Sola Fide essentially is meant to mean you are saved by faith, but if you are saved there will be works, or else you are not because you bear no fruit. It's not meant to mean the contemporary bullshit of "I have faith so I can do whatever and I'm definately saved"

Both are dumb as shit lmao

Prots are dumb

Agreed

Sola literally means Alone

Sola Fide, Faith Alone, there cannot be anything else with it or else it is not Faith Alone, but Faith and Works

Reformation theology is more complex than the pithy statements people have clung to, just like even Calvinists don't understand the five points of Calvinism a lot of times because so many people clung to the TULIP acronym

sola fide was proposed as a counter to the (errenous) understanding of indulgences

a heresy can be as detailed as it wants

Matthew 7:24-27

**Matthew 7:24-27 - Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)**

```Dust


<24> Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, <25> And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock. <26> And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, <27> And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof. ```

Faith alone sets works as fruit rather than an element of the roots of salvation.

That is my rebuttal to Protestantism, it doesn't matter how nice it looks, if the foundation is bad, so is the structure.

it cannot be argued that sola fide or sola scriptura, or martin luther's complains are valid at all

there is no base

and you cannot defend sola scriptura with the bible, which is all kinds of ironic

I already posted it but the Bible says Faith alone is not justification enough. So Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide are contradictory.

Faith and works sets works as the root rather than the fruit, it's a valid concern when monastics had gone from men trusting God to send them work to men believing their work was their salvation rather than Christ.

It doesn't justify a lack of works, it just says that without works, you don't have faith to begin with. A tree without fruit is a dead thing, even if it knows the fruit it is meant to bear

Christianity is more than just a belief, it is a lifestyle and behavior.

Exactly

The problem with Protestantism, is that there are no true consequences for sin. God loves everyone and you can just ask for forgiveness at any time. Where as with Catholicism and Orthodoxy, there is a specific set of requirements that have to be met in order to forgive sins. You have to be truly sorry, you have to ask for forgiveness through confession, and you have to do penance for your sins. Until you do, especially with mortal sin, you are dead. You are disconnected from God. It feels like shit, as many ex prots now Catholics or Orthos can attest.

In fact, in the Orthodox Church it is said that true repentance from sins is often accompanied with crying, because of the absolute demonstration of God's love and mercy.

Sure, you could argue that asking for forgiveness straight from God does the same thing, but then why does Jesus give his disciples, and by extension of apostolic succession, the ability to loose and bind sins in his name? Would that not be completely pointless if you could just go directly to God?

yeah, going "sowwy God i won't do it anymore!!" as if you were apologizing to your neighbor after your dog bited his car's wheels it's not something that shows true repentance

obviously Sola Fide can't be that compatible with the book of James because Martin Luther considered removing that book too, and even called it an Epistle of straw because it adds nothing. it's not like he batted an eye when removing 7 other books

There are no temporal consequences. Sin still weighs on the soul, it still needs to be overcome, which is why we were meant to support one another. The priesthood should always be cheif in that support, but we are no longer slaves to sin. We are oppressed by it, but we are made slaves to righteousness. If we still find ourselves conquered by our sins, it becomes a question of whether or not our faith is real to begin with.

>removing books from the bible

and people defend the man

he just outright pretends parts of the scripture don't exist

There are temporal consequences for sin

how was he taken seriously

The temporal consequence of sin is death.

Separation from God.

Until you repent and confess, to a priest with the apostolic authority set down by Jesus Christ himself in the scripture. You are separated from God.

The deuterocannonical books have always been held in lower esteem, it wasn't about convenience it was a question of evidence. Luther wasn't against those books, they were still read for a long time, they just fell out of fashion as they were too expensive to print for many.

Revelation 22:19

**Revelation 22:19 - Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)**

```Dust


<19> And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book. ```

Im suprised he didn't remove the book of Revelation too

"yeah bro lemme just REMOVE THESE BOOKS FROM THE SCRIPTURE cuz its getting too expensive man yeah its easier this way"

@SUPER MALE VITALITY™ "We can't print these Books because they are too expensive, lets just remove them". Yeah they are expensive, he paid for them with his soul.