A new and devastating quickie against Faith Alone?

[Cathoholic]

JonNC. Regarding natural faith vrs. supernatural faith you asked me to “explain further” on post 71.

We respond with a natural faith (which is necessary but not good enough).

Explain further.

OK. I’ll try.

Take an adult Catholic catechumen man in the Latin Rite for example. (Jon knows, but in case some readers don’t . . .a catechumen would be an adult who is not yet baptized but wants to be. He approaches the Priest and asks to enter into the life of the Church)

The catechumen is questioned by the Priest. The Priest finds . . . .

The catechumen BELIEVES in Jesus (he has a natural faith).
He repents of his sins (as St. Peter exhorts in Acts 2).
The catechumen also gets some catechesis (teaching them about God’s commands as per Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 28:19-20).

All good.

Now this catechumen is about to be Baptized.

The Church formally asks, “What do you ask of God’s Church?”

The catechumen responds “faith”. (there are some other appropriate alternative responses too but “faith” is a main response)

CCC 1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.54 But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe. The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: “What do you ask of God’s Church?” The response is: "Faith!"

This “faith” that he will receive in Baptism turns his natural belief or faith into a supernatural belief or faith.

The Holy Spirit elevates this guy’s faith, hope, and charity in a way that he could not do on his own.

Scott Hahn does a much better job than I can do on this but I will give it a shot.

John 2, shows a contrast in natural faith versus a supernatural faith.

One type of belief is a natural belief that the people HAD (in this case).

Yet there was an aspect to this “belief” that Jesus did not yet GIVE to them (supernatural faith).

• Natural faith
• Supernatural faith

There is an elevated supernatural type of belief that you cannot attain to with only normal human natural means.

A supernatural belief that the people in John 2 did not yet have. And Jesus did not give them this faith (yet).

This faith that they lacked (that Jesus gives in Baptism) was a supernatural belief. Something of a level beyond what we could attain by mere human means.

JOHN 2:23-25 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs which he did; 24 but Jesus did not trust himself to them, 25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

Now I will repeat the passage with parenthetical addition mine . . . .

JOHN 2:23-25 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in his name (this is the natural belief) when they saw the signs which he did; 24 but Jesus did not trust himself to them, (literally “Jesus did not faith himself to them”. This is the supernatural belief) 25 because he knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for he himself knew what was in man.

• Natural faith (they had it)
• Supernatural faith (Jesus did not give it to them yet. They get it later in Baptism assuming they are Baptized later).

Another way to look at it . . . .

There are truths that are consistent with reason. Things like 2+2=4 is a truth that is consistent with reason.

• Truth attainable by reason

There are alleged truths (proposals) that are AGAINST reason. They are falsehoods. 2 plus two equals four AND two plus two DOESN’T EQUAL four is an example of a proposal that is false. It violates the law of non-contradiction so you KNOW it is false.

So far we have truths that are consistent with reason.
And proposals that are AGAINST reason.

You can come to these conclusions by NATURAL belief or a NATURAL faith if you will. Natural reason ALONE can get you there.

But there is another classification of truths.

There are truths that are ABOVE REASON. They are NOT CONTRARY to reason, but using reason alone, you cannot get to the point of belief that you could with special grace.

Examples of truths that are ABOVE reason are truths like “the Incarnation”. The Holy Trinity" is another such truth that is ABOVE reason.

God IS Trinity, and we KNOW this not because we can “figure it out with reason”. But we know this because God told us this.

• Truths that are ABOVE reason

I think this is probably part of what St. Paul is alluding to in 1st Corinthians 2:14.

1st CORINTHIANS 2:14 14 The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

Truth attainable only by revelation and augmented or increased (“increase our faith!”) by a special grace (reception of the Holy Spirit) are ABOVE reason.

The Baptized can then believe truths above reason the way we should because of GRACE building upon our nature.

We could NEVER use natural means ALONE, to conclude God is Trinitarian for example. You can’t figure that out . . . without Divine Revelation (or God telling us at least implicitly).

A natural faith gets us to a natural belief. All good, proper, and necessary.

But we need to go beyond that into a supernatural faith.

*Continued . . . *

 

[Cathoholic]

*Continued from last post . . . . *

But we need to go beyond that into a supernatural faith.

I am not saying someone can’t “accept” what God tells us about the Trinity who has not been baptized.

I am just saying there is an elevation of our belief that goes beyond the mere natural realm.

Here are a couple of catechetical quotes that may fill in some of the deficiencies of what I presented above.

CCC 1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

• enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
• giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
• allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
  Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

CCC 1813 The theological virtues are the foundation of Christian moral activity; they animate it and give it its special character. They inform and give life to all the moral virtues. They are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children and of meriting eternal life. They are the pledge of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the faculties of the human being. There are three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity.

(Jon. I know you know this, but “lurkers” may read this that may NOT know.

The “merit” here in CCC 1813 is via God IN US and THROUGH us. I could go to the CCC quotes explaining this, but that would be better served by a separate thread on “merit” if somebody has an issue with this concept.)

 

[SolaScriptura]

Are the righteous justified?

Not necessarily so. It depends on the context. One maybe righteous in a external sense of adhering to the law, but their heart is far away from God.

 

[Duane1966]

Not necessarily so. It depends on the context. One maybe righteous in a external sense of adhering to the law, but their heart is far away from God.

What if God says they are righteous?

 

[po18guy]

The greatest weapon against European neo-Christianity is the scriptures. Every scriptural reference to our judgment “on that day” is according to what we have done - not a peep about Euro-neo-sola-anything. Secondly, we must ask what they mean when they say various things, as they speak a different faith language. The "solas’ are a snapshot, a freeze-frame in time. Life is a process, or else it would be nonsensical for our Lord to teach that we must persevere, or for Saint Paul to teach us to “work out salvation with fear and trembling” or to “run the race so as to win.”

Bible Christians are often obsessed with “justification” but what does that mean? I have no idea why this obsession, since a single, one-time act often justifies them, according to their theology. Two possibilities arise: Either they are uncertain at some level, or it means something radically different from ancient Church teaching. I suspect both. Still, none of the ideas put forth in this thread have any effect on someone who mistakenly believes they have done an end-run and found a short-cut.

As I see it, that is what neo-Christianity is - a grossly simplified (even lazy) belief system in which less and less is up to us, and more and more is up to God. “I left it up to You” on judgment day sounds an awful lot like the man in Matthew 25:14-30 who was given a single talent and then returned it to his master.

Yet, prayer to the Holy Spirit is what helps accomplish conversion (Acts 2). Are we better evangelists than our Lord was (John 6)? Few believed him and all but 11 turned against Him.

Prayer to the Holy Spirit first, last and always.

 

[SolaScriptura]

What if God says they are righteous?

By God I’m assuming you mean the Scriptures, right? Someone may be called righteous because they are right with the external law and not necessarily right with God. The Apostle Paul made that point about himself before he was converted when he said the following:

Philippians 3:6 as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law,blameless.

 

[Duane1966]

By God I’m assuming you mean the Scriptures, right? Someone may be called righteous because they are right with the external law and not necessarily right with God. The Apostle Paul made that point about himself before he was converted when he said the following:

That was Paul calling himself righteous. But I mean if God calls someone righteous, would they be justified?

 

[SolaScriptura]

That was Paul calling himself righteous. But I mean if God calls someone righteous, would they be justified?

The Scriptures are God speaking, right? Just like everythihng else St Paul said was God speaking.

 

[Duane1966]

The Scriptures are God speaking, right? Just like everythihng else St Paul said was God speaking.

So if God calls someone righteous, are they justified?

 

[SolaScriptura]

So if God calls someone righteous, are they justified?

Now we are talking in circles. I answered that already, it depends on the context. The Scriptures are God speaking, so God maybe speaking in reference to external righteous(i.e. the letter of the law, the Pharisees ), but this is not the same as being righteous before God in a salvific sense(i.e. justification ).

 

[Duane1966]

Now we are talking in circles. I answered that already, it depends on the context. The Scriptures are God speaking, so God maybe speaking in reference to external righteous(i.e. the letter of the law, the Pharisees ), but this is not the same as being righteous before God in a salvific sense(i.e. justification ).

Wait a minute, if God calls someone righteous, and does not qualify it, does not say it is external, then He is saying they are justified? I mean if God is talking external righteousness, but inside still sinful, that would be obvious in Scripture right?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Wait a minute, if God calls someone righteous, and does not qualify it, does not say it is external, then He is saying they are justified? I mean if God is talking external righteousness, but inside still sinful, that would be obvious in Scripture right?

Context would decide, so if it is obvious based on context then that would be the case. You have a particular Scripture in mind? Or shall we continue this dance

 

[Duane1966]

No, I don’t believe one that is justified can lose it.

I wonder what you say here. When Jesus tells His followers to remain in Him, if you can’t lose justification, where could they go? Who is He talking to, if you can’t lose justification? You can only remain somewhere, if you’re already there. But if you can’t lose justification, doesn’t this passage become a statement directed at no one? Unless being in Him does not mean justified.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I wonder what you say here. When Jesus tells His followers to remain in Him, if you can’t lose justification, where could they go? Who is He talking to, if you can’t lose justification? You can only remain somewhere, if you’re already there. But if you can’t lose justification, doesn’t this passage become a statement directed at no one? Unless being in Him does not mean justified.

This is a thread about justification, not the losing of salvation so I don’t want to hijack it and go to a different topic. However, a brief response to your query.

There are two sets of Scriptures that both sides use in this debate. On one side are the verses that speak of once justified being saved in the end. I will not rehearse them here as I’m sure you have heard most of them already. On the other side we have the verses that issues warning or examples of those that once professed the faith falling away. So the resolution here is how these two sets of scriptures are interpreted in harmony. I think the Scriptures themselves give us ample evidence as how to best interpret those that believe a justified believer can fall away. Here are the examples:

1. A warning passage does not necessarily mean one will fall away, but can be used as means to keep one from falling away. An example of this is clearly demonstrated in the following:

• Acts 27:22-26 The promise given by God
• Acts 27:31 The warning later given as a means to fulfill the aforementioned promise.

1. A example of someone that was once considered saved falling away. This example is fairly straightforward as we have this exact scenario in 1 John 2:19. Those that were once part of the Church apostatized. The Apostle John did not describe them as losing their justification, but instead he said they left because they were never really a part of us.

So from the Scriptures themselves we have an explanation for the two types of Scriptures that are used to teach someone can lose their salvation. However, there is an explanation of their meaning without it being that salvation is lost. Now the onus would be on you to explain how the promises from God of those that are justified will be glorified are not true. So for example we have this:

Romans 8:29:30
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

 

[Duane1966]

This is a thread about justification, not the losing of salvation so I don’t want to hijack it and go to a different topic. However, a brief response to your query.

Doesn’t justification and salvation go hand in hand?

1. A warning passage does not necessarily mean one will fall away, but can be used as means to keep one from falling away. An example of this is clearly demonstrated in the following:

• Acts 27:22-26 The promise given by God
• Acts 27:31 The warning later given as a means to fulfill the aforementioned promise.

This makes no sense. Of course it’s meant to keep one from falling away. But in your paradigm, you cannot fall away. So why warn someone to keep from falling away, if it is impossible that they fall away? By the way, if Paul had not said something to the soldiers, would the ship have sunk?

1. A example of someone that was once considered saved falling away. This example is fairly straightforward as we have this exact scenario in 1 John 2:19. Those that were once part of the Church apostatized. The Apostle John did not describe them as losing their justification, but instead he said they left because they were never really a part of us.

Three points:

1.) John never says they apostasized. They may have just went out and started preaching a different gospel. They may have still considered themselves Christians.

2.) Perhaps those that left never were justified before they left, but that still does not answer the question of whether you could gain justification, but not persevere to the end, and then lose it. This verse is silent on that aspect.

3.) Under your paradigm, you have no way of knowing whether those that left, really thought they were saved, while they were still part of the Church. Did they think they were justified, at one point? If yes, what good did eternal security do them?

So from the Scriptures themselves we have an explanation for the two types of Scriptures that are used to teach someone can lose their salvation. However, there is an explanation of their meaning without it being that salvation is lost. Now the onus would be on you to explain how the promises from God of those that are justified will be glorified are not true. So for example we have this:

Another nice passage you posted there. Wouldn’t it just as easily mean that if you fall away from justification, you were never predestined for Heaven? God knows who is predestined for Heaven, but this passage just means He knows who will persevere, and who will not. Now do we know that this is not God justifying and glorifying at the end when the Christian persevered to the end?

By the way, your verse seems to say that everyone God calls is justified. Is that true?

 

[Duane1966]

Romans 8:29:30:

29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might

A few things about this verse:

1.) Only if you believe that justification is a one time event, could one possibly construe these verses as being evidence that one could not fall away, i. e., eternal security. But that is what is in question between Protestants (some) and Catholics.

2.) These verses can easily be addressing justification as a process, where at the end after the Christian persevered, God declared that Christian justified, and then glorified him/her.

3.) These verses do tell us about the elect, but not whether the non-elect (reprobate) can be on the path, and then fall away.

Interestingly, the first Reformer to teach eternal security, John Calvin, taught that a person can have all characteristics of the elect manifest in their life, can think they are saved, and be among the reprobate. The reprobate could spend their life thinking they were saved, and not be.

Since this doctrine is in question between some Protestants and Catholics, let’s see if it was taught anywhere in the early Church.

From this article: fwponline.cc/v21n1/v21n1witzki.html

John Jefferson Davis wrote an article titled: “The Perseverance of the Saints: A History of the Doctrine” [Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 34:2 (June 1991)]. Three things make this article of great value. First, it was written by a well-known and highly respected Calvinist theologian. Second, it covers the key people and church groups on the topic. Third, it demonstrates that “once saved, always saved” or unconditional eternal security was not a doctrine that was taught by the ancient church, nor for that manner, by any well-known theologian before John Calvin. This doctrine is, in fact, completely foreign in the history of Christianity.**

While the first extensive discussion of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is found in Augustine’s Treatise on the Gift of Perseverance, written around A. D. 429, **Augustine believed it was possible to experience the justifying grace of God and yet not persevere to the end. Augustine did believe God’s elect would certainly persevere to the end, but he denied that a person could know they were in the elect and he also warned it was possible to be justified but not among the elect. **Not until Calvin was unconditional election, permanent regeneration, and certitude of final perseverance all connected…

This poses a problem even for those who claim that they take their teachings exclusively from Scripture, namely, "How could a doctrine this important–if true–remain completely undiscovered for the first 1500 years of Church history and, if Jesus comes back any time soon, for three quearters of all of Church history?"

Other important doctrines have been known all through Christian history. Christians always knew, even when heretics denied it,that Jesus Christ was God. Christians always knew, even when heretics denied it, that Jesus Christ is fully man as well as fully God. And Christians always knew, even when heretics denied it, that they were saved purely by God’s grace.

**So when it turns out that Christians never knew that true Christians can never fall away, and then suddenly 1500 years later someone starts claiming it, one has to ask who is conveying the true teaching of the apostles and who is teaching the heresy?..
**
Furthermore, the Calvinist does not fare any better when one looks even more deeply into what the early Christians believed about this issue. In 1998, Hendrickson Publishers printed A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers. Under the topic heading of “Salvation,” we find the question, “Can those who are saved ever be lost?” After several Scriptural passages are quoted [2 Chron 15:2; Ezek 33:12; Matt 10:22; Luke 9:62; 2 Tim 2:12; Heb 10:26; 2 Pet 2:20-21], five pages of quotes are given from the writings of early Christian leaders. These quotes give evidence that the early church did not believe in “once saved, always saved.” They taught that it was possible for a genuine believer to reject God and wind up eternally separated from God in hell [pp. 586-591].

 

[SolaScriptura]

Doesn’t justification and salvation go hand in hand?

Salvation is a broad concept that includes justification, sanctification, perseverance, glorification, and others. Though these are related they are distinguish and the discussion of one does not mandate you discuss the others.

This makes no sense. Of course it’s meant to keep one from falling away. But in your paradigm, you cannot fall away. So why warn someone to keep from falling away, if it is impossible that they fall away? By the way, if Paul had not said something to the soldiers, would the ship have sunk?

Of course it makes sense. The issue is not that we ***cannot ***fall away, as if we are recreated in some way so that it is impossible, but that we will not fall away because God will preserve us. His means of preserving us include warnings but are not limited to that.

Three points:

1.) John never says they apostasized. They may have just went out and started preaching a different gospel. They may have still considered themselves Christians.

One does not have to renounce Christianity to be considered an apostate, but it can be used for one that renounces the central beliefs they once held. But whatever you want to call it is orthogonal to the point, that they were once part of the Church and considered christian believers, but John states their leaving showed they were never one of us.

2.) Perhaps those that left never were justified before they left, but that still does not answer the question of whether you could gain justification, but not persevere to the end, and then lose it. This verse is silent on that aspect.

You are right, they were never justified. That is the point. We often assume someone that is part of the church, but leaves or is excommunicated for whatever reason lost their justification, but the Apostle John tells us they were never really one of us, just pretenders or false believer that were among us.

3.) Under your paradigm, you have no way of knowing whether those that left, really thought they were saved, while they were still part of the Church. Did they think they were justified, at one point? If yes, what good did eternal security do them?

Of course they thought they were justified and part of the family of God as did their fellow churchmen. The point of the Apostle John’s statement was to explain their falling away to the ones they abandon.

Perseverance of the Saints( not eternal security ) does not prevent one from making a false claim or even having a false hope.

Another nice passage you posted there. Wouldn’t it just as easily mean that if you fall away from justification, you were never predestined for Heaven? God knows who is predestined for Heaven, but this passage just means He knows who will persevere, and who will not. Now do we know that this is not God justifying and glorifying at the end when the Christian persevered to the end?

The passage teaches if God justifies you He will glorify you. There is no falling away for the one that God justifies. Only God justifies someone. The one that God justifies does not fall away, but is glorified in the end.

By the way, your verse seems to say that everyone God calls is justified. Is that true?

Of course it is, because God says it is true. Let God be true and every man a liar. Now don’t get this calling confused with any type of calling. This is talking about the salvation call.

 

[SolaScriptura]

A few things about this verse:

1.) Only if you believe that justification is a one time event, could one possibly construe these verses as being evidence that one could not fall away, i. e., eternal security. But that is what is in question between Protestants (some) and Catholics.

The verse clearly says the one God calls, He justifies, and He glorifies. So whether you want to claim justification is a process or not does not change the fact that God says if he justifies you( initial justification or some other justification ) He will glorify you.

2.) These verses can easily be addressing justification as a process, where at the end after the Christian persevered, God declared that Christian justified, and then glorified him/her.

Remember one of the main themes of the Epistle to the Romans is how one is justified in the presence. This is what the Apostle Paul is still dealing with, the God who justifies the ungodly(e.g. Romans 4:5 ). So whenever and whomever God justifies, He will glorified. Whether you want to believe in a process or not does not change the logic of these verses. If God justifies you( beginning, re-justification, or final ) He will glorify you.

3.) These verses do tell us about the elect, but not whether the non-elect (reprobate) can be on the path, and then fall away.

These verses tell us all whom God calls, He justifies, all He justifies, He glorifies There is no sense of one being called and justified that is a reprobate anywhere in this chain.

Interestingly, the first Reformer to teach eternal security, John Calvin, taught that a person can have all characteristics of the elect manifest in their life, can think they are saved, and be among the reprobate. The reprobate could spend their life thinking they were saved, and not be.

Yes, that maybe true. For example there are many cults that may think this, but this doesn’t change the fact that those who are justified will not fall away.

Since this doctrine is in question between some Protestants and Catholics, let’s see if it was taught anywhere in the early Church.

From this article: fwponline.cc/v21n1/v21n1witzki.html

It is always ironic when Catholics make the claim that a doctrine was not taught in the early church and therefore should not be believed, because some of your most precious dogma are guilty of this very thing. For example, when was the doctrine of Papal Infallibility first taught? Or the Marian Dogmas? I’m aware of the development of doctrine theory used to justify this, so we could say the same. The seed of the doctrine of the perseverance of the Saints was taught by Augustine But whether you found it in Church History or not, we see it in the Scriptures.

 

[Duane1966]

Of course it makes sense. The issue is not that we ***cannot ***fall away, as if we are recreated in some way so that it is impossible, but that we will not fall away because God will preserve us. His means of preserving us include warnings but are not limited to that.

But since you will not fall away, then the warning is still useless. In your paradigm, none of these warnings can be aimed at the justified, because you said God will preserve them. So who are these warnings aimed at? It cannot be the justified, because God will preserve them. If you say they will be preserved from never wanting to fall away, it would still be a useless warning. There is no need to put up a do not enter sign, if there is no possibility that anyone can enter.

One does not have to renounce Christianity to be considered an apostate, but it can be used for one that renounces the central beliefs they once held. But whatever you want to call it is orthogonal to the point, that they were once part of the Church and considered christian believers, but John states their leaving showed they were never one of us.

Yes, but does never really one of us mean: part of Christianity that believes the way that John does, but not the whole of Christianity? Or does it mean that they left Christianity altogether? One could easily view the ones that left as an early form of Protestantism. They may have just been in schism from John, and there schismatic views were present from the start. That’s why he says they were never really part of us. It does not mean they were never justified, and therefore could not fall away. There is not enough information. You read this as them never having been justified, because it fits your paradigm. But the text does not say that.

You are right, they were never justified. That is the point. We often assume someone that is part of the church, but leaves or is excommunicated for whatever reason lost their justification, but the Apostle John tells us they were never really one of us, just pretenders or false believer that were among us.

Again, we do not know that. Their viewpoint may have always been different than John’s, and that is why he says never really one of us. We know that there was at least one other bishop who had a problem with John.

Of course they thought they were justified and part of the family of God as did their fellow churchmen. The point of the Apostle John’s statement was to explain their falling away to the ones they abandon.

So what good did the doctrine of eternal security do them? Did they think they were falling away, or that their interpretation of Scripture was more accurate than John’s? If they still believed they were Christian, than they do not believe they fell away.

Perseverance of the Saints( not eternal security ) does not prevent one from making a false claim or even having a false hope.

But they have no way of knowing that their claims or hopes are false. That is why the doctrine is so insidious, and you cannot find one instance of it being taught for 1500 years before John Calvin.

The passage teaches if God justifies you He will glorify you. There is no falling away for the one that God justifies. Only God justifies someone. The one that God justifies does not fall away, but is glorified in the end.

But is His declaration of justification a one time event, when you come to God, or His declaration of one being justified, after one has persevered?

Of course it is, because God says it is true. Let God be true and every man a liar. Now don’t get this calling confused with any type of calling. This is talking about the salvation call.

Many are called, few are chosen is talking about salvation. He calls many, few are chosen.

 

[benhur]

The catechumen BELIEVES in Jesus (he has a natural faith)He repents of his sins .

Hi C

Thanks for the invite to this thread from another one dealing with infant baptism.

I had posted that most churches require belief in Christ before baptizing (non-infants). I understand the CC teaching that regeneration/born again occurs at water baptism. My point or question then was can the flesh believe ? Can the flesh have faith in Jesus Christ, even saving faith ? If so, why then go thru a ceremony /rite that puts the flesh to death symbolically ? Does the flesh “gladly hear/ receive the Saving Word”, as 3000 did at Pentecost ? Apparently something good does dwell in us before salvation/ rebirth?

I would think something is either supernatural or “natural”. Repentance is only by the grace, and gifting, and work of the Godhead in us, a “circumcision of the heart” , “with no human hands” , with “no work of righteousness” on our part. Does not seem to be a natural thing with man. It seems to be all supernatural.

The Church formally asks, “What do you ask of God’s Church?”

The catechumen responds “faith”. (there are some other appropriate alternative responses too but “faith” is a main response)

First thanks for info on the rite. I like the question, that is to ask for faith of the Lord in the rite. Indeed faith is a gift from God. Just that I never heard that faith is natural and then supernatural. I mean what greater faith can one have, what greater repentance, turning around from unbelief ,can one have, than believing that Christ is the Messiah, ones own Messiah, and that by grace ? That is the million dollar hurdle, that can only be leapt with the gift of faith …“I was blind now I see”. What I did not have on my own I now have. And really because i was moved to ask for it , because I was also shown I did not have it on my own. The “crying out to the Lord” is the ultimate asking for faith, for saving faith that we are doomed without. And that faith God does not deposit in the flesh or natural, carnal man, but in a new creation, the new inner man, the spiritual man, rebirthed, born again,regenerated, born of God, of the Spirit…all supernatural.

I understand of asking for increased faith . I also understand in having power to act that faith out. Just that I had understood power with the “gift of the Holy Ghost”, or as noted in your other rite , confirmation, but not baptism.

The Baptized can then believe truths above reason the way we should because of GRACE building upon our nature.

We could NEVER use natural means ALONE, to conclude God is Trinitarian for example. You can’t figure that out . . . without Divine Revelation (or God telling us at least implicitly).

I suppose one has to view it as you do for indeed it tries to explain spiritual realities. Just that I think the explanation lies in what and when is new birth , not in new supernatural faith. Your view is needed due to other CC point that baptism is also regenerational/new birth. I do not know of anyone who “saw” more, believed more, understood more, after coming out of baptismal waters (yet spiritually blessed by the grace to be obedient).

We can never use natural means to say Christ is our Lord and savior ,and other confessions made at baptism.

Grace does not build upon our carnal nature, but rather uses it to show the depravity of such nature, and that it has to be torn down, put to death , and our personhood needs to be a new creation.

A natural faith gets us to a natural belief. All good, proper, and necessary.

A natural faith is a fleshly faith, and is of little spiritual value, and in fact can be a hindrance. The most one can say about natural faith is that the Spirit may use that as mirror to spiritual faith (like the Roman centurion, who had faith in the military paradigm of authority, applied it to Christ, but for a physical healing).

Again, I believe one is born again,has supernatural faith , before water baptism.

Blessings