they were justified.


Obviously the case is already made by your own statements, Matt. You do equate the two concepts by all practical means.

You don't want to talk about salvation requiring works because it shoots your justification by faith alone full of holes, since you connect the two concepts directly.

-----

Matt also asserts that the RCC position is irrelevant to the debate. Well, that makes no sense, because this debate is between a self-professed Protestant and a self-professed Catholic. We are debating the classis "faith alone or faith plus works" as a means to salvation...but as I shown, Matt wants to hide behind a smokescreen and claim that justified doesn't equate to saved.


Typically in a debate you argue against what the other person presents, not the standard "position" should be.


I'd love to do so if you would keep your terminology consistent, Matt.

Matt wants to somehow separate justification from salvation, in violation of protestant doctrine, because I have easily proven that salvation requires good works. Matt doesn't want to go near those verses with a ten-foot poll. He is avoiding them at all costs. Instead, he is throwing up a smokescreen trying to separate justification from salvation...but when pressed, admits that the justified are saved...


They began the process of salvation. If they had died then, they still would've been saved because they were justified.


Why did Matt quote Dionysius of Alexandria in his opening statement if he didn't want to learn the truth? Instead of facing the facts as I presented them, he wants to employ tactics to side-step the obvious conclusions.

-----

In summary, Matt's position is that if you are justified, then you are saved. So when I worked backwards to prove that salvation requires works, I have proven that either:

- justification requires works

or...

- justification is a separate event and a separate concept from salvation

It is obvious that the latter is correct, since from Matt's own quotation of Titus 3:5, anything coming from ourselves does not lead to justification...it is all God's grace...just as the Council of Trent defined.

Does Matt now disagree with the very verse from St Paul that he brought into this debate? Where does Matt get that "faith" justifies from Titus 3:5?

"But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life."

Obviously this verse says that baptism (bath of rebirth) is what justifies us with God and that it occurs purely by grace...nothing of ourselves is required.

And if Matt carefully reads this verse that he employed, it ends with an interesting statement...

"and become heirs in hope of eternal life"

Thats right...HOPE of eternal life...not that you are already saved for all time. The reason is that we are justified at this point of baptism, but not sanctified or saved. We hope for salvation.

This is why St Paul says in Hebrews 3:12-14...

"Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end."

A direct contradiction to Matt's claim that the justified are saved.


The point, which you have repeatedly failed to address in this debate, is whether or not justification is by faith alone or not. You say it's not by faith alone, and I do.


Actually, I have stated numerous time that justification is by grace alone, not faith or works. Do I need to write this statement in another language or something?

So if Matt wants to agree with the RCC that justification does not require anything but grace, then he is free to do so, but he might want to reconsider his denominational affiliation.

------

I asked Matt if a person must do good works to be saved.


Yes, because they are reflective of the believer's justified state.


This is the classic protestant escape attempt when they admit that a person must do good works for salvation, but then at the same time try and cling on to "faith alone." In order to do this, the protestant will say that works come automatically from being justified.

This is why I already proved that works do not come automatically by quoting St Paul, St James, and Jesus Christ.

I knew that this escape attempt must be attempted to avoid the protestant contradiction of "faith alone" that is not really alone.

"Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, no neither can you unless you remain in me.
I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.
Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned." - John 15:1-6

Again, why must Jesus warn us to remain in Him, if these fruits come automatically? Why warn a justified person of this danger if works are "reflective" of a justified state?

There is no protestant answer to this question.

-----

Finally, Matt answered the challenge to debate the question I put forth...

"Are we saved by faith alone or faith and good works."

He then asked to revise the question to...

"Do the Scriptures teach that we are justified by faith alone?"

I think it was obvious that I wanted to debate SALVATION with a protestant whom, for all practical purposes, equates justification and salvation.

Did Matt actually intend to change my debate question in such a dramatic way without stating upfront that he believed justification is different than salvation?

Or is it more likely that he backed away from salvation and clung to justification after it became obvious that I had the Scriptural support to prove SALVATION by faith and works?

:scratch:

[InquisitorKind]

Round Five Rebuttal-IK:

Matt states incorrectly that I have argued for justification through faith and works. Matt doesn't seem to grasp my position that justification is through neither faith nor works, but rather unmerited grace alone, as stated by my numerous quotations from the RCC councils.It doesn't get any clearer than the objections you've repeatedly raised against my verses on justification. When you respond to my stating that justification is through faith alone in passages like Romans 4 with objections that are claiming it's not faith alone, but by works and faith, you're claiming that justification is by works and faith. It doesn't matter what you say you're defending when you're objections show something completely different.

The confusion arises because I do not equate justification with salvation, whereas Matt clearly does connect the two topics together. Much of this debate has centered around Matt's jumbling of the terms "salvation" and "justification." The reason why I initially proved salvation requires works is that the actual Protestant position is that salvation and justification are the same thing...and Matt actually does seem to believe this since he claims that a justified person is also a saved person.DF, I have repeatedly explained that justification is part of salvation. Yes, a justified person is saved. But you still haven't explained why this connection refutes my position on justification.

You don't want to talk about salvation requiring works because it shoots your justification by faith alone full of holes, since you connect the two concepts directly.I already directly answered your previous question about whether or not works are required for salvation. Why did you ignore what I wrote and now claim that I don't want to discuss it, as if I was avoiding the issue entirely? I've already spent more than enough time in this debate answering your irrelevant questions about salvationn so it's unreasonable for you to claim that I'm avoiding the topic.

You still haven't explained why salvation requiring works refutes my position on justification not requiring works. Why do keep failing to do this?

Matt also asserts that the RCC position is irrelevant to the debate. Well, that makes no sense, because this debate is between a self-professed Protestant and a self-professed Catholic. We are debating the classis "faith alone or faith plus works" as a means to salvation...but as I shown, Matt wants to hide behind a smokescreen and claim that justified doesn't equate to saved.I've explained why the RCC position is irrelevant. I've asked you questions to clarify why you think the RCC position is relevant. Now you're claiming that just because you're a "self-professed Catholic" that your denomination's particular views on salvation should be argued against to answer the debate question on justification.

You don't have to approach this issue from the RCC position to attempt a refutation of Sola Fide, or to answer the debate question negatively. Why do claim that you have to? Would you say the same thing to me if I was in debate with a "self-professed" Eastern Orthodox, that his position on faith and works should be argued against in order to answer the question of Sola Fide? Would you say the same thing to me if I was in debate against a "self-professed" universalist?

I phrased the original debate question this way so that you could address the issue any way you liked. It's phrased in such a way as to make it easier to refute, so that we don't have to get into the very complicated teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject.

DF, you just had to refute Sola Fide, not prove the RCC position. There were a variety of ways you could've done this; that's why I say the RCC position is irrelevant.

Does Matt now disagree with the very verse from St Paul that he brought into this debate? Where does Matt get that "faith" justifies from Titus 3:5?

"But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit, whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life."

Obviously this verse says that baptism (bath of rebirth) is what justifies us with God and that it occurs purely by grace...nothing of ourselves is required.Baptism is a work. It requires that you do something; that's a requirement of yourself.

This passage isn't referring to water baptism. There are places in the Scriptures where the washing of water is referred to without refering to baptism (Psalms 51:2, Isaiah 1:16, Jeremiah 33:8, Ezekiel 36:25-26), and this is one of them as well.

But DF still doesn't understand why I raised this verse (it was as a refutation of the arguments he was putting forth against Romans 4). Unfortunately, it's too late in the debate to actually get him to address it.

And if Matt carefully reads this verse that he employed, it ends with an interesting statement...

"and become heirs in hope of eternal life"

Thats right...HOPE of eternal life...not that you are already saved for all time. The reason is that we are justified at this point of baptism, but not sanctified or saved. We hope for salvation.As do I. All Christians should hope for salvation. If you noticed, I explained that if the person who is justifed dies he is saved, i.e. goes to Heaven. I never said anything concerning whether or not that person will hope for Heaven this side of it, or if his salvation is complete before he dies, etc. You're objecting to something I didn't posit.

This is why St Paul says in Hebrews 3:12-14...

"Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end."

A direct contradiction to Matt's claim that the justified are saved.I responded to this passage during my first rebuttal. Why are you raising it again, without addressing what I raised there?

This is the classic protestant escape attempt when they admit that a person must do good works for salvation, but then at the same time try and cling on to "faith alone." In order to do this, the protestant will say that works come automatically from being justified.

This is why I already proved that works do not come automatically by quoting St Paul, St James, and Jesus Christ.

I knew that this escape attempt must be attempted to avoid the protestant contradiction of "faith alone" that is not really alone.

"Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, no neither can you unless you remain in me.
I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.
Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned." - John 15:1-6

Again, why must Jesus warn us to remain in Him, if these fruits come automatically? Why warn a justified person of this danger if works are "reflective" of a justified state?

There is no protestant answer to this question.You've raised a red herring. Whether or not you refute if works are produced automatically doesn't change whether or not we are justified by faith alone.

I think I know why you keep raising whether or not justifed people will produce works; it's an effective way of avoiding the topic of justification.

If you want an answer, start another debate, or a thread in the IDD, on whether or not people who are justified will automatically produce works. I will be happy to engage what you have to say there.

I think it was obvious that I wanted to debate SALVATION with a protestant whom, for all practical purposes, equates justification and salvation.No, DF, it was obvious we were to answer whether or not the Scriptures teach that we are justified by faith alone or not. If you wanted to debate someone who equates the two concepts, you should've said so. Do you think I rephrased the question simply because I like how the word justified sounds over salvation, or some other petty reason? No, I rephrased the question for a significant reason, and that's because I wanted to debate justification, not salvation.

Or is it more likely that he backed away from salvation and clung to justification after it became obvious that I had the Scriptural support to prove SALVATION by faith and works?We were discussing justification. I posed the question because I knew that justification is not to be equated with the overall process of salvation.DF, this debate has been a failure because you refused to address the sole topic of justification, even after we clarified the debate question. I'm not going to apologize that I'm not your regular Protestant who equates salvation and justification as the exact same concepts. Neither am I going to apologize for sticking on topic and debating justification.

[Dominus Fidelis]

End of Debate - DF


I have repeatedly explained that justification is part of salvation. Yes, a justified person is saved.

But you still haven't explained why this connection refutes my position on justification.


It's simple...I will explain again.

You assert that a justified person is saved automatically. I list verses which show that St Paul, the same person that you are quoting, taught that we must not proclaim judgement before the end and that we must hold to the end of the race to be saved.

That contradicts your claim that a justified person is automatically saved.


You still haven't explained why salvation requiring works refutes my position on justification not requiring works. Why do keep failing to do this?


Again, it is simple...I will explain again.

You assert that we are justified, and thus saved, by faith alone. When I list verses saying that we will be judged according to our works, I destroy your claim that we are saved by faith alone.

The protestant claiming "faith alone" has no response to these verses, which I will list, again...

Faith alone as a means to salvation is anti-Biblical...

"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24

"Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?" - James 2:20

"You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works." - James 2:22

"Let no one deceive you. He who does what is right is righteous, just as Christ is righteous" - 1 John 3:7

Justified are not automatically saved...

"I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God." - 1 Corinthians 4:4-5

"Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God. But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end." - Heb 3:12-14

"It is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come if they fall away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame." - Hebrews 6:4-6

"For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?" - Heb 10:26-29

We will be judged according to our deeds...

"Behold, I am coming soon. I bring with me the recompense I will give to each according to his deeds." - Revelation 22:12

"By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God, who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness." - Romans 2:5-8

"Remain in me, as I remain in you. Just as a branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, no neither can you unless you remain in me.
I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing.
Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned." - John 15:1-6

-----


I phrased the original debate question this way so that you could address the issue any way you liked.

It's phrased in such a way as to make it easier to refute, so that we don't have to get into the very complicated teachings of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject.


No, you are hiding behind terminology and argue about words, which is clearly forbidden by St Paul...

"If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain." - 1 Timothy 6

You refuse to talk about salvation, instead insisting on justification, when by all practical means you believe they are the same thing. You claim the justified are saved, but then you complain when I attack salvation by faith alone, claiming I am not arguing the debate question.


DF, this debate has been a failure because you refused to address the sole topic of justification, even after we clarified the debate question.


If it has been a failure it is due to the word games that you wished to employ to save face from defeat.


You've raised a red herring. Whether or not you refute if works are produced automatically doesn't change whether or not we are justified by faith alone.


It's not my fault that you don't seem to understand that you actually do equate justification with salvation. When I disprove salvation by faith alone, I am disproving justification by faith alone, as YOU understand it.

Again, it is not MY position that justification is by faith or works, only grace.

-----


No, DF, it was obvious we were to answer whether or not the Scriptures teach that we are justified by faith alone or not.


Well, just to oblige you, I will list a famous verse proving that justification, not salvation, is by grace alone, not faith or works, or anything from ourselves, which is the RCC position.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

In other words, grace alone saves through our faith, nothing of ourselves merits this saving grace, as the Council of Trent reaffirmed in response to growing heresy. It is not "faith alone" or "works alone" that justify, only "grace alone."

-----


Baptism is a work. It requires that you do something; that's a requirement of yourself.

This passage isn't referring to water baptism. There are places in the Scriptures where the washing of water is referred to without refering to baptism (Psalms 51:2, Isaiah 1:16, Jeremiah 33:8, Ezekiel 36:25-26), and this is one of them as well.


Baptism wasnt even in existance until the New Testament, thus this listing of Old Testament verses is irrelevant to the interpretation of Baptism as we know it in the New Testament.

You say baptism is a work? What...do you think water does something? Of course not, it is the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament that does the justification, not the person being baptized or the priest.

It's all God's doing, which is why Jesus gave Baptism as the formula for making new Christians.

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" - Matthew 28:19

The Bible also says "profess with your mouth" that Jesus is Lord and you will be saved. Is that also a "work" to you Matt? You are splitting-hairs. By your standards of deciding if something is a work or not, we might as well say that believing Jesus is a work of the mind. Ridiculous, isn't it?

-----

In conclusion, Martin Luther once said...

"Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool."

Perhaps Matt is in good company being confused about the true meaning of justification and salvation?

I refer anyone reading back to my first round reconciliation of St Paul and St James, which showed that both are easily understood in harmony, if you read them within the teachings of the RCC on what it means to be justified and to be saved.

[InquisitorKind]

Concluding Remarks-IK

Some remarks are necessary before my conclusion:


You say baptism is a work? What...do you think water does something? Of course not, it is the Holy Spirit in the Sacrament that does the justification, not the person being baptized or the priest.


It's all God's doing, which is why Jesus gave Baptism as the formula for making new Christians.When a person has to actually do something to be baptised, that's a work. It doesn't matter if it's done in God's grace or not--you're still doing something.

And I wasn't arguing that the water is what justifies, but you still need to take a dip to receive the benefits of baptism. That's not all God's doing; that's you physically cooperating with God--a work.


The Bible also says "profess with your mouth" that Jesus is Lord and you will be saved. Is that also a "work" to you Matt? You are splitting-hairs. By your standards of deciding if something is a work or not, we might as well say that believing Jesus is a work of the mind. Ridiculous, isn't it?Confession with the mouth would be considered a work; it's not the exercising of vocal cords that brings salvation. And works of the mind don't bring salvation either; I don't think God's going to allow me to enter Heaven for using the electrical impulses of the mind.

Conclusion:

No word games were played during this debate. Salvation and justification are different concepts, and justification is part of the overall salvation process. It is attained through grace alone through faith alone. There isn't anything anyone has to do to attain this justification, this making right of the sinner in the eyes of God. Simply have faith.

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness

-Romans 4:5

Defens0rFidei never responded to the counterarguments I put forth against his critique of justification by faith alone in Romans 4. Paul can't be referring to just works of the Old Covenant, since that law included works such as obeying God and loving others. Paul also isn't excluding "good" works from this passage either, as Titus 3:5 clearly demonstrates.

I also don't know why he requoted his original passages. Defens0rFidei's passages were discussed in this debate, and he never responded to my final remarks on the verses he quoted from James, Romans, and Hebrews in regards to justification.

In any case, I thank you, the reader, for taking the time to read this debate. I hope you also take the time to investigate this very important issue further; it was one of the causes of the Reformation, and, as Luther says, it is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.

May God bless your inquiry.