A constructive dialogue between Protestants and Catholics

[JonNC]

Bridging the “Faith Alone” Divide

Catholics and Protestants disagree mightily on the doctrine of justification. However, a closer look at the concepts involved reveals that the two sides are much closer in understanding than the fireworks suggest.

To begin, Catholics accept three theological virtues: faith, hope & charity.

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us…because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)

In common Catholic usage, faith is unconditional belief in God, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God.

The Catholic definition of faith (from the Greek, pistis) is derived from the sense found in Romans 14 and James 2; namely, that “faith” means intellectual acceptance of a body of theological beliefs known collectively as “the faith”.

This definition is supported by scripture in three ways: 1) the Romans 14 sense of pistis is the more common one in the New Testament; 2) the New Testament contains more than 40 references to “the faith”, so the connection between pistis and intellectual belief is very strong in this usage, and 3) this view of pistis has the advantage of maintaining the distinction between faith and the other two theological virtues and prevents blurring of their characteristics.

Viewing the definitions given above, one will note the similarities between the Catholic virtue of hope and the common Protestant definition of faith; that is, an unconditional trust in Jesus Christ and reliance on the Holy Spirit instead of on one’s own strength. At the same time, Protestants should have no problem accepting the idea that faith—as they define it—must also contain the intellectual assent to God that Catholics call faith since they should agree that a person with saving faith must believe whatever God says. Thus, the Protestant idea of faith includes what Catholics call faith (intellectual assent) and what Catholics call hope (trust in God).

Further, if a Protestant accepts the idea that saving faith is that which works in love (charity) as expressed in Galatians 5:6, then the Protestant and Catholic positions are equivalent. The reason is that a faith which works by charity produces acts of love. But a faith that produces acts of love is a faith that must include the virtue of charity since the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of love in the first place. Thus, the Protestant idea of faith includes what Catholics call charity.

Putting this all together, we see the following:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

From this formula, we can see that Catholics rightly reject the idea that one can be justified by intellectual belief only. So do Protestants. Misunderstandings occur when Catholics reject justification by “faith alone” according to their definition of faith while Protestants cling firmly to this doctrine according to their definition of faith.

Therefore, if Catholics and Protestants come to a mutual understanding of one another’s terminology and the definitions of these terms, they can also agree on what does and does not constitute the faith needed for justification. Justification by Faith Alone (or sola fide) does not need to be a bitterly divisive issue separating Catholics and Protestants.

*Adapted from “*Justification: By ‘Faith Alone’?” by James Akin.

Randy,
I haven’t read James Akin, so a slight disadvantage. But see if this works.
As a Lutheran, I hold that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone. But, it doesn’t end there. It, in fact, is only the beginning. If I then accept your definitions of hope and charity (they seem reasonable), it is safe to say that I then place these in the catagory of sanctification. My hope, as you define it, is unconditionally based on “Jesus blood and righteousness” to borrow from the hymn, and comes from the knowledge that, because of Him, I am justified.
Further, charity comes forth as a result of that hope and faith, a response to His love for me. My acts of love and charity show my unconditional love for God, my desire to do what he asks me to do.

So, in short, while Catholics closely link justification and sanctification, my Lutheran view is justification, followed by sanctification.

Is that understandable?

Jon

 

[SilentKnight]

Jon,

Is it possible, in the Lutheran view, to be justified but not sanctified at the same time? If so, how?

In the Catholic view, to be sanctified is both a single moment issue and a process, in that to be sanctified means to be made holy. To be “made holy”, in the fundamental sense, simply means to have one’s sin erased and the Holy Spirit “infused”. Thus, one can say that the were santified at baptism. And yet, the process of sanctification continues as that same person goes on in life, fighting to overcome concupiscence.

SK

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Is it possible, in the Lutheran view, to be justified but not sanctified at the same time? If so, how?

In the Catholic view, to be sanctified is both a single moment issue and a process, in that to be sanctified means to be made holy. To be “made holy”, in the fundamental sense, simply means to have one’s sin erased and the Holy Spirit “infused”. Thus, one can say that the were santified at baptism. And yet, the process of sanctification continues as that same person goes on in life, fighting to overcome concupiscence.

SK

Yes. The thief on the cross, by example. If we go back to our agreed-upon definition of Sanctification - The process of becoming God-like, holy. The key word is process. I assume we agree that a process takes time. By his confession of faith , the thief was justified (“Today you will be with me in paradise”). He had no opportunity for sanctification. Very small children the same, or a death-bed conversion.
Me? No. I have been a Christian my entire life, so I cannot simply rely on justification. I must grow in grace, confession, the Eucharist, charity. If I don’t do these things, then my justification is in doubt, because my faith is in doubt.

Once again, the link of justification and sanctification seem stronger in the Catholic belief. Less linked in mine. However, the longterm effect is the same, don’t you think?

Jon

 

[SilentKnight]

Ok. Understood. Yes, I think that in the end, we’re both really talking about the same thing, which is very encouraging. One step closer to full reunion ideally.

Peace be with you,

SK

 

[JonNC]

Ok. Understood. Yes, I think that in the end, we’re both really talking about the same thing, which is very encouraging. One step closer to full reunion ideally.

Peace be with you,

SK

SK,
I shouldn’t have included little children. I think they fall under grace alone. Which reminds me, is limbo for little ones Catholic doctrine?

Also, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification covers this area well. Truly a big hurdle crossed, though much more to do in this area, like prugatory.

Jon

 

[Jon_S]

SK,
I shouldn’t have included little children. I think they fall under grace alone. Which reminds me, is limbo for little ones Catholic doctrine?

Also, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification covers this area well. Truly a big hurdle crossed, though much more to do in this area, like prugatory.

Jon

What’s up JonNC? How ya doin, man?

Anyway, Scott Hahn described Purgatory as the refining love of Jesus Christ.

Limbo is the answer to a theological question, and one that Catholics are free to believe in or not.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

 

[grandfather]

In your own words, say who you are, what your theological viewpoint is, and then define any or all of the following words:

baptism

faith

grace

good works

salvation

righteousness

sanctification

)

Baptism is a sacrament of inititation. It is being born from above, being born again. Baptism imputes grace.

Faith is any knowledge we receive by believing what we are told as opposed to discovering it of our own intellectual efforts. It could be about anything, like knowing the answer to a problem, or the route to a destination for example. Religious faith is knowledge that comes from believing that which God has revealed.

Grace means gift. There are several types of grace, but they are all gift. Grace allows us to live, or is the gift that gives us the power to live as we ought to live. Our sins are forgiven by grace, but grace allows us to remain free of sin and not fall back into sin.

Good works are thoughts, words or actions motivated by love and empowered by grace.

Salvation is God acting to prevent the eternal loss of our souls in hell and restoring us to Himself and living in His love for all eternity.

Righteousness is a state of being that comes from being right with God by grace.

Sanctification is being made holy by our actions inspired by God’s grace which restores us to righteousness, or makes us right, clean, transformed from sin and death to life and love.

 

[SilentKnight]

SK,
I shouldn’t have included little children. I think they fall under grace alone. Which reminds me, is limbo for little ones Catholic doctrine?

Yeah, that one’s kind of up in the air still, I think. Recently, there was a big “to-do” about the Church doing away with Limbo and all, but I think somebody may have misinterpreted. I dont know. I didn’t follow the story real closely. Limbo has never been official Catholic doctrine, only speculation.* But*…

On the one hand, indeed, no one can be saved except by grace - which for us means that Heaven is not an automatic ticket - for anyone. But at the same time, for one to end up in hell, one must consciously choose to do so. (Not by “name” necessarily - “I choose to go to hell” - Im just trying to say they must commit mortal sin which requires full knowledge of the grave nature of their wrong and full free consent to it.)

So, where does that leave small children and babies, for example?..All the Church will say is that we are praying for them.

Also, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification covers this area well. Truly a big hurdle crossed, though much more to do in this area, like prugatory.

Out of curiosity, how would you describe Purgatory as a Lutheran?

SK

 

[JonNC]

Yeah, that one’s kind of up in the air still, I think. Recently, there was a big “to-do” about the Church doing away with Limbo and all, but I think somebody may have misinterpreted. I dont know. I didn’t follow the story real closely. Limbo has never been official Catholic doctrine, only speculation.* But*…

So, where does that leave small children and babies, for example?..All the Church will say is that we are praying for them.

Out of curiosity, how would you describe Purgatory as a Lutheran?

SK

Hi SK,
Lutherans basically reject purgatory, siting a lack of scriptural support), The sacrifice of Christ satisfies our need our purging. I have read recently that Catholics talk about Purgatory being a place or state, and that it could be just momentary. There is currently dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics on this issue, and I’ll be curious to see where they lead. I am not, personally offended by the concept.

On the one hand, indeed, no one can be saved except by grace - which for us means that Heaven is not an automatic ticket - for anyone. But at the same time, for one to end up in hell, one must consciously choose to do so. (Not by “name” necessarily - “I choose to go to hell” - Im just trying to say they must commit mortal sin which requires full knowledge of the grave nature of their wrong and full free consent to it.)

Free will. By grace I am lead to believe (have faith). By free will I can choose not to accept that free gift.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

What’s up JonNC? How ya doin, man?

Anyway, Scott Hahn described Purgatory as the refining love of Jesus Christ.

Limbo is the answer to a theological question, and one that Catholics are free to believe in or not.

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

Hi Jon,
I will have to read some of Scott Hahn. That sounds like a compelling description. I wonder if you could post some of the scripture references he uses for this, or if any of his work in this area is online.

Thanks, Jon. It’s good to hear from you.

 

[JonNC]

Baptism is a sacrament of inititation. It is being born from above, being born again. Baptism **imputes **grace.

QUOTE]

Hi Grandfather,
I was wondering, do Catholics see a difference between imputed and infused? We almost got off on that, and I don’t want it to distract from the thread, but just wondering, since you used imputed, and SK used infusion.

Jon

 

[SilentKnight]

Hi SK,
Lutherans basically reject purgatory, siting a lack of scriptural support), The sacrifice of Christ satisfies our need our purging. I have read recently that Catholics talk about Purgatory being a place or state, and that it could be just momentary. There is currently dialogue between Lutherans and Catholics on this issue, and I’ll be curious to see where they lead. I am not, personally offended by the concept.

Jon,

Sorry. I know Lutherans reject Purgatory. To clarify, I was asking you to describe your understanding of the Catholic notion of Purgatory to me. As we’ve already agreed, when two parties do not define their terms, they greatly reduce their chances of ever agreeing (or knowing for a fact that they definitely disagree). Thus, a late, well-known and well-respected Catholic archbishop once declared that “There aren’t 100 people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think she teaches.” Very true, I’ve found in my experience. Can’t tell you how many people I’ve known who outright reject many Catholic concepts only to reveal that what they believe about “doctrine x” is all but the same exact thing.

Free will. By grace I am lead to believe (have faith). By free will I can choose not to accept that free gift.

Sorry, I’m missing what you’re getting at with this?

SK

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Sorry. I know Lutherans reject Purgatory. To clarify, I was asking you to describe your understanding of the Catholic notion of Purgatory to me. As we’ve already agreed, when two parties do not define their terms, they greatly reduce their chances of ever agreeing (or knowing for a fact that they definitely disagree). Thus, a late, well-known and well-respected Catholic archbishop once declared that “There aren’t 100 people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think she teaches.” Very true, I’ve found in my experience. Can’t tell you how many people I’ve known who outright reject many Catholic concepts only to reveal that what they believe about “doctrine x” is all but the same exact thing.

SK

Hi SK,
Sorry I misunderstood. My understanding of Purgatory is that,

1. At death, we are either going to hevean or hell.
2. Many of those who are going to heaven must be purged of sins in order to be purified in the presence of the righteous God. These people go to Purgatory.
3. All people who go to Purgatory will go to heaven. Therefore, Purgatory is not judgement, but instead purification of those who are going to heaven.

Sorry, I’m missing what you’re getting at with this?

I was responding to this:

On the one hand, indeed, no one can be saved except by grace - which for us means that Heaven is not an automatic ticket - for anyone. But at the same time, for one to end up in hell, one must consciously choose to do so. (Not by “name” necessarily - “I choose to go to hell” - Im just trying to say they must commit mortal sin which requires full knowledge of the grave nature of their wrong and full free consent to it.)

I was trying to describe this in terms of free will.

Free will. By grace I am lead to believe (have faith). By free will I can choose not to accept that free gift.

Hope I was more clear with both responses. Thanks for your patience.

Jon

 

[flameburns623]

I’m going to look for an online Protestant theological dictionary online, preferably one from an Augustinian/Calvinistic/Reformed perspective but here’s how I would understand these terms:

baptism: The ritual immersion in water of a believer in Christ, publicly symbolizing and testifying of one’s faith in Christ. One of the ordinances instituted by Christ. Ordinarily received by a believer soon after having made a profession of faith, although it may be deferred for months or even years in some cases without reflecting upon one’s relationship with Christ. The act itself does not save although a willful refusal to be baptised may reflect an inward predisposition to disobedience alien to one who has truly been regenerate.

faith: the free and unmerited gift of God to those whom He elects, empowering them to saving belief in His Son Jesus Christ unto good works.

grace: saving grace is the sovereign act of God on behalf of one of the Elect in granting them faith. It is important to realize that in Biblical theology, grace is primarily a verb and not a noun, an act and not a power or a substance. It is always, like faith, a free and unmerited favor.

good works: in an Elect and regenerate person, acts or deeds performed by inspiration of the Holy Ghost symbolizing one’s appreciation to God for His grace to them. For an unregenerate person, good works are a testimony against their wickedness, showing that they know to do right and are therefore culpable for their wickedness even if they are not Elect.

salvation: the sovereign act of God in electing a human being to be redeemed from the Fall.

righteousness: that which properly belongs exclusively to God alone, but which may be imputed to human persons through Jesus Christ, second member of the Godhead.

sanctification: the indwelling presence of the Holy Ghost, which will ordinarily lead the regenerate person to conform outwardly ever more to the image of Christ.

I doubt this will contribute much to the peaceable and constructive discussion of these issues but these pretty much summarize my personal understanding of the issues–and therefore do a pretty good job of describing my personal obstacles in returning to the Catholic faith. I will attempt to find sources that can better define these terms and perhaps provide Scriptural citations for the views I have here set forth.

 

[JonNC]

I’m going to look for an online Protestant theological dictionary online, preferably one from an Augustinian/Calvinistic perspective but here’s how I would understand these terms:

baptism: The ritual immersion in water of a believer in Christ, publicly symbolizing and testifying of one’s faith in Christ. One of the ordinances instituted by Christ. Ordinarily received by a believer soon after having made a profession of faith, although it may be deferred for months or even years in some cases without reflecting upon one’s relationship with Christ. The act itself does not save although a willful refusal to be baptised may reflect an inward predisposition to disobedience alien to one who has truly been regenerate.

Hi Flameburns,
I checked your profile, and it says you are Anglican. Is your definition of baptism in line with the Anglican Communion?

I doubt this will contribute much to the peaceable and constructive discussion of these issues but these pretty much summarize my personal understanding of the issues–and therefore do a pretty good job of describing my personal obstacles in returning to the Catholic faith. I will attempt to find sources that can better define these terms and perhaps provide Scriptural citations for the views I have here set forth.

The engagement on this thread has been peaceable, constructive, and for me, very enlightening. Our agreed-on definitions may not fit everyone’s view, but they seem to benefit our discussion. Hopefully, you can join the discussion with the same intentions as that stated by the OP. Join us.

Jon

 

[SilentKnight]

Hi SK,
Sorry I misunderstood. My understanding of Purgatory is that,

1. At death, we are either going to hevean or hell.
2. Many of those who are going to heaven must be purged of sins in order to be purified in the presence of the righteous God. These people go to Purgatory.
3. All people who go to Purgatory will go to heaven. Therefore, Purgatory is not judgement, but instead purification of those who are going to heaven.

So far, so good! Thank you. To press further, again in your perception of Catholic teaching, why is Purgatory necessary? Did Jesus not pay the price for our sins when he died on the cross?

SK

 

[flameburns623]

Hi Flameburns,
I checked your profile, and it says you are Anglican. Is your definition of baptism in line with the Anglican Communion?

Jon

Depends greatly on which Anglican you are referring to. Where three Anglicans, four opinions. Where four Anglicans, a fifth, usually named Jim Beam, Johnny Walker, or Jack Daniels .

More seriously: Anglicans (I’m using this as a synonym for all Episcopalians) can be more or less Reformed or Calvinistic. Some Anglicans are much more sacramental and Catholic in their theology, some more Arminian, etcetera. The Articles of Religion do not define all Anglicans everywhere but do tend to be more Reformed/Calvinistic than not. Most contemporary Anglicans, as found in The Episcopal Church, would probably lean more heavily towards Arminianism, just as most contemporary Catholics lean in the direction of Molinism. I’m not a member of a TEC congregation, by the way. I belong to an AMiA congregation.

The engagement on this thread has been peaceable, constructive, and for me, very enlightening. Our agreed-on definitions may not fit everyone’s view, but they seem to benefit our discussion. Hopefully, you can join the discussion with the same intentions as that stated by the OP. Join us.

As I understood the OP, we were invited to provide our own definitions of the terms specified. There was to be no specific set of agreed-upon definitions of those terms at the outset:

In your own words, say who you are, what your theological viewpoint is, and then define any or all of the following words. . . .

The OP seemed to indicate that it was via dialogue about how Protestants or Catholics understood the stipulated terms that a discussion might be able to move forward. Have I missed something in the OP? The thread is not long and I had no sense that the thread participants had already agreed upon a set of definitions.

 

[JonNC]

Depends greatly on which Anglican you are referring to. Where three Anglicans, four opinions. Where four Anglicans, a fifth, usually named Jim Beam, Johnny Walker, or Jack Daniels .

More seriously: Anglicans (I’m using this as a synonym for all Episcopalians) can be more or less Reformed or Calvinistic. Some Anglicans are much more sacramental and Catholic in their theology, some more Arminian, etcetera. The Articles of Religion do not define all Anglicans everywhere but do tend to be more Reformed/Calvinistic than not. Most contemporary Anglicans, as found in The Episcopal Church, would probably lean more heavily towards Arminianism, just as most contemporary Catholics lean in the direction of Molinism. I’m not a member of a TEC congregation, by the way. I belong to an AMiA congregation.

As I understood the OP, we were invited to provide our own definitions of the terms specified. There was to be no specific set of agreed-upon definitions of those terms at the outset:

The OP seemed to indicate that it was via dialogue about how Protestants or Catholics understood the stipulated terms that a discussion might be able to move forward. Have I missed something in the OP? The thread is not long and I had no sense that the thread participants had already agreed upon a set of definitions.

Mayne you didn’t misunderstand. Maybe I did. I’ll let SK settle that.
As for your comment about Anglicans,

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So far, so good! Thank you. To press further, again in your perception of Catholic teaching, why is Purgatory necessary? Did Jesus not pay the price for our sins when he died on the cross?

SK

My perception of Catholic teaching, yes he did pay the price for our sins, but those sins still carry a temporal price or punishment, which must be paid either here on earth (penance, good works, Eucharist,etc), or, if not done so here during one’s life, after death in Purgatory. Either way, one must be purified to be in the presence of God Almighty.
How am I doing?
Jon

 

[flameburns623]

I’m not certain this isn’t derailing this thread but since the issue of purgatory is on the table: my problem with the concept is that purgation is impossible. Once one has sinned, one is evermore a sinner. Sin can be covered over but it cannot be removed, in this life nor in the next. One’s sinfulness can be covered, as by Christ’s righteousness, but one never ceases to be a sinner. Those in Heaven are both Sinners and Saved, sinful and yet sanctified, not by their own merits but by the merits of Christ.