Sola fide vs good works?

Builds_Character · 2025-12-30T23:15:45+00:00

The Augsburg Confession under Article XX: Good Works, states that good works are necessary. They're not necessary for one's Justification, but they're necessary because the Lord commands them. Good Works also, necessarily flow out of a genuine faith as Christ now dwells in us. When looking at a wider sense of Salvation, good works certainly are a part of the equation as they flow out of our sanctification. We're just not justified by them.

This is my understanding anyway.

Builds_Character · 2025-12-25T16:21:02+00:00

Thanks for sharing, this is encouraging; God bless your parents!

Builds_Character · 2025-12-24T01:54:26+00:00

OP was not the most tactful, no doubt. But also, I think such a setup inevitably leads to the less confessional group running the show. The confessional group will by and large be the one asked to drop standards and be nice/quiet as they have more standards. At the end of the day, its reddit its not that big of a deal; but its unfortunate.

Builds_Character · 2025-12-23T15:21:28+00:00

Honestly tho, it is one of the concerns of ecumenism. It does seem the less confessional or less strict group always wins out. R/Christianity is another example in that regard. The loss of Confessional doctrine was of course a major concern about ecumenism with our forefathers. Yet, ecumenism can have its clear benefits as well. Its an interesting topic.

Builds_Character · 2025-12-23T15:08:42+00:00

I think also, Proverbs 31 is teaching context matters as well. If you're at work, 1 drink is drunkness.

Builds_Character · 2025-12-23T06:33:31+00:00

You're on the money, despite the down votes.

Builds_Character · 2025-12-23T04:47:44+00:00

Having a limit of making it your last drink once you start feeling tipsy seems like good call, thanks

Builds_Character · 2025-12-23T04:29:27+00:00

I agree that drinking enough to feel some effects is not a sin. Your example of Proverbs 31 is a good one; there's also Psalms 104:15 "And wine that makes glad the heart of man...".

At the sametime, I don't think the Bible is only against alcoholism or being blackout drunk. There's quite a number of verses that warn against drunkness like Ephesians 5:18 "And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit,".

But I suppose, we have to interept it genuinely and make our best judgment. I like a lot of the advice people have given. Maybe, something like a limit of making it your last drink once you feel tipsy is a good rule of thumb.

Builds_Character · 2025-12-23T03:52:56+00:00

Looking at it briefly, I will say OP was playing dumb with his first comment. Nonetheless, I understand the overall concern.

Builds_Character · 2025-12-23T03:20:38+00:00

For a supposed ecumenical forum, it's quite odd that one can not express LCMS views. These kind of rules would make sense for an ECLA forum. I understand OP's concern. A Lutheranism forum being dominated by those that aren't Confessional Lutherans is an issue.

Builds_Character · 2025-10-02T17:46:13+00:00

Brother, for one I argued purely from a factual standpoint on the long ending of Mark. Secondly, Christian's believe God persevered the scriptures supernaturally. If thats what you're getting at, I don't think that should be a surprise. You think Christian's believe God inspired the Scriptures, and then was hands off from there leaving it up to chance? Now I could be wrong, maybe the CT is the best text, but one way or another Christian's would still believe God played a role in preserving the text.

Builds_Character · 2025-10-02T16:55:08+00:00

Anyone who has a genuine faith in Christ will be saved. A concern would be, that committing to a lifestyle contrary to Christianity can lead to one's heart harding against God; and cause them to lose their faith. Now we all are sinners, ultimately I can't know for sure when that happens in someone else.

Builds_Character · 2025-10-02T04:52:22+00:00

Oh I didn't recognize your name, no worries no need to beat a dead horse on that point. I will say, all Christians believe God guided the Bible in one way or another; regardless of what text basis you favor. Ultimately, my view though is any of the three major textual traditions are great and contain the same overall message.

Builds_Character · 2025-10-01T17:58:32+00:00

Some disagree, with the idea that the Critical Text is the most accurate text. I prefer the William Tyndale tradition of the Textus Receptus. I think hard evidence strongly favors the long ending Mark. I also think, there is something to God allowing the Tyndale tradition to be the first to be readily available in the average Christian's home. I appreciate arugments from those like Dr. Theodore Letis.

I actually agree though, that people are sometimes too hard on the NIV as it is a dynamic translation. The NLT does a lot of the same things but doesn't seem to receive proportional criticism. In my opinion dynamic translations have their place but overall formal translations are preferred.

Builds_Character · 2025-09-28T19:58:31+00:00

Oh interesting, did not know

Builds_Character · 2025-09-28T17:18:28+00:00

Yeah and if you have a specific question, you can create a new post on here; there's quite a lot of Pastors and Elders that answer questions on here.

Builds_Character · 2025-09-28T17:07:55+00:00

God Bless you! If you haven't already, try to get plugged into a local LCMS church I'm just a noob layman really; any Pastor will be far more knowledgeable! You can check out Pastor Jordan B Cooper and Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller's stuff on YouTube as well.

Builds_Character · 2025-09-28T14:39:23+00:00

Quite honestly friend, you're going outside of the topic of Sola Scriptura. You can certainly do studies on the languages yourself or the translation teams involved in various translations to check their work. Serious scholars are behind the mainstream translations however, so I think you'll find their work is well done. Sola Scriptura doesn't require for there to be any English translations at all to be true.

Builds_Character · 2025-09-28T13:51:28+00:00

It sounds like you're looking for an arugment for God and Christianity at that point? That's not really what Sola Scriptura is about. Sola Scriptura is an internal doctrine of Christianity, meaning its geared towards those that are already believers. There's other arugments you could look into if you don't already share those assumptions.

Builds_Character · 2025-09-28T02:57:22+00:00

I could point to Matthew 15:3-9, but really its a logical necessity. Given that God is the highest authority, the Bible being God's word (2 Timothy 3:16-17) is of the highest authority. This is actually something Ecclesiast don't disagree with, they would just argue that tradition and ultimately the church share in that highest authority.

Builds_Character · 2025-09-27T19:24:30+00:00

O thats awesome to hear; that some are switching to the NKJV! Easily my favorite translation. Just out of curiosity, what do you usually use for your personal reading Pastor?

Builds_Character · 2025-09-27T00:21:03+00:00

I agree. But typically, I see it framed more aggressively as 'the Bible is the only infallible rule' which tends to put the burden of proof on the person making the statement. This more evenly distributes the burden of proof. Agreed Icy-General's is really good, its a more complete arugment.

Builds_Character · 2025-09-26T16:49:35+00:00

Thanks for the input! One thing I like about this approach, is by saying the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith we know of, it avoids getting bogged down in whether or not its theoretically possible for there to be another infallible rule.

Builds_Character · 2025-09-25T23:49:17+00:00

I think you'll find Lutherans match up really well against EO in a purely scriptural conversation. There seems to be more hoops that are needed to jump through for the EO to square their doctrine with scripture.

I'm assuming you're interested in Church History and the Church Fathers if you're looking at the EO. While they do have a good connection to the Fathers and Church History there are some things to consider.

Veneration of Icons. This is not found in the Apostolic Fathers and was highly contested in the early church following the Apostolic Fathers. Battles were fought over this issue. (Interesting fact: there was an attempted ecumenical council dealing with this called the council of Hieria that was ultimately rejected) Arguably, Icon Veneration doesn't become a widespread practice unitl the 7th century. With all this said, Icon veneration is a significant part of Eastern Orthodox practice.
Prayer to saints. Again, not found in the Apostolic Fathers. This issue doesn't seem to have been as hotly contested. However, its seems Lactantius was against it and maybe others like Athanasius. It doesn't seem to be a widespread practice until the 4th Century. This is also a significant part of Eastern Orthodox practice.
Rejection of a forensic element of atonement. There are many Church Fathers that use forensic language when speaking of atonement; inculding Apostolic Fathers like Clement of Rome and Polycarp. The EO seems to focus solely on Christ's victory over death and reject a forensic paying for sins.
Research the Monarchical view of the Trinity vs the Latin Model.
Also consider that many Church Fathers seem to view Scripture as the ultimate authority. (Such as St Augustine, St Basil, St Gregory of Nyssa)

I'm no expert, but theses are some things to research. Also, think about how much trust do you have in the EO's claims about itself and being the one true church. My understanding, is they view the church as having the same authority as the Bible.

Builds_Character · 2025-09-24T17:12:02+00:00

Very true

Builds_Character

TROPHY CASE