How do Protestants interpret this (Greek interlinear)? http:

>>515609
I'm certainly no protestant, being buddhist, but I just read James 2 in KJV (yeah I know, but I'm used to it as a literary text), and the protestant argument that works are a handmaiden of faith but not necessary for salvation looks pretty stable. One who has faith will necessarily have works, and the works will be the praxis of the faith, but it is by faith alone blah blah.

Was Luther really that incompetent?

>>515632
So atheists can't do good works?

Luther wanted to remove a lot of books from the NT.

>Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]

>>515645
>So atheists can't do good works?
Neither can heathens or heretics IIRC. Or people you think are outside communion (depending).

>>515663
I don't understand how that works.

Also, there have been Christians with great faith, like Thomas More, who were terrible in the works department (just look at how mercilessly he had people burned). Thomas More obviously had great faith seeing as how he was willing to die for it.

>>515645
They can't.

>>515645
A lot of idiocy could have been avoided if Revelation was never treated as canonical.

>>515686
Why not? Atheists can't love?

>>515689
It is canonical. That doesn't mean it should be read at Liturgy (it's not in the Orthodox Church) or be okay to use for predictions (which you're also not supposed to do in the Orthodox Church). Revelations is a Divine Mystery, and should be contemplated strictly as such.

>>515696
No, they can't feel true love. Stop asking the same question over and over.

>>515703
Why not?

>>515713
No grace.

>>515672
Works are an evidence of faith. They're not the evidence of faith. And moreover "even Hitler loved dogs," the good works of one man might be indistinguishable from the bad works of another christian.

What I do as a buddhist can't be a good work, because it can't be a praxical vehicle for faith. Because I'm faithless.

In any case all this falls within the "we only use reason to understand god because we were given it to use, god can't be limited by us." Which most protestants seem to forget, that and humility.

>>515722
To say that good works are limited to Christians, is pretty much scrapping the whole point of the story of the Good Samaritan.

>>515736

It's almost as if your fairy tale is full of contradictions.

*unironic tip*

>>515741
But the Protestant doctrine regarding faith here isn't Orthodox, so we wouldn't really suffer from the contradiction.

>>515736
The Good Samaritan was literally a parable.

>>515751
And? What do you think the point was?

>>515757
It sure as fuck wasn't saying unbelievers are filled with grace. You might look up the total depravity doctrine instead of constantly focusing on Luther.

>>515736
>To say that good works are limited to Christians, is pretty much scrapping the whole point of the story of the Good Samaritan.

Not if you're a Sauline fuck and interpret the Good Samaritan solely within the context of "The Law" and "The New Jesus Equipped Law for Gentiles, Righteous Gentiles, Samaritans, Oh and Jews if you'd really like to join."

>>515769

>I interpreted it this way!

This is why Protestantism and Sola Scriptura is a fucking joke and a failed experiment. The hubris of man cannot interpret the bible.

>>515775
You have no clue what you're talking about, at least in this case. TD isn't based on sola scriptura, it's Augustine on steroids.

>>515689
>revelations
Still to this day the best reason why you need traditional with scripture

faith without works is dead, meaning dead to produce fruit of new believers

like hiding a candle under a bushel. it doesn't make faith not a saving faith for the person, but it means you aren't using your faith for good in this life, which is displeasing to God

people have to ask themselves what is more likely... that the 150 times the bible says faith without works are incorrect, and your interpretation of James 2 is right, or the 150 times the bible says faith without works is correct, and your interpretation of James 2 is wrong

>>515775
Correct, only those whose minds have been renewed by the Holy Spirit can correctly interpret the Bible.

>>515769
What do you think the point of it was?

>>515774
Wut. If Paul was super into the Law, then he wouldn't have pushed more than anyone for circumcision to not be required.

File: 262d9b9.jpg (116KB, 640x423px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 640x423px

>>515915
>the Holy Spirit is modernist

File: image.jpg (17KB, 280x210px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 280x210px

>>515686
>>515703
>>515719
Come over and say that to my heathenous face irl as I accept you with open arms and turn the other cheek, following the example of a great, but not divine, spiritual leader brother.

>>515976
>Wut. If Paul was super into the Law, then he wouldn't have pushed more than anyone for circumcision to not be required.
The point being that Paul believed Jesus to be a sufficient fulfilment of the law for everyone except Jewish christians.

The parable of the good samaritan does not, in Sauline christianity, apply to unconverted non- or semi-believers.

>>516038
>my heathenous face

Please take your cringeworthy wicca reddit faith somewhere else.

>>515983
So the Holy spirit post-modern?

>>516039
Paul didn't compel Jews to follow the Law, closest to that is the one guy he had circumcised who was a Jew raised as a gentile, and Paul did that to make him more potent as an evangelist among Jews.

>>516048
The Holy Spirit doesn't belong to this age or any of its post-Christian movements.

>>516055
So it is even worse then for considering the Good Samaritan to apply to non-Christians then, isn't it?

>>516060
I don't follow.

To Paul, the Law was mainly a cultural thing, it was no longer religiously required. There are some Christians who still follow it, culturally (Ethiopian Orthodox, for instance, still circumcise and keep kosher, because they had been doing that long before Christianity, as they were Jews).

>>515609
>How do Protestants interpret this (Greek interlinear)?
I'd tell you, but I know you refuse to learn and will only hear what you want to hear
If you really want to know, then look up a protestant bible commentary. There plenty available online for free
Pearls before swine.

>>516059
>The Holy Spirit doesn't belong to the ages
FTFY

>>515645

They would might say that anyone who does good works must necessarily have faith, whether or not they claim or believe they are an atheist. The fact that they do good works is evidence of their Godliness.

>>516074
>To Paul, the Law was mainly a cultural thing, it was no longer religiously required. There are some Christians who still follow it, culturally (Ethiopian Orthodox, for instance, still circumcise and keep kosher, because they had been doing that long before Christianity, as they were Jews).

So the point is that in Paul, Jesus supplies the fulfilment of the law. We no longer need to honour the past distinctions, because we are all one in Christ.

"The Good Samaritan" is as one in Christ as is the Gentile. The parable isn't about outsiders or non-believers in this interpretive frame work, but about conflicts between believers. And that's Pauline as fuck, "Nah bro, Samaritans are okay as long as they eat the supper."

Good works can't be done by heathens, because they lack faith.

Don't blame me, blame Luther, that suckhole of princes.

>>516075
I thought Protestants were Sola Scriptura?

>>516080
This "age" or "world", is Satan's reign, the age after the fall. The Holy Spirit is of the "ages of ages" (eternity).

>>516089
>I thought Protestants were Sola Scriptura?
You're as blatantly dishonest as Muslims who say that Christians believe in 3 gods

>>515609
Uh...

Why did he want to remove this passage?

It is saying that good works redeem people you can't just pray your entire life and not give a thing to the world around you.

It is a pretty simple message.

Hell if you want to get creative say that religious works redeem people for it helps spread the good news.

>>516096
I'm confused. Do I need experts to interpret verse for me, or can I just take the verse for what it says?

>>516097
>Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide), but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]

>>516101
You read it and ask for help if you need it. Did you really type that thinking you're being sneaky or gonna trap me or something?

>>516114
From the Holy Spirit, right? Not from men in funny hats.

>>516105
>this was not generally accepted among his followers
>they are still in the Bible

So basically it was Luther alone and it didn't even result in any significant changes, but you still felt the need to made this thread about protestants as a whole.

Just a heads up, we regard Luther as a mere man who while being a great theologian still made a shitload of errors (some of them he even recognized and corrected later on). He's not considered an authority on faith like your popes and patriarchs.

Frankly, I've never heard a Lutheran say "WE HAVE TO DO X BECAUSE LUTHER SAID SO", but I heard plenty of "WE HAVE TO DO X BECAUSE THE CHURCH FATHERS / THE PATRIARCH / THE POPE SAID SO" from your crowd.

>>516123
If they removed it, then there would be no point to this thread. That they regard it as canon is why there is this thread.

Anyway, can we all agree that this passage makes it clear that you cannot be justified by faith alone?

explain Ephesians 2:8-9, works for salvation fags

>>516135

no, because Ephesians 2:8-9

>>516117
the Holy Spirit or human teachers also driven by the Holy Spirit. Thats what they're here for.

>>516135
No, heretic

Romans 3:28
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

>>516135
see these:

>>515829
>>516136
>>516137

Honestly, 5 second of googling would save you the trouble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide#Epistle_of_James

>>516137
I don't think anyone is arguing that you can work your way to heaven, only that man cannot be justified by faith alone.

>>516145
Works in the Law are things like circumcision, the Law is what the old testament was called.

>>516145
>No, heretic
Also, does merely quoting this verse make you a heretic? Because saying you cannot be saved by faith alone is literally nothing more than quoting that passage

>>516042
Ad hominem attacks aren't going to change the fact that there are atheists with a love for their families, friends, neighbors and strangers as genuine as any charitable Christian's friend.

>>516151

>i don't think anyone is arguing that you can work your way to heaven, only that you have to work your way to heaven

if i give $100 to charity every week for the next 20 years, then i stay in my room eating cake for 2 weeks, living slothfully, and then have a heart attack, have i done enough works?

>>516154
>the Law is what the old testament was called

Sorry to be the technical autist, but only the first five books are being referred to as the law, or even more specifically the 613 mitzvot, not the entire Old Testament.

>>516163
Yes, but they're not works in faith, so they're not good works.

>>516161
saved =/= justified, heretic

Big misunderstanding of the Good Samaritan parable ITT. Homilize about it however you best can draw out a moral message, as people always have and will, but it's pretty clearly accepted in the scholarly realm that in context it is a daring rejection of Deuteronomical/Priestly ritual purity in favor of general moral decency. The critical element is that the priests and Levites, despite being more pure and hence avoiding the probably dead accosted man whose corpse would make them impure, are the assholes, whereas the Samaritan—who doesn't even believe the temple has purity!—is the good dude. It has nothing to do with Christianity because Christianity (even Pauline) was not a thing with a coherent theology when the parable originated. It's a strictly Jewish rejection of the strictly Jewish concept of purity as moral imperitive.

When I was a kid, raised by evangelicals, we were taught to read that passage with "faith without works is dead" in mind. And the myth of Biblical coherency allowed any bizarre gloss to make sense just to jam the square pegs of some books into the theological round hole of Sola Fide, deontological/penal substitution atonement, etc.

>>516171
Sauline christianity dates to the council of jerusalem.

The written works post-date the council of jerusalem.

GJ!

>>516176
Writing of the works =/= origin of their contents. Jesus was talking before 50AD, dude. GJ!

>>516169
I suppose there's nothing to argue if you're essentially going to define 'good works' axiomatically as 'done by Christians'.

>>516183
>Jesus was talking before 50AD
Now who's being naïve? The sayings tradition's law reinterpretation bent is clearly counter to the narrative tradition's greek cultism.

>>516208
That's the axiomatic definition of good works. Don't blame me, blame christian theology. They don't even have the generosity that gentiles can do good works that is present throughout Judaic traditions.

>>516231
This has nothing to do with my point. The Good Samaritan parable predates Christianity as a separate-from-Judaism entity and hence should be read (as a historian, not devotionally) as a Jewish commentary on Jewish culture and theology. Read this way it's pretty obviously a statement about ritual purity- a theme commented upon elsewhere in Jesus' sayings corpus.

>>516170
Sola fide is about justification.

>>516231
You're begging the question.

>>516271
Talk about a "historical" jesus in a theology thread really gets my goat.

Let us put is this way: the narrative and saying traditions were redacted WELL after Saul had influenced the church.

>>516253
>This has nothing to do with my point. The Good Samaritan parable predates Christianity as a separate-from-Judaism entity and hence should be read (as a historian, not devotionally) as a Jewish commentary on Jewish culture and theology. Read this way it's pretty obviously a statement about ritual purity- a theme commented upon elsewhere in Jesus' sayings corpus.
And we're busy talking about theological readings in the context of Saul's attempts to draw new boundaries of faith, in particular, the relevance or not of the Good Samaritan to good works done by heathens.

>>516304
Even though this is true, it's clear from the raw content of the parable itself that the story hasn't been altered to serve uniquely Christian theology. It's still talking about Levites and Samaritans, terms which are meaningless (or at least irrelevant) to the Gentile church. The abundance of modern retellings with other characters (the good black man, the good homeless man, the good Yankees fan, whatever the hell moral you want to drag out of it) should make it clear that the framework of the story is not hard to re-fill. It's clearly a Jewish story about Jewish things.

>>516305
I'm trying to make the case that that story is irrelevant to the discussion of good works by heathens. It's a story about decency being imperitive over purity, a major paradigm upset to Hellenistic Judaism. The story makes no comment about whether the works were "good works" or not. Such a concept is foreign to the story's Jewish context.

>>516313
Yes, and I prefer anti-Sauline readings too. But in terms of whether the works of heathens are "good" works, the parable of the good samaritan is irrelevant because of Saul's shifting of the jesus movement from being a critique of the law that anyone can use into being an overturning of the law that is exclusivist on the basis of faith.

>>516316
Jesus was not critiquing the Law, he never once "critiques" the Law.

>>516333
Your son is a down a well, it is sabbath.

>>516351
He was critiquing Pharisees who were autistic, not the Law itself.

>>516380
I dunno mate, he's fucken God innit?

>>516385
And the Law is the OT, which is divinely inspired.

>>516392
I dunno mate, God outranks moses.

>>516396
I'm sure what you're suggesting. The books supposedly written by Moses don't derive their canonicity from him writing them, they canonical status rests upon God inspiring them.

>>516402
Yeah, the problem is god inspiring them, not authorising and guaranteeing them (documentary hypothesis).

>>516415
You do realize God can inspire genres besides documentary?

>>516425
The documentary hypothesis refers to the compilation and redaction of the source documents of the Torah from 4 separate sources.

If you accept the documentary hypothesis it means that at most the text is "inspired." Your use of "inspiration" made me feel that you agreed with the documentary hypothesis.

>>516434
I'm simply iterating Orthodox doctrine.

Faith without works is dead. If you have faith you will act upon it, not just show up to church every sunday and repeat ad hom how you are going to Heaven because of faith.

A Christian would be modest, they wouldn't be "assured" of their salvation like they know they're going to Heaven. To the people who were evil in their lifetimes Jesus will say to them on the final day "Get away from me you wicked people, I never knew you".

>>515609
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/james/2-24.htm

You will see that they usually rationalize this by saying works are a consequence of faith.

Apostolic: (faith + works) -> salvation
Protestant: faith -> (works + salvation)

>>516557
However you rationalize it, sola fide is obviously wrong, because the passage explicitly says sola fide is wrong.

>>516456

> To the people who were evil in their lifetimes Jesus will say to them on the final day "Get away from me you wicked people, I never knew you".

so Jesus only came to save the sinless?

or was Jesus just the saviour of people who stole a pencil, or told small lies?

>>516613
>so Jesus only came to save the sinless?
Jesus came to save everyone, but only a few will be chosen. See: Parable of the wedding feast

>>516615
That has to do with those who listen, not those God chooses.As you just said, God wishes to save everyone.

So there are people who actually believe that you can't do good things without being a Christian?

Or what is this thread about? Am I just too evil to understand?

>>516666
The issue is that WITHIN christian theology, it is impossible for non-christians to do "good works" ie: works which relate to salvation.

>>516690
>"good works" ie: works which relate to salvation.

Ah, so that's what I was missing. Sorry for being so uninformed. Fair enough then. Personally I don't really care, cause I don't believe in salvation or damnation.

File: vqGeMsr.gif (2MB, 350x255px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x255px

>>516666
Checked
>So there are people who actually believe that you can't do good things without being a Christian?
Protestants believe that, yes.

>Or what is this thread about? Am I just too evil to understand?
This thread is actually about the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, and how the verse linked in the OP directly contradicts it.

>Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also historically known as the doctrine of justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine that distinguishes most Protestant denominations from Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, and some in the Restoration Movement.

>>516638
22Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”
He said to them, 24“Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
26“Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’
27“But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’
28“There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

>Many will try to enter and will not be able to
This shows that there is an actual degree of effort involved in trying to enter salvation.

>>516690
Good works are just good works, being a good person. You don't need faith to perform them. You need grace, but there is no reason why atheists and so on, cannot have grace.

>>516695
Hey Constantine, as you know I'm buddhist. I do "good works" if we normativise Jesus' humanism. I do not have faith. Nor do I have hope.

According to Orthodox theology am I saved?

>>516638
Also, in the parable of the wedding feast, the man who was thrown out was not wearing wedding clothes, these wedding clothes are Christs righteousness.

>>516700
We don't know, but we consider it proper to hope so.

31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

>>516710
Orthodox theology, btw, is even open to the possibility that *everyone* will ultimately be saved. We can't be sure, and if they are saved, it will depend on them *wanting* to be, but we are open to the possibility and hope for it.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Apocatastasis

Dostoevsky was very fond of this teaching, and personally hoped even Satan himself would ultimately be saved.

>>516710
>We don't know, but we consider it proper to hope so.

I think it is proper for a Christian to hope so too.

I hope that Christians can exit from the suffering associated with desire in each and every moment of their lives.

>>516717
I'm sure that some Catholics hold this too.

>>516731
We do not consider material desire to be bad, exactly. We see the material as a gift from God, but we became enslaved to the "knowledge of [carnal] good and evil" (physical pleasure/pain), which caused discord between the spiritual and the physical. Eventually, harmony will be restored, but it came be in particular places and times anyway, like during Divine Liturgy.

Some have come up with scientific theories about what the restoration will be like. Fyodorov, for instance, thought that it would entail total control over matter down to the smallest levels by our souls, through technology, and our bodies could assume flawless forms that way. The whole material universe would again become harmonious with the spiritual.

>>516737
If hell is the relative absence of God, then it ought to be possible for an entity to experience no torment in hell.

>>516752
That's not what hell is in Orthodox Christianity. Hell and heaven are the same state in Orthodox Christianity, being acutely conscious of the fire and light of God's love sustaining you. For some it is bliss, for others agony. If you hate God, then you will find his love repulsive. If you are ashamed because of how much you wronged God, you might prefer he hate you--in fact, you might rather he torment you, but having only love instead would make you feel even worse and more ashamed.

>>516760
In comparison to desire, it sounds like something not to be feared but rather welcomed.

>>516769
Depends on what you desire, I suppose.

>>516775
Hopefully one is unconnected to one's desires.

>>516778
If you desire love, then why would it be hopeful to be unconnected?

>>516783
Because attachment to the desire for God's love would necessarily cause suffering in your own imperfection before god.

Unless god makes your ability to love him as you can complete. In which case in what sense do you have free will?

>>516789
God is love.

Well, if God makes you a god (as the Orthodox say, God became man so that men could become gods), then your free will is properly actualized, since right now our free will is extremely limited by subordination to pleasure-pain and material laws. Of course, he can't make you a god without your consent, either, because that would defeat the whole point.

>>516796
In that case God would actualise your capacity for maximal love, rather than inflicting it, and also maximise your capacity for non-attachment to your desire for love, making your love truly "perfect."

About this point in a buddhist tutorial we'd both be hit with sticks.

>>516800
We already have that capacity, it's just corrupted by hamatria so we can't see properly. As for God inflicting love, so to speak, he is already doing it, nothing exists without God actively loving it, God's love is the sustaining force of reality.

?

>>516805
I dunno matey, the capacity for maximal love would break this clay.

File: gy.jpg (141KB, 1169x684px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1169x684px

>>516816
Being created in God's image, we're a lot more than this clay lets on. We barely even can control our own bodies except in the crudest of fashions, but after the restoration of all things, that would all be a lot different, Matter would just be toy blocks.

>The child is innocence and forgetting, a new beginning, a game, a self-propelled wheel, a first movement, a sacred "Yes." For the game of creation, my brothers, a sacred "Yes" is needed: the spirit now wills his own will, and he who had been lost to the world now conquers his own world.
-Nietzsche

>Time is a child moving counters in a game; the royal power is a child's.
-Heraclitus

>Amen, I tell you that unless you change and become as little children, you will in no way enter the Kingdom of Heaven
-Jesus

>>516832
You're the kind of Christian I love arguing with. Mad props to you. I wish you could meet this catholic mate of mine.

>>516852
Thanks.

Best of luck ridding yourself of desire.

>>515609
Don't even need to copypaste the link to know what it is. How do we interpret it? We agree with it. If you have strong faith, it will show through. I've always found this disagreement to be a philosophical, "Chicken or the egg?". I think even Catholics would agree that all men sin, regardless of how devout they may be, or how hard they might try. Indeed, even those closest to Christ committed grave sins. The apostle Thomas had his doubts. Peter denied the Lord in front of everyone. The only practical, discernible difference in dogma here is that Catholics believe you need an official Catholic Priest™ to hear you confess in order to be forgiven. Folks like me tend to consider that a holdover from the times when the only church was a state that wanted to maintain power through a socioreligious hierarchy.

>>516901
Your priest must fucken hate you.

>>516901
How can you agree with "faith alone does not justify" when sola fide says faith alone justifies?

Christians confessed sins long before it was the state religion. They used to have to confess them before the whole congregation, but that got changed to a priest for the laity's benefit.

>The Holy Spirit conveniently allows me to interpret the Bible in a way suited to my worldview

Protestants KEK

>>516905
I don't have one.
>>516914
There are many ways that I could look at it. I could tell you that the simple act of seeking forgiveness is the most ultimate and righteous of all works. I could suggest that perhaps James was just wrong. Or I could say that maybe Martin Luther went overboard with sola fide. After all, Christ Himself did say to judge a tree by the fruit it bears. The thing is, I'm not someone who will claim to have all of the answers. Perhaps both are or can be right in their own ways. If you're someone who strongly believes in works before faith, preach it and judge by the fruit it bears. If you find it to be discouraging to your brothers and sisters, maybe it's time to reconsider how you're interpreting things. Part of the beauty of our faith is attempting to reconcile seemingly contradictory aspects of life, human nature, and God. Physical and spiritual, love and hate, good and evil. I only attempt to seek knowledge with an earnest heart, knowing that I may never truly understand the mysteries of the divine.

File: TOKEN BTFO EC.jpg (6KB, 299x169px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 299x169px

>>515609
Martin Luther is not the Emperor of Protestants!

File: image.jpg (209KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 640x1136px

James statement decimates Sola Fide because the "faith" it professes is one that is caused by Divine mind control, not voluntary assent.

>>516991
You can look at it all those ways, but I don't see how any of them could change sola fide being incorrect.