1. That which you call "The Orthodox Church, the Body of Christ" is just one fragment of those worldwide who claim the name of Christ. They are no more automatically right than Luther is automatically right. It appears that you stand by your answer that words need to be inserted into the Bible for it to be understood properly. Disappointing.

2,3,4. Thank you for clarifying that you don't think Paul was actually wrong, but that Paul can be misunderstood. I disagree that Protestants misunderstand Paul on this matter, but at least I can join you in affirming that whatever Paul did mean, he was correct.

5. I am not a Lutheran. And Luther, rightly so, later moderated his early comments disparaging the book of James.

6. Yes, I am aware of the issue of the Judaizers. However, Paul's argument against them is more comprehensive than you admit. It's applicable to any and all attempts to acquire justification through works.

7. I agree that repentance is a characteristic of those whom God is saving. I disagree about the causal relationship between repentance and salvation which you suggest.

Originally posted by Maxentius

I came across this while reading Romans through in one sitting:

Rom 10:8-10

But what does it say?
"The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"
(that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
because,
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved.
For with the heart one believes and is justified,
and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

---

© source where applicable

I noticed the use of "saved" in the present and future tense.

The present tense should, I think, be understood as BY MEANS OF...
eg: IF you confess etc
THEN you WILL BE saved
And this because it is by means of confession that one is saved.

But notice that it is that big IF with two conditionals:
CONFESS and BELIEVE

And both of these are WORKS: The first OUTER, the second INNER...

Confession is first, and is the easier and outer work...
The inner work of belief is harder, because it entails the purging of evil from the heart, which contains BOTH good and evil... And this is what is meant by ONTOLOGICAL believing... Having a divided mind, which is UNAVOIDABLE prior to the WORK of PURIFYING THE HEART, is destructive to one's salvation... Prior to the establishment of belief through repentance of deeds, thoughts and images of evils, one is not yet saved... And even the establishment of belief itself only means you WILL BE saved...

The heights of idiocy for an Orthodox Christian would be to walk around in this fallen creation proclaiming to others how SAVED I AM... We know all too well that we can easily throw it all away by falling to sin...

Protestants, on the other hand, proclaim proudly their assurredness of irreversible salvation, and then look at their sins as if they do not matter... Because Christ has them covered by His death on the Cross... Past as well as future sins... [Yes, a broad brush, not held by all...]

Instead, we join the Publican, and beat our breast, and cannot even look up to the heavens, and we proclaim daily with David in Psalm 50 [lxx] "For I know mine iniquities, and my sin is ever before me..."

The scariest thing we face is our fallen desire to become like the Pharisee, assured of his salvation, and scorning those whom God has not MADE LIKE THEM... Or REMADE, as the case now is after Christ's incarnation...

Arsenios

Originally posted by RBerman

. It appears that you stand by your answer that words need to be inserted into the Bible for it to be understood properly. Disappointing.

If you re-read my reply to you, you will find that these words of yours do not tell the truth...

The fact is that when the Greek establishes a context, it no longer needs to repeat that context for every reference to it... So that for western logicians, who ignore or cannot follow the context, it is helpful for them to RE-INSERT what has already been established - In this case the work of obedience to Christ, as opposed to the works of the Law, which cannot justify... And the reason the Law cannot justify is because it is EXTERNAL... And Christ, in His Sermon on the Mount, said that we must EXCEED the righteousness of the Pharisees, and this by controlling not only behavior in pursuit of the Law, but by repenting even from the INNER workings of the mind, where merely LOOKING at a woman wrongly constitutes adultery, whereas the Pharisees had their righteousness by not actually committing an outer work of adultery...

It is these outer works that do not give Christian righteousness, but only by repentance from the passions themselves, IN ADDITION TO the actions that proceed from them, that constitutes righteousness, and even this is only establishment of a human virtue, for the true healing of the soul comes directly from God, where infirmity is overcome by justification against which sin can no longer lay any hold...

Yet without these worthless rags, this acquisition of human virtue in repentance, God will not give such firmness to our souls, and we will continue in our sins...

Arsenios

Originally posted by RBerman

1. That which you call "The Orthodox Church, the Body of Christ" is just one fragment of those worldwide who claim the name of Christ. They are no more automatically right than Luther is automatically right.

And YOUR response, of course, is that ONLY HUMAN LOGIC can determine which views, IF ANY, are actually correct...

And THEN you somehow try to claim, with all the other western denominations, that YOUR HUMAN LOGIC is NOT a HUMAN DOCTRINE...

But the Church, you see, is the Body of Christ, Who is Her Head...

BOTH human and Divine...

God bless you...

Arsenios

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

And YOUR response, of course, is that ONLY HUMAN LOGIC can determine which views, IF ANY, are actually correct. And THEN you somehow try to claim, with all the other western denominations, that YOUR HUMAN LOGIC is NOT a HUMAN DOCTRINE. But the Church, you see, is the Body of Christ, Who is Her Head. BOTH human and Divine...

But George, your church consists of men too. They too use their human logic to examine Scripture and determine which views are correct. I no less than they can claim the indwelling Holy Spirit as guiding my reflections upon Holy Writ.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

Rom 10:8-10

But what does it say?
"The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"
(that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
because,
if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved.
For with the heart one believes and is justified,
and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

---

© source where applicable

The present tense should, I think, be understood as BY MEANS OF...
eg: IF you confess etc
THEN you WILL BE saved
And this because it is by means of confession that one is saved.

But that is not what he said. I find it a bit disturbing that you feel free to just re-interpret things like that. FWIW, if "this is my body" means what it says, why can't the tense of a verb mean what it says? Jesus made a similar argument based on the words of Scripture against the Sadducees based on the tense of a verb.

Also, if you can insert words to clarify what the Holy Spirit inspired, why can't anyone else? This is the second time you have done this. As St. Irenaeus said, the Scriptures are the Tradition written down by the Apostles. Why should we be allowed to add to them?

But notice that it is that big IF with two conditionals:
CONFESS and BELIEVE

That is not really relevant to my point, which is the Apostle Paul did not say salvation is only in the future--indeed, by confessing we already have it.

The heights of idiocy for an Orthodox Christian would be to walk around in this fallen creation proclaiming to others how SAVED I AM... We know all too well that we can easily throw it all away by falling to sin...

Why it is idiocy for an Orthodox Christian to follow the teachings of the Apostle Paul? So far all you have done is rewrite what he said.

Protestants, on the other hand, proclaim proudly their assurredness of irreversible salvation, and then look at their sins as if they do not matter...

You know we don't believe this, George. Why do you constantly need to distort others' beliefs? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Originally posted by RBerman

But George, your church consists of men too.

The Orthodox Church CONSISTS IN and indeed IS the Body of Christ. I am but a member of this Body, which speaks through her Saints, and through her Ecumenical Councils as they are received over time by the Church...

They [Orthodox Christians] too use their human logic to examine Scripture and determine which views are correct.

When the Arian heresy came to power, and threatened to destroy the Church, the first Council at Nicea was held, and they got together and gave Arius his say, and then brought forth the Saints... And they were an awesome witness... Many partially martyred, with burns and scars, with eyes gouged out, and with hands cut off, and tongues removed, many bodies we little more than scar tissue from their torments...

And the question to each of them was this, in 325AD: "What did you receive from christ and the Apostles? Did ANY of them teach, with Arius, that there was a TIME when Christ was NOT? And the answer from each was the same: "No... Christ is eternally begotten of the Father. There was NEVER A TIME WHEN He WAS not...

They did NOT open the Scriptures and have a great debate over the written word and determine by human logic which conclusion was the more rational based on the words written... They NEVER tried, like you, to REDUCE the Revelation of Christ our God to HUMAN LOGIC...

Not once... Not even... Not ever...

That effort, to CLAIM INSPIRATION, and then substitute human logic, is anathema to a Christian...

I no less than they can claim the indwelling Holy Spirit as guiding my reflections upon Holy Writ.

If you INSIST ON YOUR HUMAN LOGIC, and scorn out of hand the RECEIVED WITNESS of the very Body of Christ on Earth which He DIED ON THE CROSS to establish, you subject yourself to a reckless endangerment indeed... For Paul writes that the Church is the Body of Christ, Who is its Head, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail... Paul suffered greatly for this Holy Body... And YOU are now going to despise its witness in favor of YOUR HUMAN LOGIC???

Lord have Mercy!

Arsenios

George, your bluster that your sect "is" the Body of Christ (as if other Christians were not) is not helpful. Nor is your "You use human logic, but we have the truth" paradigm. We're all in this together, using reason, revelation, and the Holy Spirit to seek the truth.

Originally posted by Maxentius

But that is not what he said. I find it a bit disturbing that you feel free to just re-interpret things like that. FWIW, if "this is my body" means what it says, why can't the tense of a verb mean what it says? Jesus made a similar argument based on the words of Scripture against the Sadducees based on the tense of a verb.

Max, please forgive me - I failed to look at the Greek, and simply took your translation at face value...

Here is your translation:

For with the heart one believes and is justified,
and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Here is the Greek:
καρδια γαρ πιστευεται εις δικαιοσυνην

For by the heart is he believing unto righteousness

στοματι δε ομολογειται εις σωτηριαν

but by the mouth is he confessing unto salvation.

Also, if you can insert words to clarify what the Holy Spirit inspired, why can't anyone else? This is the second time you have done this. As St. Irenaeus said, the Scriptures are the Tradition written down by the Apostles. Why should we be allowed to add to them?

Slow down thar', Pard... I but suggested a way of understanding, and you are turning it into a federal case... The actual text happens to pretty much agree with me, for it says that we are believing unto righteousness, and NOT, as YOUR translation ADDS TO THE BIBLE, "one believes and is justified" IS JUSTIFIED is not in the text, nor is the word AND...

Why DO you add to the Scriptures?

That is not really relevant to my point, which is the Apostle Paul did not say salvation is only in the future--indeed, by confessing we already have it.

He simply does not say that... You are ADDING TO SCRIPTURE...

You know we don't believe this, George. Why do you constantly need to distort others' beliefs? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Lutherans are not so bad as most of the rest of the Protestant confessions spawned by the Reformation... But I have heard this view repeatedly right here on T-Web...

Arsenios

They did NOT open the Scriptures and have a great debate over the written word and determine by human logic which conclusion was the more rational based on the words written... They NEVER tried, like you, to REDUCE the Revelation of Christ our God to HUMAN LOGIC...

This is demonstrably false. Are you going to maintain there were no discussions based on logic at the council of Nicea, that all that happened was a parade of those persecuted? If so, I suggest you do more reading about it. Were all those men just saying homoousios over and over when they were asked questions? Are you going to claim there was no logical discussion of homoousios?

I mean no disrespect to them BTW, it is just that your claim is so daft that your grasp of elementary facts can reasonably be called into question. A plucked out eye does not lead to homoousios, which is a philosophical term. And since it is a philosophical term, your claim is falsified.

Facts are stubborn things. The facts are that there were "logical" discussions, philosophical discussions and Scriptural discussions at the council--even if it upsets your theological apple cart.

That effort, to CLAIM INSPIRATION, and then substitute human logic, is anathema to a Christian...

So far, it has been you, George, who claims inspiration and then correct Apostle Paul by adding to what the Holy Spirit inspired them to write. Indeed, your corrections make St. Paul say the opposite of what he wrote.

If you INSIST ON YOUR HUMAN LOGIC, and scorn out of hand the RECEIVED WITNESS of the very Body of Christ on Earth which He DIED ON THE CROSS to establish, you subject yourself to a reckless endangerment indeed...

I for one do not scorn the Body of Christ, I just don't believe the EOC is the Body of Christ. It is simply a claim you make based on your logic, as far as I am concerned. There is nothing wrong with making the claim, it is just that since it is based on logic you should reject it. And if it is based on experience, absent logic there is no reason to accept your experience over that of anyone else, including the most radical Pentecostal--who I can assure you have plenty of experiences they can relate.

For Paul writes that the Church is the Body of Christ, Who is its Head, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail... Paul suffered greatly for this Holy Body... And YOU are now going to despise its witness in favor of YOUR HUMAN LOGIC???

Odd you bring this up, as you presume to correct this self same Apostle when his writings go against your theories. That is not REECEIVING the WITNESS of the BODY of CHRIST, George, it is revising it.

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

If you re-read my reply to you, you will find that these words of yours do not tell the truth...

Arsenios

I find this posting weird. After making allowances for differences in terminology, I think you're espousing something very close to justification by faith. Your distinction between inner and outer is very close to our distinction between faith and works. To me the point of justification by faith is that God operates by regenerating us from the inside, by union with Christ, and our actions are only of value if they follow from that. That seems to be what you are saying as well.

I would suggest to you that you spend a bit less time denouncing Protestants and a bit more time communicating with them. There are almost certainly differences, but they are less than you think.

On the question of rewriting Paul, i too am a bit dismayed at your approach. However I will say that there has never been any question of faith that isn't shown in action. So actually, adding "and acts accordingly" doesn't significantly change the interpretation for me. It does change the emphasis, and in that sense I'd rather take Paul unmodified if you don't mind. I don't think you have yet understood that Protestants do believe that faith must show itself, or it isn't real (except in odd situations like a deathbed conversion, where there's no opportunity). The question is one of order. God operates by renovating us through a union with Christ, which we receive through faith, and the action (sanctification, in our terms) follows from that. But you seem to be saying that as well, citing teachings of Jesus that I also consider support for justification by faith. So until I see more serious engagement between you and Protestant contributors, I'm going to assume that you actually accept justification by faith alone, and just don't realize it.

I see no sign yet that you are making any attempt to understand what the Protestant actually mean. You're still pushing straw men and proof by vigorous assertion, combined with a breathtaking display of arrogance. If there are any other EO posters following this discussion, I certainly hope you're counseling him in private. This is a really bad witness for the EO church. Frankly, at some point I don't care how perfect your theology is, if your attitude towards fellow Christians is as unsympathetic as it is here. I've known Mormons and JWs that I would consider brothers in Christ before you. See 1 Cor 13:1.

Originally posted by hedrick

I see no sign yet that you are making any attempt to understand what the Protestant actually mean. You're still pushing straw men and proof by vigorous assertion, combined with a breathtaking display of arrogance. If there are any other EO posters following this discussion, I certainly hope you're counseling him in private. This is a really bad witness for the EO church. Frankly, at some point I don't care how perfect your theology is, if your attitude towards fellow Christians is as unsympathetic as it is here. I've known Mormons and JWs that I would consider brothers in Christ before you. See 1 Cor 13:1.

I would like to add something, and I hope this is not taken as an attack on George as a person, but how he conducts himself in many of these discussions.

George, if in these discussions you describe my beliefs in a way which I do not recognize them, and after correction you continue to do so, you come across as more of a hack than a serious person. This means that for the most part your points are not part of a coherent argument or explanation, but are designed to help the EO team--even if that means distorting the other guy's beliefs, and are therefore readily brushed aside as rhetorical posturing and not to be taken seriously. A corrolary to this is as follows: how can I have any confidence in how you describe things in places where I cannot readily check your statements for veracity when you are so stubbornly wrong in the places in which I can? Your interpretations of Lutheranism are not even in the ballpark, and I think I have a fair amount of knowledge about my own beliefs--enough to smell the nonsense. Therefore I am certainly not willing to take your word at face value in a Greek translation, since even when discussing in English you miss very elementary points. The same for shoehorning words into Apostolic writings so we can know what St. Paul "really" meant. There is no sale there, because the way you read things does not seem trustworthy on issues I know.

What you are free to do, and you should do this, is point out where there are tensions within your opponent's stated views within his own framework. So far you have not done this. I mean, even Jesus spoke to the Samaritans...

Originally posted by Maxentius

I would like to add something, and I hope this is not taken as an attack on George as a person, but how he conducts himself in many of these discussions.

George, if in these discussions you describe my beliefs in a way which I do not recognize them, and after correction you continue to do so, you come across as more of a hack than a serious person. This means that for the most part your points are not part of a coherent argument or explanation, but are designed to help the EO team--even if that means distorting the other guy's beliefs, and are therefore readily brushed aside as rhetorical posturing and not to be taken seriously. A corrolary to this is as follows: how can I have any confidence in how you describe things in places where I cannot readily check your statements for veracity when you are so stubbornly wrong in the places in which I can? Your interpretations of Lutheranism are not even in the ballpark, and I think I have a fair amount of knowledge about my own beliefs--enough to smell the nonsense. Therefore I am certainly not willing to take your word at face value in a Greek translation, since even when discussing in English you miss very elementary points. The same for shoehorning words into Apostolic writings so we can know what St. Paul "really" meant. There is no sale there, because the way you read things does not seem trustworthy on issues I know.

What you are free to do, and you should do this, is point out where there are tensions within your opponent's stated views within his own framework. So far you have not done this. I mean, even Jesus spoke to the Samaritans...

Christ WAS the Good Samaritan... And IS...

The issue is the ROLE of works in justification, faith, and salvation...

You have repeatedly insisted that works have no role except that of occurring as a CONSEQUENCE of faith, justification, and salvation... And as a consequence, they can be seen as sort of "filling out" an already pre-existent faith, and this is what you understand as James meaning when he writes that "By works was his faith made perfect..."

So when I take you to task for believing that works have no role in increasing faith, or in causing faith to grow and mature, I really do not think I am all that far off the mark... The fact that you do not recognize your error in this matter is not something that I can comment on intelligently...

However, if you really do believe in Sola Scriptura, I should think you would want to be able to understand the untranslated Scriptura... eg Greek... Then you would not have to take my word for it, or anyone else's... The problem you will find is that translations tend to be exegetical, and preconceived theological conclusions are translated into the text... Which just causes another basis for multiplication of theologies in the western mental millieu...

Arsenios

Originally posted by hedrick

I find this posting weird. After making allowances for differences in terminology, I think you're espousing something very close to justification by faith. Your distinction between inner and outer is very close to our distinction between faith and works. To me the point of justification by faith is that God operates by regenerating us from the inside, by union with Christ, and our actions are only of value if they follow from that. That seems to be what you are saying as well.

The issue is the ROLE of works...

And the MEANING of works...

I would suggest to you that you spend a bit less time denouncing Protestants and a bit more time communicating with them. There are almost certainly differences, but they are less than you think.

The mental gymnastics of definitional referents are NOT the point...

On the question of rewriting Paul, i too am a bit dismayed at your approach.

Look - When a person is not keeping context, then he needs to be reminded of context, and in Romans, Paul it talking about the Jewish works of the Law, as opposed to the Faith, and the two different justifications involved...

And when a person argues that Paul is talking about ALL works, even the works of the Faith, then it is necessary to remind him of the CONTEXT of Paul's remarks. I mean, IF you are going to insist on sola scriptura, then you had BETTER understand the scriptura... And expanding the meaning of the works of the Law to mean the works of faith is simply not legitimate... And indeed, Paul is ALWAYS PRESCRIBING WORKS... The works of Faith, and not the works of the Law...

And the works of Faith are the DISCIPLESHIP of the Church,,,

However I will say that there has never been any question of faith that isn't shown in action. So actually, adding "and acts accordingly" doesn't significantly change the interpretation for me.

It changes nothing - It only REMINDS those glorifying their misunderstanding of the role of works that works are actually always in view, but not the works of the Law, which do not justify, except in a human sense...

It does change the emphasis, and in that sense I'd rather take Paul unmodified if you don't mind. I don't think you have yet understood that Protestants do believe that faith must show itself, or it isn't real (except in odd situations like a deathbed conversion, where there's no opportunity).

I did not modify Paul - I simply reminded the context dismissers of the context of works of faith being contrasted with works of the Law...

The question is one of order. God operates by renovating us through a union with Christ, which we receive through faith, and the action (sanctification, in our terms) follows from that.

Well, I have been avoiding questions about this Protestant sanctification, out of pity...

Sanctification is the infusion of holiness, and in the absence of the WORKS of holiness, it is meaningless and indeed contradicted, yet even in the presence of such works, it is not necessarily present, and what you have is a lot of unverifyable words about concepts that are not demonstrable in actual people... Whereas the Orthodox have the Saints, the holy ones of God.... And the wonders they work...

But you seem to be saying that as well, citing teachings of Jesus that I also consider support for justification by faith. So until I see more serious engagement between you and Protestant contributors, I'm going to assume that you actually accept justification by faith alone, and just don't realize it.

Sola??? I DO have a sola for you on justification, but not by Faith - Instead, the ONLY source of justification is Christ Him-SELF...

I see no sign yet that you are making any attempt to understand what the Protestant actually mean. You're still pushing straw men and proof by vigorous assertion, combined with a breathtaking display of arrogance. If there are any other EO posters following this discussion, I certainly hope you're counseling him in private. This is a really bad witness for the EO church. Frankly, at some point I don't care how perfect your theology is, if your attitude towards fellow Christians is as unsympathetic as it is here. I've known Mormons and JWs that I would consider brothers in Christ before you. See 1 Cor 13:1.

Well, please forgive me my insufferable arrogance... When I see responses that do not engage the text by sola-scriptura advocates, I try to push hard enough to get engagement... And you are right, it is arrogant, and obviously without much result...

Arsenios

Originally posted by Maxentius

This is demonstrably false. Are you going to maintain there were no discussions based on logic at the council of Nicea, that all that happened was a parade of those persecuted? If so, I suggest you do more reading about it. Were all those men just saying homoousios over and over when they were asked questions? Are you going to claim there was no logical discussion of homoousios?

THAT term was only offered with great trepidation, because it is not a term found in Scripture... Yet it was found to reflect what all had received... Yet the discussions were NOT based on logical deductions formulated in textual exegesis... Like I said, the question was, "What did you receive from the Apostles?" What was handed down... Critical was the UNCHANGING nature of the deposit of Faith... It was given once, for all, to the Apostles, who HANDED IT DOWN to their disciples, who handed it down to their disciples, and on and on... Paradosis is the process, and it is Biblically affirmed as an essential element of the teachings of Christianity... And PARADOSIS in the Church means HOLY TRADITION...

I mean the whole point of the Ecumenical Councils is to keep the Faith unchanged from what it has always been... It is most certainly NOT for the purpose of speculating what the words of Scripture MIGHT MEAN, and then deciding, on the basis of human logic, just what meaning we are going to select this time... THAT would be nuts...

Facts are stubborn things. The facts are that there were "logical" discussions, philosophical discussions and Scriptural discussions at the council--even if it upsets your theological apple cart.

Oh there were discussions all right, and nothing illogical about them, but certainly not the kinds of discussions you are imagining...

So far, it has been you, George, who claims inspiration and then correct Apostle Paul by adding to what the Holy Spirit inspired them to write. Indeed, your corrections make St. Paul say the opposite of what he wrote.

I did not correct Paul at all - I simply reminded you of what you are closing your eyes to...

Romans is about justification by the works of the Law, vs Justification by Faith... It is not this grand scorning of all works, except those that spontaneously burst forth from Faith and its justification, which you seem to hold dear...

I for one do not scorn the Body of Christ, I just don't believe the EOC is the Body of Christ.

Well, how about the Church in Thessalonnica in Paul's time? Was THAT the Body of Christ?

How about the Church in Jerusalem in Peter's time? Was THAT the Body of Christ?

How about Antioch? Was the Church there in Paul's time the Body of Christ?

And if you answer yes, then WHEN did they STOP being the Body of Christ?

It is simply a claim you make based on your logic, as far as I am concerned.

That is probably as far as you CAN understand it... For that is how YOU understand...

There is nothing wrong with making the claim, it is just that since it is based on logic you should reject it. And if it is based on experience, absent logic there is no reason to accept your experience over that of anyone else, including the most radical Pentecostal--who I can assure you have plenty of experiences they can relate.

Exactly...

Odd you bring this up, as you presume to correct this self same Apostle when his writings go against your theories. That is not REECEIVING the WITNESS of the BODY of CHRIST, George, it is revising it.

I did not correct Paul...

I corrected YOU...

To no avail, I shouod hastily add!

Arsenios

Originally posted by George Blaisdell

You have repeatedly insisted that works have no role except that of occurring as a CONSEQUENCE of faith, justification, and salvation... And as a consequence, they can be seen as sort of "filling out" an already pre-existent faith, and this is what you understand as James meaning when he writes that "By works was his faith made perfect..."

No George, I stated explicitly that our good works are to obey God and serve our neighbor. They are not "merely" a consequence of faith, because we cooperate with God when we are adopted as sons. The adoption is what we mean by "justified by faith". Obeying god in a godly manner is something we could not do before we were adopted sons. What they do not do is make Christ's work on my behalf more efficacious--i.e. they make me more holy, but not more justified. This is because justification is a free gift which is not like th eoffense of Adam which brought sin and death--in the words of the Apostle Paul.

So when I take you to task for believing that works have no role in increasing faith, or in causing faith to grow and mature, I really do not think I am all that far off the mark...

Well, what do you mean by increasing faith? If you mean "faithfulness", I have no problem. If you mean I am more an adopted son of God because I act well, then no.

However, if you really do believe in Sola Scriptura, I should think you would want to be able to understand the untranslated Scriptura... eg Greek... Then you would not have to take my word for it, or anyone else's... The problem you will find is that translations tend to be exegetical, and preconceived theological conclusions are translated into the text... Which just causes another basis for multiplication of theologies in the western mental millieu...

And yet, all these people have studied Greek for most of their adult lives. I checked the German translation, too. Basically, a host of people who have studied this have interpreted it a certain way.

And I stand by my characterization of your ocnduct, though this post is a really good one in both content and tone.