Lol this is such a stupid comment. Faith alone is the means by which a sinner receives that justification obtained by the obedience of Christ. Faith is the instrument buddy. And also, penal substitution isn’t a distinctively Reformed doctrine, others hold to it as well. I know you made this comment 5 months ago, but you should be held accountable as one who made a completely garbage comment that should be corrected, because it’s absolutely laughable how little you know about what we actually mean when we say Sola Fide.

@@edwinnunez7538 If faith is the instrument of justification, how are the elect justified in heaven without the instrument of faith? According to the logic of faith alone theology combined with St Paul's doctrine of the vision of God, nobody goes to heaven, for nobody has faith after death. The elect have the vision without faith and the damned have no faith and no vision.

@@MrJohnmartin2009 LOL what? What are you rambling on about? The elect don’t need faith anymore in Heaven, they will be in the presence of God

@@edwinnunez7538 Therefore the elect are justified without faith and the great exchange doesn't occur. Therefore justification by faith alone is a reformed myth. Even if we concede for the sake argument that faith alone is truth for the wayfarer, justification must then occur by faith alone and then by vision. So faith alone theology is false for it does not account for justification in heaven by vision without reference to penal substitution. And because faith alone is tied into penal substitution which is not required in heaven, the same may also apply to the wayfarer with faith for similar and diverse reasons. The artificial complexities and inadequacies of the theory are immense. Faith alone and penal substitution are two reformation based inventions which cannot be defended.

@@MrJohnmartin2009 Hi MrJohnmartin2009, You started: “Therefore the elect are justified without faith and the great exchange doesn’t occur. Therfore justification by faith alone is a reformed myth.” Could you clarify on this? I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you speak out of ignorance and not from deception. For one there is no reason at all to accept what you just said (being that it is absurd), and then there’s the second issue in that justification by faith alone is not distinctive of the Reformed Tradition, being that if anything, Luther and Lutheranism came before. You also stated the following: “Faith alone and penal substitution are two reformation based inventions which cannot be defended.” I’m curious as to what you mean by this? Please clarify. What aspect of penal substitution is a Reformation invention? The part where God pours his wrath out on his Son? The part where Christ is punished? I would love for you to define penal substitution on this point and clarify what view(s) of the atonement were “Reformation inventions” Thanks

Another idiotic comment. I would lone to see you come onto Discord and defend your nonsense. And please, i beg you, don’t cop out like the rest of the Romanists do. Get on and discuss with us lol, if not then I find it quite odd for you to type these things out on here, refusing to talk to individuals about it like a man. Therfore I’m making you the offer, and the challenge to do so

@@edwinnunez7538 Some of the many errors of the reformation are as follows - 1) sola scriptora - cannot be defined from scripture or tradition without logical error. 2) canon of scripture defined by means other than an infallible church - reduces divine revelation down to a collection of fallible texts canonised by an external witness without any authority more than human opinion. Divine revelation is reduced to human opinion reducing the gospel to a quasi humanist movement. 3) Grace alone - unscriptural and unhistorical. Grace always works with human nature which has natural powers. Grace alone is usually tied into a bondage of the will and the question of merit, which is very disputable. 4) Christ alone - denies the role of the Father, Spirit and the Church in redemption/salvation. 5) Glory of God alone - denies the efficacy of grace to elevate human nature to divinise man as a legitimate outcome of the redemption. 6) Faith as an instrument - faith is only a habit or an act, and never an instrument. The instrument of faith does not exist in heaven making the elect have justification without faith in heaven. Therefore justification is not by faith alone. 7) Faith alone - is unscriptural, unhistorical and not found in any legitimate church council, is illogical and against the nature of faith as a virtue acting with hope and love. Reformed theologians typically go to St Paul first and then James and the gospels. Yet faith alone theology collapses when the gospels and James are the first sources for soteriology. See Mark 16:16 for example. 8) Separation or distinction of justification from sanctification - either outright false, or other problems depending upon the theology proposed. 9) Denial of apostolic succession - denies church history witness to succession through ordination to the priesthood. 10) private interpretation of the scriptures - against the nature of divine revelation which is public. 11) denominationalism - against the nature of the gospel truth which is universal and the church which has universal jurisdiction. 12) Symbolic Eucharist, or Eucharistic theology contrary to Trent - a man made doctrine that opposes the legitimate authority of tradition and the church councils. 13) Denies the legitimate authority of the Papacy which has very strong historical evidence. 14) Denies the value of history - such a denial makes the reformation ahistorical and therefore a quasi denial of the Spirits role in church history. 15) A radical departure from belief and practice of the church witnessed by history, making the reformation a human invention.