Perry wrote: > David, you are right. I was taught that by > preachers. But after I was taught that, I > learned that it was this truth that awakened > Martin Luther and thus was one of the foundational > tenets of the reformation. Sola Fide, I believe it > was called.
Just because it was one of the foundational tenets of the Reformation does not mean that it was right on. Sometimes errors are corrected by an overemphasis in the opposite direction. When such happens, we should not take the resultant good fruit as a justification of the absolute truth of an overemphasis. The term "sola fide" means "faith alone." When Luther translated the Bible, he did something very much like what the Jehovah's Witnesses did with John 1:1. The JW's created a translation that added a word to the verse, so that John 1:1 says that the Word was "a god" rather than just saying the Word was "God." Luther created a translation that ADDED the word "sola" (alone) to Romans 3:28, so that the passage would read that man is justified by "faith alone" (sola fide). He felt that the context justified his insertion of this extra word. Perry wrote: > I subsequently learned that the pivotal verses > that Luther read when he rediscovered this truth > were Romans 1:16,17. However, that is a reference > to Habbakuk 2:4, which is yet a reference to Abraham > and his faith, which was accounted to him as righteousness, > as written in Genesis 15:6. This certainly goes back > a bit further than "modern easy believism preachers", > wouldn't you agree? Yes, these passages do go further back, but modern easy believism is fruit from "sola fide." Even Luther recognized this problem in his later years when he lamented the moral decline of those in the reformation. I'm not as comfortable with Martin Luther as you might be. It bothers me that he so readily dismissed the faith of so many of the church fathers, such as Augustine. Most disconcerting to me, however, is that he took an outright belligerent stand against men like Copernicus who believed the earth revolved around the sun. His attitude was outright belligerent, kind of like Glenn's attitude toward me, calling him an "upstart astrologer" and a fool, and he used the Scriptures to prove a point which we now know is utterly false. Of course, he had no respect whatsoever for James, and Luther declared his epistle not to be of the Holy Spirit, but rather an epistle of straw and good only to be burned. I strongly object to Martin Luther in these points, so please try to understand that from my perspective, mentioning his name hinders rather than helps any argument for the Biblical justification of sola fide. If Luther couldn't justify the idea without cutting out a book from the Bible and adding to God's Word in another place, I'm skeptical that modern theologians can do much better. Perry wrote: > Then, in many other places in the new testament, > faith is indicated to be that means by which we > receive salvation. And I believe this very much, that salvation comes through faith, just as Paul taught. Nevertheless, I do not reject the epistle of James, as Luther did. I see that faith produces good works, and so I agree with James that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only (James 2:24). Perry wrote: > To save oneself, "if thou shalt confess with thy > mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine > heart that God hath raised him from the dead, > thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth > unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is > made unto salvation." (Romans 10:9,10). > We are not performing a "work" in this instance...we > are accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ as the truth; > we are believing it; we have faith that what God has > promised is so. If you look closely at Romans 10:9,10, you will see that Paul distinguishes between "believing" and "confessing." I see confessing as a "work." It is something which a person does when they believe, it is something brought about by faith. Furthermore, I would say that a person who claims to believe but does not confess does not have saving faith. Perry wrote: > "Saving oneself", then, is NOT denying the saving > nature of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, > but accepting it as truth. This sounds like intellectual assent to me. I would say that such faith cannot save. Even the devil accepts as truth the saving nature of the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ. Saving faith must be as Glenn explained it, not just intellectual, but a trust in Christ to personally save you. Perry wrote: > Keeping the Lord's commandments does play a > part in our belief. Keeping His commandments > is our RESPONSE to being saved. I agree. Perry wrote: > You refer to "if you will enter into life, keep > the commandments" (Mat. 19:17)". Do you think > that this means that "if you enter into life > (have faith), then keep the commandments", or > does it mean "if you keep my commandments, then > you will enter into life"? I believe the former. If these were my only two choices, I also would be inclined to accept the former, but the text actually says, "if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments." So I would pick this latter sentence if it was offered with the two that you offered. I'm out of time right now, so I can't respond to the rest of your post right now. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
