Faith alone

[Zakuska]

Coolrok7 says:

James's emphasis is on "justification" before our fellow man after we see the works, not just paying lip service to what we say we believe (external/people see the evidence of the internal change of the heart):

If only coolrok had read what his Bible actually said instead of reading his theology back into the Bible.

James is speaking of being Justified (ie undefiled, spotless, clean) before God by our works, plane and simple... he sets up the subject of Chapter 2 with this.

James 1

27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

No mention of Christ's blood here. Only Service to our fellow man.

The real issue or the bigger problem between us here stems from the fact of Joseph Smith (as part of the "restorationist" movement) and his adding to the "Word of God" unnecessarily through his own writings as so-called "Scripture" such as "after all we can do" which was never part of the Ephesians 2:8-10 verse of Paul.

It is the problem of lying and deceptive spirits ever ready to deceive people as they've done all along since the temptation of Adam and Eve (which God allowed and doesn?t explain to our satisfaction):

Once again Coolrok quotes a verse without reading it.

Paul includes works in the the equation.

Eph 2

10 For we are his aworkmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

"Faith alone" is a false Doctrine.

[William the Conqueror]

It was Luther who wrote alone after faith in Eph. 2:8-9 so inimical to the works of the catholic church was he. In fact he probably would have felt the same way about the Mormon church. "... and that is not your own doing but it is a gift of God..."

The antecedent of it has been given as faith or salvation.

[Vance]

There you go again, adding context. How naughty of you

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It was Luther who wrote alone after faith in Eph. 2:8-9 so inimical to the works of the catholic church was he. In fact he probably would have felt the same way about the Mormon church. "... and that is not your own doing but it is a gift of God..."

The antecedent of it has been given as faith or salvation.

faith does not = salvation. Hence faith being alone is dead as per James. So it cannot equal faith= salvation. Faith is a gift from God, that much is true.

So far all I have seen in this thread is an attempt to dance around what James has actually said. It sure would be nice to stick to what teh Bible actually says instead of what some one thinks it should say.

[cksalmon]

I hadn't heard of the "Solo Christo, Soli Deo gloria" before.

My assumption was correct, then, unfortunately, Vance.

The very foundational claims of the Reformers have somehow escaped your learned attention, but now, having been informed of their merest existence, you judge yourself, and rightly so, I'm sure, capable of dismissing them with a wave of your hand.

We critics, few though we may be, who actually take Mormonism seriously, have a name for this practice of parlaying professed ignorance into authoritative pronouncement: we call this unwelcome behemoth "Dave Hunt."

cks

[Vance]

My assumption was correct, then, unfortunately, Vance.

The very foundational claims of the Reformers have somehow escaped your learned attention, but now, having been informed of their merest existence, you judge yourself, and rightly so, I'm sure, capable of dismissing them with a wave of your hand.

We critics, few though we may be, who actually take Mormonism seriously, have a name for this practice of parlaying professed ignorance into authoritative pronouncement: we call this unwelcome behemoth "Dave Hunt."

cks

Is this the best criticism you can conjure?

Did I really have to know about "Solo Christo, Soli Deo gloria" prior to dismissing "sola scriptura"?

Is it not possible to reject an internally inconsistent statement of believe without a full knowledge of other statements?

And now feel free to return to your ad hominem approach.

[cksalmon]

Is this the best criticism you can conjure?

Did I really have to know about "Solo Christo, Soli Deo gloria" prior to dismissing "sola scriptura"?

Is it not possible to reject an internally inconsistent statement of believe without a full knowledge of other statements?

And now feel free to return to your ad hominem approach.

Feel free to demonstrate the logical contradiction you've discovered. I, for one, am quite interested.

cks

[Vance]

cks,

Can we agree that the doctrine of "sola scriptura" means that the Bible alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian?

[cksalmon]

cks,

Can we agree that the doctrine of "sola scriptura" means that the Bible alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, historical context matters. I would be quite comfortable discussing the historical Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura (to which I am a convinced adherent) by its own lights.

But, you'd need to "propositionalize" the argument you're hoping to make before I can usefully comment on its merits.

cks

[Pahoran]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, historical context matters.

Actually CK, I agree with you. To take one historical event -- or one doctrinal element -- out of its context is to study the part, and not the whole.

I would be quite comfortable discussing the historical Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura (to which I am a convinced adherent) by its own lights.

But, you'd need to "propositionalize" the argument you're hoping to make before I can usefully comment on its merits.

cks

Well, I'll take a stab at it.

1) Sola Scriptura avers that the Bible is the sole authoritative source of doctrinal truth, and that nothing external to that source can or ought to be believed as a point of Christian doctrine.

2) Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible, and attempts to extrapolate it from what is actually found there are generally somewhere south of pathetic.

3) Therefore Sola Scriptura can or ought not to be believed as a point of Christian doctrine.

Will that do?

Regards,

Pahoran

[cksalmon]

Actually CK, I agree with you.

As I suspected you would, P., when I saw you reading the thread.

Well, I'll take a stab at it.

Cool.

2) Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible, and attempts to extrapolate it from what is actually found there are generally somewhere south of pathetic.

More later on your (1), but...: no. I utterly and categorically reject your (2). It is simply not any part of any compelling logical argument to state, as a formal syllogistic proposition, that your conviction to the effect that a proposition contradictory to your own is"generally somewhere south of pathetic."

But, of course, you know that, P.

So, I have to believe you're just funnin' with me. As written, the argument is ridiculous. I refuse to believe that that is an oversight on your part.

cks

[Edgar Simons]

I know this topic has been done to death-especially lately-but there is one thing that keeps being said by many non-LDS Christians that i want some clarification on. I'd like to stick specifically to this arguement since there are so many other threads right now where every other aspect of the issue is being discussed.

Basically, many non-LDS Christians keep telling me that salvation is through faith alone. They say, specifically, that LDS aren't saved because we do not believe that salvation is through faith alone.

My question is, isn't teaching that salvation comes through faith alone contradictory to what the bible says about it? The bible teaches that faith, being alone, is dead.

James 2:17-Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

And as a part of that question i want to know, can dead faith save anyone?

I would really like all those who have used the 'salvation through faith alone' arguement against LDS to share their thoughts on this, because from my understanding, such a teaching is anti-biblical.

Thanks.

Wow what a good point!

Faith is the most misunderstood word in the bible.

Being very familiar with ?Main Stream christianity? (MSC) It has been co-opted by corruptors of the word of God.

They have in all their different versions change faith a noun into a verb.

[Edgar Simons]

With a critical difference - mormons require additional scripture to make their case.

So does Main Stream christianity (MSC) It has been co-opted by corruptors of the word of God they have hundreds of versions of the bible.

[Vance]

I would be quite comfortable discussing the historical Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura (to which I am a convinced adherent) by its own lights.

That is an interesting statement. Within it is an implicit admission that the doctrine is of a rather modern origin and therefore extra-Biblical. And being extra-Biblical makes it inconsistent with itself.

And thus we see that the statement;

"2) Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible, . . ."

is accurate.

So now we wait for you to make "attempts to extrapolate it from what is actually found there" to see if they "are generally somewhere south of pathetic" as is usually the case.

And please, under the doctrine of "sola scriptura" only passages from the Bible, in context, will be accepted as binding.

Now, mock away!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And please, under the doctrine of "sola scriptura" only passages from the Bible, in context, will be accepted as binding.

Now, mock away!

I am quite interested as well. Since "sola scriptura" as others have pointed out cannot be found in the bible or rather that the bible nevers claims to be the only sorce or scripture.

[Tanyan]

Coolrok7 says:

If only coolrok had read what his Bible actually said instead of reading his theology back into the Bible.

James is speaking of being Justified (ie undefiled, spotless, clean)??before God by our works, plane and simple... he sets up the subject of Chapter 2 with this.

James 1

??27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

No mention of Christ's blood here. Only Service to our fellow man.

Once again Coolrok quotes a verse without reading it.

Paul includes works in the the equation.

Eph 2

??10 For we are his aworkmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

"Faith alone" is a false Doctrine.

Faith alone from my llights is not a false doctrine "IF" you understand the greek word for "faith" [pistis].

Also I believe that once one performs "pure religion" ie keeping the 2 great commandments out of Love for God/Jesus Christ /Holy Ghost you are accessing/activating/making alive Jesus Christs blood sacrifice on your behalf and you recieve Grace. So if you are walking in them [good works] you are walking in The Light, and Grace abounds for you.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan, LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[cksalmon]

That is an interesting statement. Within it is an implicit admission that the doctrine is of a rather modern origin and therefore extra-Biblical. And being extra-Biblical makes it inconsistent with itself.

And thus we see that the statement;

"2) Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible, . . ."

is accurate.

So now we wait for you to make "attempts to extrapolate it from what is actually found there" to see if they "are generally somewhere south of pathetic" as is usually the case.

And please, under the doctrine of "sola scriptura" only passages from the Bible, in context, will be accepted as binding.

Now, mock away!

No, I haven't admitted anything of the sort. What I have done is attempt to place the discussion in its historical frame.

You will be waiting quite the long while, Vance, for me to advance an argument for Sola scriptura that is as simplistic and utterly bereft of historical context as you might wish me to.

But, again, if you wish to demonstrate the logical contradiction you've discovered, I'm all ears. At least then we can get it on the table.

You strike me as one who is blithely ignorant of the nature and historical impetus of the Reformation agenda--including one of its most important watchwords, "sola scriptura." As I am, theologically, a historical Protestant--not an "American Evangelical," I don't find your disaffection from the position particularly compelling. I'm not saying you don't reject it; I'm saying you have no idea why the Protestant Reformers embraced it.

Or, indeed, why I do.

cks

[coolrok7]

The following verses from the New Testament, I think, provides an understanding of how one can arrive at the conclusion of ?Sola Scriptura? along with the other "Solas" of the Reformation:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10

I make sure as best as I can to not violate the idea behind the term Exegesis, used in Biblical Hermeneutics, which is the idea of reading what is there in the Biblical text without doing Eisegesis, reading into the text what is not there (Wikepedia):

Exegesis- (from the Greek ἐξηγεῖσθαι 'to lead out') involves an extensive and critical interpretation of an authoritative text, especially of a holy scripture, such as of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Talmud, the Midrash, the Qur'an, etc. Exegesis also is used to describe the elucidation of philosophical and legal texts.

One may encounter the terms exegesis and hermeneutics used interchangeably; however, there remains a distinction. An exegesis is the interpretation and understanding of a text on the basis of the text itself. A hermeneutic is a practical application of a certain method or theory of interpretation, often revolving around the contemporary relevance of the text in question.

Eisegesis- (from the Greek εἰσηγεῖσθαι; 'to lead in') is the process of interpretation of an existing text in such a way as to introduce one's own ideas. This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, as someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete. The term eisegete is often used in a mildly derogatory fashion.

I believe there is internal Biblical evidence for arriving at the understanding of Scritpure (Sola Scriptura) as the only authorized source of apostolically endorsed true doctrine. This would include the idea of an expanding but historically limited cannon (the NT over time being joined to the OT as the record of the fulfillment of prophecy and further instruction from Jesus and His apostles):

Jesus said to him, ?Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.? And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:29-30)

For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. Many of them therefore believed, . . . (Acts 17:11-12a)

But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. (1 Corinthians 4:6)

Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. (1 Corinthians 10:11)

And when this letter is read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and you, for your part read my letter that is coming from Laodicea. (Colossians 4:16)

I adjure you by the Lord to have this letter read to all the brethren. (1 Thessalonians 5:27)

But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; but in case I am delayed, I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15)

Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. (2 Timothy 1:13)

You therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, these entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:1-2)

Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:14-15)

Mormonism of course rejects this understanding as it depends on the writings of Joseph Smith (and others) to interject his/their understanding which in the end usurps the Bible in order to arrive at his/their conclusions ("twisting" the scripture). Mormonism has its own version of "Sola Scriptura" which ends up being the word of the "living prophet".

President Benson?s talk, ?FOURTEEN FUNDAMENTALS IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHET? (February 26, 1980, at BYU), included the following quotes in part [Even their own so-called "Scripture" can be trumped by a ?living prophet. . .more vital to us than the standard works??]:

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us then the standard works. . . .When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ?Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.? Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said, ?There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,? said he, ?when compared with the living oracles those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or man bearing the holy priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.? That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: ?Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.? (In Conference report, October 1897, pp.18-19). . .

[Pahoran]

My propositions:

1) Sola Scriptura avers that the Bible is the sole authoritative source of doctrinal truth, and that nothing external to that source can or ought to be believed as a point of Christian doctrine.

2) Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible, and attempts to extrapolate it from what is actually found there are generally somewhere south of pathetic.

3) Therefore Sola Scriptura can or ought not to be believed as a point of Christian doctrine.

CKSalmon's response:

More later on your (1), but...: no. I utterly and categorically reject your (2). It is simply not any part of any compelling logical argument to state, as a formal syllogistic proposition, that your conviction to the effect that a proposition contradictory to your own is"generally somewhere south of pathetic."

But, of course, you know that, P.

So, I have to believe you're just funnin' with me. As written, the argument is ridiculous. I refuse to believe that that is an oversight on your part.

cks

But CK: the "generally somewhere south of pathetic" clause was not part of any "formal syllogistic proposition." It was a parenthetical remark.

But, of course, you know that, CK.

The only formal proposition found at point 2 was, "Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible."

And in explaining why you reject that, you failed entirely to actually address it.

As someone else said, "I refuse to believe that that is an oversight on your part."

Evidently when you said:

I would be quite comfortable discussing the historical Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura (to which I am a convinced adherent) by its own lights.

But, you'd need to "propositionalize" the argument you're hoping to make before I can usefully comment on its merits.

What you really meant was something similar to, "Show me your arguments against Sola Scriptura, and I'll show you some real fancy footwork as I tapdance around them."

You strike me as one who is blithely ignorant of the nature and historical impetus of the Reformation agenda--including one of its most important watchwords, "sola scriptura." As I am, theologically, a historical Protestant--not an "American Evangelical," I don't find your disaffection from the position particularly compelling. I'm not saying you don't reject it; I'm saying you have no idea why the Protestant Reformers embraced it.

Or, indeed, why I do.

And I'm in the same boat. As intelligent as you clearly are, I have no idea why you embrace a doctrine that is self-exclusionary on its face.

And remarkably enough, with all the posts you've made on the subject, you haven't actually gotten around to explaining it, or even making a start in that direction.

So how about you actually enlighten us, instead of avoiding the issues?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Vance]

I find it interesting that people elevate the written word of a God authorized servant above the authority of its very author.

Take Paul for example, where did he get the gospel he preached? From scripture? Nope!

Gal. 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

And what else did Paul say about revelation?

1 Cor. 14:6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?

? ? ?

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.

It is apparent that the spoken word of a God authorized servant is preeminent to the written word.

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,

. . .

Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

There is that revelation thing again.

And what about what Jesus taught,(John 16:13)Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

No mention of "scripture" there.

Obviously REVELATION is authoritative and more so than scripture.

So what about a "sola apokalupsis"?

[Vance]

No, I haven't admitted anything of the sort. What I have done is attempt to place the discussion in its historical frame.

I said it was an implicit admission not an explicit one. Rather than just issuing a denial why don't you actually make an effort to SHOW where I am wrong.

You will be waiting quite the long while, Vance, for me to advance an argument for Sola scriptura that is as simplistic and utterly bereft of historical context as you might wish me to.

So in other words the explanation is so complex and utter infused with historical context that it is beyond this forum?

Your argument would be a slam dunk if you could simply provide a scriptural reference showing plainly and clearly "sola scriptura". But no, that approach is unavailable to you. So you must lead us down the complex/historical rabbit hole.

So how would your complex and utterly infused with historical context approach support "sola scriptura" when simple "sola scriptura" references would not?

But, again, if you wish to demonstrate the logical contradiction you've discovered, I'm all ears. At least then we can get it on the table.

So, this "head in the sand" aspect of your approach is something that you are comfortable continuing?

"Sola scriptura" basically means Bible only.

"Sola scriptura" is not found in the Bible.

Therefore "sola scriptura" is unbiblical and therefore internally inconsistent.

Now is it on the table?

You strike me as one who is blithely ignorant of the nature and historical impetus of the Reformation agenda--including one of its most important watchwords, "sola scriptura."

Is this just more deflection from the real issue? As if less ignorance on my part would some how change the inconsistency of "sola scriptura". How would me "boning" up on the "nature and historical impetus of the Reformation agenda" strengthen your still non-existent argument?

As I am, theologically, a historical Protestant--not an "American Evangelical," I don't find your disaffection from the position particularly compelling. I'm not saying you don't reject it; I'm saying you have no idea why the Protestant Reformers embraced it.

Or, indeed, why I do.

cks

Would understanding WHY some have embraced "sola scriptura" somehow remove its inconsistency?

Would a history lesson change the obvious?

Is this what you are going to base your defense on? Really?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"Sola scriptura" basically means Bible only.

"Sola scriptura" is not found in the Bible.

Therefore "sola scriptura" is unbiblical and therefore internally inconsistent.

Now is it on the table?

And here it is. This is were I think some clarification is needed. Does "Sola scriptura" basically means Bible only? If this is the case why does the bible not make that claim. The bible will need to state that "the Bible is the sole source of scripture". for this to be a true point of doctrine. Not merely stating something ambigious like "All scripture is given" or "all revelation is". Because All scripture or all revelation is not defined by the bible as the bible. Surely we all see this.

No amount of historical context will help this argument. It fails from the gate. It is about as bad an argument as saying that 2+3=25. No amount of "context" will make 2+3=25 true as it is a false statement.

If it is not the case (That Sola scriptura" basically means Bible only) then some one please help me understand what "Sola scriptura" really means.

[cksalmon]

If it is not the case (That Sola scriptura" basically means Bible only) then some one please help me understand what "Sola scriptura" really means.

Now that, my friend, is an honorable request. If you would care to start a thread, I'd be more than willing to discuss it.

I would note that, while you've properly understood the literal meaning of the Latin ("scripture alone"), there is more to the idea than a literal translation can adequately convey. We're not dealing with a mathematical equation, in other words.

cks

[Vance]

Well, from http://www.gotquestions.org/sola-scriptura.html

we get this.

Question: "What is sola scriptura?"

Answer: The phrase sola scriptura is from the Latin: sola having the idea of ?alone,? ?ground,? ?base,? and the word scriptura meaning ?writings??referring to the Scriptures. Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true. ?All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness? (2 Timothy 3:16).

Sola scriptura was the rallying cry of the Protestant Reformation. . . .

Is this correct?

And from Wiki we get this;

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, Sola Scriptura demands that no doctrine is to be admitted or confessed that is not found directly or logically within Scripture.

Is this correct also?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I moved the Sola Scriptura debate here