A new and devastating quickie against Faith Alone?

[Catholic_Dude]

The question is simple: Does God infuse his love into us before we are justified?

If No, then faith must lack love prior to justification.

 

[Cathoholic]

CatholicDude.

You asked:

The question is simple: Does God infuse his love into us before we are justified?

Yes but only in a natural way. The supernatural virtue of charity comes at Baptism (which is ALSO an unmerited grace).

**
1st JOHN 4:19 (NIV) ** 17 We love because he first loved us.

Once we have these supernatural virtues, we can and must (also associated with grace), build upon them.

We were just discussing this concept on another thread.

I think these two posts will help answer your question.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14288418&postcount=86

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14288507&postcount=87

 

[steve_b]

I think I’ve come across a new and devastating simple argument against the Protestant doctrine of faith alone: We know that Paul says we are saved by “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6) and that James says faith without love (works) is dead (James 2:24-26). Protestants answer these passages by saying that we aren’t saved without love because love always accompanies true faith. But can this be?

If love always accompanies true faith, this means that prior to justification, a person with true faith also has love for God. But a person who is unsaved by definition cannot have love for God, and thus the Protestant claim is false. This means that justification is what bestows love upon the believer, and that prior to justification the person only has dead faith. This means what saves us is ultimately the love we have, which can also be lost by mortal sin, and that faith alone isn’t enough. And thus the Protestant doctrine of Faith Alone is turned on its head, because they want “justified by faith” to mean “eternally saved by faith alone,” yet all Paul really means by this is “faith receives love,” and from there we must persevere in love to the end (Rom 13:8-14).

Just a quick comment on love

Jesus qualifies someone who “says” they love Him

John 14:15

IOW, a “said” love is like a “said” faith. It’s just talk

Love like faith, must be demonstrated with action

 

[Rau]

I think I’ve come across a new and devastating simple argument against the Protestant doctrine of faith alone: We know that Paul says we are saved by “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6) and that James says faith without love (works) is dead (James 2:24-26). Protestants answer these passages by saying that we aren’t saved without love because love always accompanies true faith. But can this be?

Why is the “faith alone” claim important ? What wrong path - in the real world - does it promote? And if Protestants argue that the person with true faith also loves, then is there really anything of substance in debate?

 

[Kanade]

The question is simple: Does God infuse his love into us before we are justified?

If No, then faith must lack love prior to justification.

I’m sorry but I really don’t see where you’re going on this one. I don’t know any Protestant who would say that you’re saved by intellectual assent (i.e. a faith without love).

 

[Cathoholic]

Why is the “faith alone” claim important ? What wrong path - in the real world - does it promote?

Because Rau, if “faith alone” means an intellectual assent only or not much beyond that, or if “faith alone” means in part, salvation is a moment only, and/or if “faith alone” means you are covered by the righteousness ONLY of Christ and not ALSO transformed by Christ, it affects your world view.

That’s why I read (several years ago - Sorry. I can’t link to it but I cut out the article as it illustrated this very point) a country singer who ditched his wife (and kids if I recall correctly), traded her in for a “new” one, and publicly admits (in this context) that he is sinning, **but he’s saved anyway **because ALL he needs is “faith” and he says he has “faith”. Because HE holds such views. And they make a difference . . . at least to him (and those who follow his scandal).

Now you could argue and say: “So what. He is committing the error of fideism” (basically his “faith” is in . . . his faith). But THAT would just show another outcome of justification by faith alone.

The Church thought “the “faith alone” claim” was important enough to address it at the Council of Trent.

How you look at salvation is foundational.

 

[Kanade]

Because Rau, if “faith alone” means an intellectual assent only or not much beyond that, or if “faith alone” means in part, salvation is a moment only, and/or if “faith alone” means you are covered by the righteousness ONLY of Christ and not ALSO transformed by Christ, it affects your world view.

That’s why I read (several years ago - Sorry. I can’t link to it but I cut out the article as it illustrated this very point) a country singer who ditched his wife (and kids if I recall correctly), traded her in for a “new” one, and publicly admits (in this context) that he is sinning, **but he’s saved anyway **because ALL he needs is “faith” and he says he has “faith”. Because HE holds such views. And they make a difference . . . at least to him (and those who follow his scandal).

Now you could argue and say: “So what. He is committing the error of fideism” (basically his “faith” is in . . . his faith). But THAT would just show another outcome of justification by faith alone.

The Church thought “the “faith alone” claim” was important enough to address it at the Council of Trent.

How you look at salvation is foundational.

Surely that country singer is just abusing the doctrine. Do any mainstream Protestant churches actually say it’s ok the carry on sinning after you have faith? How is that different to the Catholic who thinks they can sin all week because they go to confession on Saturday?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Why is the “faith alone” claim important? What wrong path - in the real world - does it promote? And if Protestants argue that the person with true faith also loves, then is there really anything of substance in debate?

The faith alone claim is a major theological error, causing much scandal and division in the Body of Christ, and promoting unChristian living (e.g., rejecting Sacraments, claiming sin doesn’t really affect us, calling the Pope the Antichrist). Heresy is serious business. Faith Alone has literally led to complete destruction of almost all other doctrines.

I’m sorry but I really don’t see where you’re going on this one. I don’t know any Protestant who would say that you’re saved by intellectual assent (i.e. a faith without love).

Most Protestants will say we are saved regardless of any sins we commit, that salvation cannot be lost, which is another way of saying they are saved apart from love. As soon as your lifestyle affects your salvation, such that salvation can be lost, it’s no longer faith alone (which is why Lutherans actually live a contradiction).

Surely that country singer is just abusing the doctrine. Do any mainstream Protestant churches actually say it’s ok the carry on sinning after you have faith?

Here’s why this is a problem. Protestants abandoned the Biblical distinction between Mortal and Venial Sin, such that now all sin, even the tiniest, is effectively a Mortal Sin and worthy of damnation. All Protestants will agree that the Christian sins regularly every day in ‘small’ ways, even if they are not promoting a lifestyle of sin. Yet these daily ‘small’ sins are enough to bring about God’s Wrath and are worthy of damnation, so the Protestant says they are “covered by Christ” or “covered by His blood” (neither which are taught in Scripture), so that God doesn’t actually see them as sinners in their daily ‘small’ sins worthy of damnation.

The way your question is phrased, it exposes a flaw within the Protestant mind, in which they all intuitively realize there is indeed a distinction between mortal and venial sin, and thus no Christian should be going around committing grave sin. The dilemma now is, do you tell that Christian a grave sin doesn’t affect their salvation? If Yes, then it means grave sin is technically allowed, as long as it’s spread out enough and you did your best to resist, and as long as you keep your faith in Jesus. Yet look at Revelation 21:8,
But as for the cowardly, ** the faithless**, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.
Protestants will ignore passages like this and say that as long as you have faith, you’re saved. Yet this passage says it is possible to have faith and still be damned…being without faith is ONE of MANY sins that can damn you.

How is that different to the Catholic who thinks they can sin all week because they go to confession on Saturday?

They would be abusing the Sacrament. In order to be forgiven, part of the Sacrament of Confession is that you must have good intentions to not repeat the sin. It’s your desire to not offend God again that is part of being forgiven. This doesn’t mean if you struggle with a sin you cannot be forgiven, it just means you have to hate the sin and desire to have it rid from your life.

No Catholics I know of will freely sin all week and just go to Confession. They will typically not go to Confession at all. And the great saints of the Church teach that the longer a person lives a life of sin, the more hardened their heart, and thus the less chance the will repent later on. There’s only one deathbed conversion in Scripture, the Good Thief, so that’s the exception.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, I’d agree that intellectual assent and saving faith are separate - nobody would argue that the demons who ‘believe and tremble’ are saved by that faith (even if their intellectual understand would be more complete than many people’s would).

The OP was suggesting that this dismantles the Protestant idea of salvation by faith alone. As a Protestant, I was taught that no (true) faith exists without love - as your quotes demonstrate - and so the argument doesn’t seem to work.

I’m still not convinced that, even if these separate theological virtues can be identified, they can be so surgically removed from one another in real life.

I think we need to look at the virtue of faith for what it is, and what it accomplishes. Faith establishes, individually and personally, relationship with God, apart from Whom we can do nothing, to paraphrase John 15:5. Adam had thought otherwise, that apart from God and his authority, man could perhaps do and be more. And with his act of disobedience Adam was instantly lost from that point on, along with all his posterity. God was no longer the God of man; man had no God above himself; the knowledge of God was lost. When the time was ripe in human history, as God had prepared a people through which to fully reveal Himself to the world, Jesus came to rectify this situation, to reveal fully God to us again, to reconcile this relationship which had been shattered-so that man and God may authentically commune again as is the right order of things.

But this really only puts us back into the position of Adam before the Fall in a sense-knowing God. Something was lacking in Adam, something which must be cultivated in us and can only be cultivated in us as we turn in humble faith back to God where He may then do His work of putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts. The way this is accomplished is by adding this “something”-and this something is the virtue of love, which means to be transformed into God’s very image.

This I believe, speculatively, could’ve occurred in Eden if Adam would’ve eaten from the Tree of Life, indicating a drawing nearer to God rather than what he did-to turn away from Him by eating of the other tree. So Adam’s perfection wasn’t realized even at that time as he was more or less neutral towards God unless and until he would come to value God as He deserved, unless and until his resolution to remain in relationship with and subjugated to God was firm, unless and until, IOW, he loved God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, from which his obedience would flow naturally. Anyway, faith, as I see it, opens the door back up to this possibility, because it opens the door to God, after man exhausts attempting to be righteousness by his own efforts, by observing the letter of the Law as per the Old Covenant, still effectively apart from God. This is what we’re here to learn during this exile from Him, with the help of grace and revelation, of His infinite goodness, trustworthiness, and mercy, of our uncompromising need for Him. This begins with grace on God’s part, and with faith on our part, but it only really *begins *there. There is, IMO, a distinction between the virtues, faith being easier to achieve, love being more difficult but also being the true definition of justice/righteousness/holiness for man.

 

[Contarini]

The question is simple: Does God infuse his love into us before we are justified?

If No, then faith must lack love prior to justification.

Non sequitur. As I have already pointed out, the whole thing can be instantaneous. There is no “before” or “after.”

There is never a time when faith, as Protestants define it, exists without love.

Edwin

 

[Cathoholic]

Kanade. You asked . . .

Do any mainstream Protestant churches actually say it’s ok the carry on sinning after you have faith?

Not “OK” in the sense that it is reasonable.

But “OK” in the sense that you cannot lose your salvation. Yes. Many.

My Baptist Sunday School would call it “backsliding” at least if it were Baptists obviously falling away. So do many of the “televangalists” teach this.

When I was a high school kid, Protestant leaders gave me card that said basically “Today, this date (we were supposed to write in the date), you have been saved and cannot lose your salvation”.

Many Protestants shudder at this false teaching. But many embrace it.

You also asked . . . .

How is that different to the Catholic who thinks they can sin all week because they go to confession on Saturday?

The difference is we as Catholics at least have the fullness of truth taught to us.

The same occurred with the Jewish people in the Old Covenant. They had a fuller teaching than the pagans and Samaritans for example.

And St. Paul even explicitly talks about how that makes a difference.

ROMANS 3:1-4a 1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. . . . .

 

[Kanade]

But “OK” in the sense that you cannot lose your salvation. Yes. Many.

Salvation is a matter for God alone, it’s not an area I’d care to be making judgements in.

My Baptist Sunday School would call it “backsliding” at least if it were Baptists obviously falling away. So do many of the “televangalists” teach this.

When I was a high school kid, Protestant leaders gave me card that said basically “Today, this date (we were supposed to write in the date), you have been saved and cannot lose your salvation”.

Sunday school teaching is often diluted for kids. You can also find televangelist who say almost anything if you look hard enough. There’s a world of difference between falling back into sin (hence the need to continually repent - look at how penitential the BCP is) and intentionally abusing the doctrine, as the country singer in the example is. Paul deals with this in Romans 6 - what shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? I suspect most Protestants would say that the country singer does not have true faith. If you can link me to some authoritative, mainstream Protestant church that teaches that it’s ok to live like the country singer did, please do.

ROMANS 3:1-4a 1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.

3 What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. . . . .

Humans are unfaithful and God is faithful. That doesn’t seem to be a denominational thing.

FWIW, I became a Catholic because of the love and charity I was shown by practicing Catholics who helped me grow my Protestant faith into something more. If I’d been subjected to theological gymnastics to prove my faith was wrong and I wasn’t saved, I think I’d probably still be there. Maybe it would be more productive to find ways of valuing and growing Protestant faith, as Paul did at Athens (I will make known to you the God you worship as unknown). I wonder how far the early church would have spread if it had ignored love and service and concentrated on devastating quickies against Judaism.

 

[Rau]

Because Rau, if “faith alone” means an intellectual assent only or not much beyond that, or if “faith alone” means in part, salvation is a moment only, and/or if “faith alone” means you are covered by the righteousness ONLY of Christ and not ALSO transformed by Christ, it affects your world view.

That’s why I read (several years ago - Sorry. I can’t link to it but I cut out the article as it illustrated this very point) a country singer who ditched his wife (and kids if I recall correctly), traded her in for a “new” one, and publicly admits (in this context) that he is sinning, **but he’s saved anyway **because ALL he needs is “faith” and he says he has “faith”. Because HE holds such views. And they make a difference . . . at least to him (and those who follow his scandal).

Now you could argue and say: “So what. He is committing the error of fideism” (basically his “faith” is in . . . his faith). But THAT would just show another outcome of justification by faith alone.

The Church thought “the “faith alone” claim” was important enough to address it at the Council of Trent.

How you look at salvation is foundational.

You see, I just don’t accept that most / all Protestants are intending to claim that “faith” can be strong and can hold one in good stead regardless of behaving abominably (ie. absent love). Evidently, such behaviour reveals a lack of commitment to faith. Sinning is a turning away from God, an abandonment of faith, even if only temporarily.

 

[Potato1237]

Faith without love is not true faith, love without faith is not complete love.

 

[Cathoholic]

Kanade. You asked:

QUOTE:
Do any mainstream Protestant churches actually say it’s ok the carry on sinning after you have faith?

Nobody says is “ok”.

But some DO say it won’t matter in regards to your salvation. They DENY the existence of “mortal sin”.

Some people/religions teach that.

You asked:

QUOTE:
How is that different to the Catholic who thinks they can sin all week because they go to confession on Saturday?

And I told you. We Catholics at least have the full teachings to help keep us on the right path or to help get us back on the right path if we fall.

SOME do NOT have that FULLNESS of teaching. That makes it harder not knowing which direction to go.

That’s all.

(It may actually be in a sense “worse” for the Catholic if they are rejecting their superabundant gifts – “To whom much is given, much is required” and “Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”)

You said:

QUOTE:
Sunday school teaching is often diluted for kids.

But my Bible camp came when I was High School age and we were taught the same thing about “backsliding”.

If you don’t want to acknowledge this phenomenon of denial of mortal sin, that’s OK with me.

NOBODY says it’s “OK” (that I am aware of).

Most Bible only Christians say you SHOULD DO good works and its utterly important, etc.

Then ask them if they HAVE TO (and see what answers you get)?

Most will say IF they have true faith, they necessarily WILL do good works.

But St. Paul warns against that (here).

Then ask them if they don’t do good work, is it possible they risk condemnation based upon that refusal . . . . even if they believe.

---

I’m not going to go and link to percentages of Bible ONLY Christians who deny mortal sin.

Because I am not trying to convince you of that here.

I’ve explained why I disagree with it.

But I’m not trying to convince you that you are wrong or right.

I am perfectly happy if you think all (or a large percentage) of Bible-only Christians affirm mortal sin. I am OK with that. I think most do as well. But I also think there is a significant amount of Bible ONLY Christians who deny the existence of mortal sin.

Many Bible only Christians say mortal sin is a Catholic invention.

You also said:

QUOTE:
FWIW, I became a Catholic because of the love and charity I was shown by practicing Catholics who helped me grow my Protestant faith into something more.

Praise God. I am very happy for you. And I am glad you are in the Catholic Church associated with good Catholics Kanade. Wonderful information and thanks for sharing.

You mentioned:

QUOTE:
There’s a world of difference between falling back into sin and intentionally abusing the doctrine, as the country singer in the example is.

You and I both know, he’s abusing truth.
You and I both know he MUST BE sorry (repent).
You and I both know he HAS TO have a firm purpose of amendment.

And if you insist upon “repentance” and bearing fruits that testify to such repentance he might say YOU are “adding” to the work of Christ.

He might say, you DENY that Christ’s blood is bigger than his adultery.

He might just tell you to mind your own business and his salvation doesn’t concern you (“Am I my brothers keeper?”).

I’ve heard all of these arguments before and more.

But my point is, it makes a difference in what you believe as to how you act.

You said:

QUOTE:
I suspect most Protestants would say that the country singer does not have true faith

I suspect . . . no . . . . I KNOW you are right.

But some don’t.

You may think it’s an insignificant percentage. That’s fine with me

You said:

QUOTE:
I wonder how far the early church would have spread if it had ignored love and service and concentrated on devastating quickies against Judaism.

But nobody HERE is asserting we “IGNORE LOVE and service” OK?

When the OP discussed “a new and devastating quickie” he (she?) defined that as “a new and devastating simple argument”.

You may think an “argument” is devoid of “love and service”. You may even be right sometimes about that.

But people CAN share apologetic “arguments” out of LOVE and service too.

And I am going to assume the motives here for the OP is out of “love and service”.

You can think what ever you want.

 

[Cathoholic]

Rau. You said:

QUOTE:
You see, I just don’t accept that most / all Protestants are intending to claim that “faith” can be strong and can hold one in good stead regardless of behaving abominably (ie. absent love).

I ALSO don’t accept “that most / all Protestants are intending to claim that “faith” can be strong and can hold one in good stead regardless of behaving abominably (ie. absent love).”

But I AM asserting the fact that SOME Bible only Christians DENY the existence of mortal sin, not that “faith can be “strong” regardless of behaving . . . absent of love”.

You also said:

QUOTE:
Sinning is a turning away from God, an abandonment of faith . . .

That’s right it can be. But there is more.

You can also sin gravely against hope too. That’s what despair is. That’s what presumption is as well.

And you can sin mortally against charity too. I already described this in post 12.

Sins against charity MAY accompany loss of faith (and/or hope), . . . . but this is not necessarily the case (I am not saying YOU are asserting this here Rau. But I do want to clarify this point as there are other readers here who MAY come to that conclusion).

 

[Rau]

Let’s stay on-point…

…I also don’t accept “that most / all Protestants are intending to claim that…“faith” can be strong and can hold one in good stead regardless of behaving abominably (ie. absent love).”

And yet the above statement (bolded) seems to be the interpretation that some ascribe to the statement “salvation is assured by faith alone” [or at least the ‘upshot’ of that statement].

 

[LatinRight]

Let’s stay on-point…

And yet the above statement (bolded) seems to be the interpretation that some ascribe to the statement “salvation is assured by faith alone” [or at least the ‘upshot’ of that statement].

God bless Rau,

Salvation is not assured by faith alone.

Salvation of God’s children/elect assured by God’s gift of Final Perseverance, which is an Eternal Assurance of their salvation.

God bless.

LatinRight

 

[LatinRight]

But I AM asserting the fact that SOME Bible only Christians DENY the existence of mortal sin, not that "faith can be “strong” regardless of behaving . . . absent of love.

God bless Cathoholic,

In fact many Bible only Christians deny the existence of mortal sin, but their main reason salvation cannot be lost because according to their teachings only the predestined to heaven saved no one else.

When I was an Evangelical Christian I believed salvation can be lost.

God bless.

LatinRight.

 

[fhansen]

God bless Cathoholic,

In fact many Bible only Christians deny the existence of mortal sin, but their main reason salvation cannot be lost because according to their teachings only the predestined to heaven saved no one else.

When I was an Evangelical Christian I believed salvation can be lost.

God bless.

LatinRight.

That’s a bit strange. Many Protestants believe, as a matter of their church"s teachings or of their own interpretation of scripture, that salvation cannot be lost, while the RCC officially teaches that it can be. And its quite illogical to say that we can have assurance of salvation just because we know that some are predestined to heaven. We have the knowledge that predestination is true, while only God knows with absolute certainty exactly who those predestined are.