Clarification. Clearly. Do you not want to discuss the richer reality of an issue , or only your own knowledge of it?
So if there is no disagreement in the church why do you think there is something to discuss? Isn't 500 years enough to cement the idea into Christian practise?
The title of this thread is about "only faith" ( is enough for salvation). It has very little to do with free will and since it is clear only faith is not enough, it has been universally decided. Man should not simply have faith but that part of that faith includes acts generated by faith. How does that become free will? The church has decided what faith includes. Has defined it. Free will is something different. That is about WHAT acts. That God does not define the acts man should do. On an esoteric level, man is free to sin. The two concepts are wholly different.
Nor will they ever grow in knowledge or experience or self awareness or thecanility yo see further than a very small bubble in the great experience of life. And I reject the idea that they know truth. They only know a grain of truth in a beach full of reality.
But this thread is not about free will! Your video is irrelevant. It is about the conflict about whether "salvation" is contingent on mere faith or whether you should put that fairh into practise. If you can't see that free will is another issue entirely you will have a great deal of trouble understanding the fundamental things the Bible considers.
There's no reason to offer something different to think about if you're not hoping to change their mind.
When you think about or discuss complex issues such as politics or religion, they have a context that includes the past, present and future. The present depends on the past and the future on the present. But events and the human condition do not happen in neat boxes. Life is a huge network of cause and effect that ripple out and mix up with other causes and effects. Example. Your child wants to go to a birthday party. You put the child into a car to take him. You forgot the present so you go back to get it. You drive at fifty three miles an hour but slow down because the guy in front is dawdling. You get to a crossroads and drive straight into a tanker truck. You are both killed. Now think about all the causes and effects that went into the delay at leaving, the guy driving slowly, the driver of the tanker and you being at the same place at the same time. Life is like that. Reality is a huge huge movement of infinite causes and effects. And that doesnt include the abstract ones. If you want to understand reality, you should know at least the issues closest to what you see in front of you. My putting to you that if God is universal he cannot make rules or conditions for different faiths. So your fathoming of his rule about whether you have to manifest your faith in good works has to be the same universally. Since Muslims and Jews also recognise your God as theirs, then you have to all agree on this fundamental requirement for salvation. You cannot ignore that you share God and his character/ identity with these two faiths. You are declaring God as the only universal power and then treating him as yours alone to define. It makes no logical sense. I did not post off topic. I added a dimension to the premise in the OP which should be taken into account. That you didn't see the logical conclusion or context to the premise in the OP is a common failure of those who look too closely at the immediate and do not stand back and put themselves into a wider reality.
Of course there is! They may recognise the new idea and incorporate it into their current thinking! You seem to think in a very stressed, combatitive confrontational direction. Don't bother so much about what others think or if they agree with you. Let them live their own lives . There are an infinite number of them and infinite ways of living a good life. Just live yours, share your opinion and then walk away. ISTM there is far far too much need to control the personal lives of others in RW America both politically socially and spiritually. There is a huge need to stop grasping others by the neck until they submit, and causing huge social tensions. Listen to others, speak your mind, accept what seems right or new and either decide you can live together overlooking the differences or just walk on. You will find some very interesting people and grow a little in your own life.
If you know Gods name, then you are name dropping. If that is all you know, then you don't know him, nor he you. Even knowing the scriptures frontward and backward does not make one a friend of God. But rather a wolf in sheep's clothing if that is the extent of it. If one cannot honor Gods spirit, how can one honor God? Were it not that you are a stranger to God, you'd not ridicule the honor I give him via the ministering's of his spirit who is his representative. I have told you that to me his name in meaning is, my life. But you reject my first hand account in preference to scholarly parroting and posturing of scriptures, which are nothing more than the iteration of others first hand accounts. Therefore it is gossip and rumor which you love because his nearness is a holy terror. So you abide on the fringe, in the realm of mockery. I am just an average man, speaking the plain truth as best as I know it. But you dash from place to place, heaving this and hurling that, digging traps. Why do you do this. Is it in the doing that is your reward? I will tell you again. It was put to me to ask God to know a thing. So I set about to do it. But the idea caused me trepidation because the concept of a revelation was at the same time an obligation to something divine, which to me was very scary. After consideration I concluded that it was better to know a certainty of God than to remain in the dark. So I went to my dark room and prayed to the unseen, unknown God of lore and mention. But nothing happened. So I set it aside and went about my life. Then a couple of days later at midday, in the midst of considering the matter in reflection, I wondered to the great unknown, was it vain my courage to ask in prayer? Has it run its course and should I dismiss it in its entirety? It was then that a familiar spirit began to fill my heart with unspeakable peace and charity. It became so full that I was constrained to either make it unwelcome that it should leave or soften my natural resistance to a thing greater than me. So I took stock of it. The spirit was familiar, like family. And it brought unspeakable peace and charity. So I determined that it was good, and I softened my resistance. Therefore I did not burst. The spirit filled my heart and then every molecule of my body. It swept the table of my soul to the edges and I could see forever. I marveled that it laid down all my obstacles with charity rather than with pride and wrath which was my former standard. And I took note of it, the efficacy of charity. Then the spirit filled my mind with pure light. I cast my eyes to my ceiling which had vanished. And in its place was an upright wall of clouds which parted, and a great light shone from within. Then out of this opening flowed a pure white spirit which flowed down and gathered to the LDS Missionaries sitting on my couch. It was round about this time that it began to dawn on me that I recognized and remembered this spirit, that it was the spirit of God. I knew him. I marveled that I could know what I had never known. And that I had lived twenty six years totally clueless. But I recognized and remembered him. It was akin to being raised from the dead. By his spirit, he knew my heart, body, mind, soul, and spirit. And so I know him in part, that he is divine. In Jesus's sermon on the mount he said this: "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly." Jesus Christs words are the voice of my testimony. He is my advocate and savior.
You are missing the point completely. It is a question of which God you follow. You say "God is LIfe" .. I say .. which one .. God is also Death. There are many Gods in the Bible .. which do you follow. When Jesus says "Love God" .. which God gets your love .. when you pray .. as Jesus says "Our Father" .. which Father are you praying to ... or do you disobey the command of Jesus .. and pray to Jesus .... not that this matters to the question .. but is an interesting point. Is a simple question at the end of the day .. Do you dismiss the God of Abraham .. or do you not. The more complicated question is why you are trying so hard to avoid this question. Going around claiming care naught of scripture -- but have some religious belief based on - or associated with "scripture" - is the same as saying you make up your religious belief as you go .. which is fine .. but then say this... you are not a "Christian" .. not a Jew .. You area Injeunist .. a believer in the "make up what you like" religion ... again which is fine.. and I may join .. what is not to like about a Religion with the slogan "Do what ya like"
Because everyone, obviously, doesn't agree with the position that the RCC and Erasmus of Rotterdam took on these issues, and these are issues many of us continue to face and contemplate today. There's all kinds of issues peripheral to this, as well, which he have hardly begun to touch on, but I'm hoping we'll work our way there yet. No hurry.... Within the Catholic Church, perhaps, but not outside it. After 500 years the discussion and debate continues....
The title of the thread merely mentions the doctrine we are discussing, and the OP includes or brings in the issues related to it, particularly the one concerning will, which is related to both the doctrines of sola fide and Total Depravity. Luther, too, argued that will had nothing to do with it, but Erasmus argued otherwise and the argument on will has never been settled. The video I posted earlier somewhat explains the relationship of will to the doctrine of sola fide. It's worth noting that while both of these men shared a common Augustinian background they were polar opposites in many respects. Erasmus was a Renaissance humanist and optimist, Luther was nothing of the sort - he never really parted with his Augustinian roots the way Erasmus did and it shows in their arguments. Which church has decided and defined what, and for whom? Maybe this blurb will help answer your question (it is mentioned in the video I posted earlier): Synergism Part of a series on Salvation in Christianity In Christian theology, synergism is the position of those who hold that salvation involves some form of cooperation between divine grace and human freedom. Synergism is upheld by the Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, Anabaptist Churches and Methodist Churches.[1][2][3][4] It is an integral part of Arminian theology common in the General Baptist and Methodist traditions.[5][6] Synergism stands opposed to monergism (which rejects the idea that humans cooperate with the grace of God), a doctrine most commonly associated with the Reformed Protestant as well as Lutheran traditions, whose soteriologies have been strongly influenced by the North African bishop and Latin Church Father Augustine of Hippo (354–430).[7] Lutheranism, however, confesses a monergist salvation but rejects the notion that anyone is predestined to hell (see § Lutheran and Calvinist views). Synergism and semipelagianism each teach some collaboration in salvation between God and humans, but semipelagian thought teaches that the beginning half of faith is an act of human will.[8]The Council of Orange (529), Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577), and other local councils each condemned semipelagianism as heresy.[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synergism They're intertwined in this debate, and some people don't even believe in free will, which brings us to another related issue: Theological determinism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_determinism
It sure is....unless you don't believe in free will. Oh, it's obviously very relevant. I would submit that it's more complicated than that. I understand the connection between the two, and that some people don't for one reason or another.
So the nature of God is not the same in the Catholic Church as elsewhere. Yet you say your ine God is universal. You figure it out .
YOU say the two are linked. I do not. The idea of "do you have to work out your faith" is not connected to free will. I have explained why I think so. I do agree the whole thing is total depravity.
"Avoidance and doing what I like"? There is only one God whom I honor. So how am I avoiding and doing what I like when I honor the only true God and labor to do his will. You're the one with multiple Gods....something for everyone. How many people are you? I have told you the simple truth. And you blow smoke at me.
Then none of them are real. If your universal God is different between theologians as well as inter Christian sects and the three abrahamic faiths, and each of us has our own definition, then a universal God does not exist. We create our own just as mankind has always done. You can't even decide what your god is after thousands of years so you create your own version. This OP is an example of that, revisiting and reexamining 300 year old issues. You are trying to create/ define your own since you can't agree. Are you saying this god is not real?
There is no God who you honor .. that I can tell .. your claim that Jesus was the name of the God of Abraham - a big fail ... lest you try that one again in desperation. Who is this God you Honor --- is it the God of Abraham .. or is it not. Not a difficult question .. "The simple Truth" - is that you are having great difficulty answering coherently --- no smoke involved.
I'd point out that Genesis was believed to be written in the 5th or 6th century BC and close enough to Zoroastrianism (for one nearby religion) for there to be significant crosstalk between these religions. Is it really surprising that they share so many elements?
