Are we justified by faith alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itsjustdave1988
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is what I would suggest for you. Since you have internet access, I would suggest reading the following encyclicals. Take them one at a time and read them carefully, and use a highlighter to mark the parts which seem significant. These encyclicals explain what has always been taught by the Church, and condemn many moder errors that have infected much of the higherarchy.

You should be able to locate these encyclicals by typing them into google. Reading these encyclicals will form your intellect according to solid teachings of the faith, as explained by the Popes. It will probably also open your eyes to many errors occurring in our day. Here they are

1.) Mirari Vos by Pope Gregory XVI. 1832.

2.) Humani Generis). Pius XII. 1950.

3.) Quanta Cura Pius IX. 1864.

4.) Libertas Praestissimum Leo XIII. 1888

5.) Our Apostolic Mandate (On the “Sillon”).St. Pius X. 1910.

6.) Mortalium Animos, Pius XI. 1928

7.) Pascendi Dominici Gregis (on modernism). St. Pius X. 1907.

If you were to read these very carefully, and really study them, you would have done a great deal to form your faith. When you read these, let them form the way you think, by completely submitting to what they say. That is how we should read such official Church documents.

If you have any questions or comments, I would suggest starting a new thread to discuss them. I think one of the best things for Catholics to do today is to read and study the older encyclicals, where the truth was taugh clearly and firmly.

Good luck and God Bless
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
RSiscoe,

I have a reply coming, but I’m a bit busy now.
Click to expand...
I understand. Don’t let these boards interfere with your work.
 
RSiscoe,

I addressed both aspects of the “faith alone” doctrine condemned by canon 9, which are:
  1. “The sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified (*de *fide)” (Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg 251)
  2. “Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present (*de *fide)” (ibid., 253)
Dr. Ludwig Ott quotes from Denzinger’s reference to canon 9 in support of the de fide dogmas above, so if I’ve misunderstood the substance of this canon, so did Dr. Ott.

As I understand it, it is clear that the Joint Declaration admits that justifying faith cannot be apart from hope or love. In explaining 2) above, Dr. Ott states: “the Council of Trent declares that, side by side with faith, other acts of disposition are demanded (D 819). As such are named: … hope in the mercy of God for the sake of the merits of Christ; the beginning of the love of God…” (ibid, 253).

As such, unless you disagree with Dr. Ott, what I’ve asserted regarding 2) above is accurate. The Lutherans now admit that justifying faith includes hope and love. So I don’t see 2) to be an issue any longer.

I addressed 1) above in the following manner:

According to the Lutheran understanding as described in the Joint Declaration on Justification,

God himself effects faith as he brings forth such trust by his creative word. (26)

God certainly does bring forth trust by his creative word. While Lutherans may not use the same terminology, Catholics call this the help of antecedent “actual grace” which prepares the sinner for faith. For example, when God told Cain that sin was crouching at his door, and that he needed to master sin, this was “actual grace.” God graciously prompts us with “actual grace” so that we may will to turn toward Him rather than toward sin. God would not have told Cain to master sin if it were impossible for Cain to do so. God brought forth his word to Cain, but Cain chose to reject it.

I assert that the Joint Declaration (JD) has affirmed that free will cooperation (with actual grace) is required for the attainment of the (sanctifying) grace of justification.

First, let’s be precise about what “actual grace” is:

“Actual grace is a temporary supernatural act of God directed towards the spiritual power of man for the purpose of moving him to a salutary act.” (Ott, 225)

“ACTUAL GRACE. Temporary supernatural intervention by God to enlighten the mind or strengthen the will to perform supernatural actions that lead to heaven. Actual grace is therefore a transient divine assistance to enable man to obtain, retain, or grow in supernatural grace and the life of God.” (Fr. John Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary)

to be continued …
 
A simple example of “actual grace” is a “message from God”, sent from God to the sinner so as to either enlighten the mind or strengthen the will towards good. This can be said to effect (“to cause to come into being”) faith in the sinner. Nobody can come to have faith without first hearing the message from God (antecedent actual grace), and either accepting it or rejecting it. There are two views as to how this happens: 1) that this message is irresistible (free will is denied) or 2) that this message is NOT irresistible (free will is NOT denied). The latter is Catholic belief (upholds free will). The former is Calvinists belief (denies free will).

What is the belief of some Lutherans according to that which is stated in the Joint Declaration? Let’s take a look…

It is affirmed by the JD that…

The freedom [all persons] possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God’s judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. (JD, 19)

Well, that’s certainly true. Said alternatively, it is due to the condign merit of Christ, and not by any merit of ours that we are justified. We have no innate abilities to earn grace of justification. Why? Because we need antecedent actual grace, as “faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.” (Rom 10:17). Because “actual grace internally and directly enlightens and strengthens the will (sententia certa)” (Ott, 225). Without actual grace, such as that which we hear from God, through the word of Christ, which is always a gratuitous gift from God, we remain un-enlightened and un-strengthened. In other words, we remain unprepared for sanctifying grace. So, God gives us actual grace, and although this gift can be rejected, it is grace alone, earned by the merit of Christ (not anything we’ve done) that causes justifying faith, which always includes hope and love.

The analogy I like to use is that of the heavenly gift of manna. It, like actual and sanctifying grace, was purely a gift from God. Nothing the Israelites did gave them a strict right (condign merit) to manna. Yet, although completely undeserved, in order to receive this gift, God required their cooperation. God didn’t require their deservedness, but required their participation in enjoying the effects that manna would produce in them (ie., bodily nourishment). If they didn’t receive the manna as God prescribed, the manna turned to worms, and did not produce the intended effect. Yet, the Israelite’s cooperation DID NOT ADD to or in any way causethe nutritious effect of manna. Strictly speaking, it was ONLY the food of manna that produced the effect in them. The “collecting” did not add to the nutritious effect that manna already had. However, defiance in receiving this heavenly gift contrary to God’s instructions certainly place a barrier in receiving the effect of that gratuitous gift.

Think of this similarly to receipt of the Holy Eucharist. It too is a free gift and always conveys grace ex opere operato so long as we receive it as prescribed by God, that is, with proper disposition.

to be continued …
 
My disposition does NOT ADD TO or cause the grace given by the Blessed Sacrament. It can only be a barrier to its effects. It is this grace alone (not anything we’ve done) that brings about (formally causes) its effect.

Keep this in mind, as it is an important point: antecedent free will acts can only be a barrier, not a formal or efficient cause to the grace of justification, just as our disposition can only be a barrier, not a formal or efficient cause to the grace of the Blessed Sacrament.

So, our free will cooperation with antecedent actual grace does not add to the effects of grace. It can only be a barrier to the effects. So, as the Lutherans and Catholics jointly declare “Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace.” (JD, 21). Yet, it is equally true that no person’s natural merit can add anything to the working of grace.

Contrary to Calvinist doctrine of “irresistible grace,” JD 21 explicitly affirms that Lutheran and Catholic doctrine assert that man can freely reject the “working of grace.” That same paragraph does state that cooperation isn’t needed. I understand that to mean needed as a cause of justfication, which is correct. However, JD 21 affirms that the lack of cooperation can be a barrier to justification. That’s what JD 21 means when it asserts: “they mean thereby to exclude any possibility of contributing to one’s own justification.” (JD 21) In other words, just as our disposition is in no way an efficient or formal cause to the grace of the Blessed Sacrament, so too is our cooperation in no way an efficient or formal cause to the grace of justification.

Furthermore, just in case JD 21 is misinterpreted contrary to Catholic teaching, the Joint Doctrine provides a cross-reference at the end of section 4.1 to better explain the authentic sense of that section in more detail, in the appendix of the Joint Declaration. Observe,

**For 4.1: **Human Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification (paras 19-21) (LV:E 42ff; 46; VELKD 77-81; 83f)
  • “Those in whom sin reigns can do nothing to merit justification, which is the free gift of God’s grace. Even the beginnings of justification, for example, repentance, prayer for grace, and desire for forgiveness, must be God’s work in us” (USA, no. 156.3). (JD, appendix “for 4.1”)Is this contrary to Catholic teaching? No. According to Dr. Ott, the meritorious cause of justification is Jesus Christ. (cf. Ott, 251)
The Second Council of Orange declared with St. Prosper and St. Augustine:
"The reward given for good works is not won by reason of actions which precede grace, but grace, which is unmerited, precedes actions in order that they may be accomplished meritoriously … (D 191)
Click to expand...
The JD continues…
  • “Both [Lutherans and Catholics] are concerned to make it clear that … human beings cannot … cast a sideways glance at their own endeavors … But a response is not a ‘work.’ The response of faith is itself brought about through the uncoercible word of promise which comes to human beings from outside themselves. antecedent actual grace]. There can be 'cooperation’ only in the sense that in faith the heart is involved, when the Word touches it and creates faith” (LV:E 46f).
    /quote]
to be continued…
 
And just in case one still misunderstands what is meant in 4.1 above, the Declaration explicity states:
  • “Where, however, Lutheran teaching construes the relation of God to his human creatures in justification with such emphasis on the divine ‘monergism’ or the sole efficacy of Christ in such a way, that the person’s willing acceptance of God’s grace - which is itself a gift of God - has no essential role in justification, then the Tridentine canons 4, 5, 6 and 9 still constitute a notable doctrinal difference on justification” (PCPCU 22).
-“The strict emphasis on the passivity of human beings concerning their justification never meant, on the Lutheran side, to contest the full personal participation in believing; rather it meant to exclude any cooperation in the event of justification itself. Justification is the work of Christ alone, the work of grace alone” (VELKD 84,3-8).
This paragraph seems to me to clear up any misunderstanding on the matter. You say the Lutheran declaration states that the “willing acceptance of God’s grace” has no role in justification. I say the declaration emphasizes that the “role” of man’s free will cooperation is not causative of justification, but can be a barrier to justification. But just in case you didn’t construe the declaration in that way, the declaration explicitly states that if one takes your understanding of this declaration, then it is indeed contrary to canons 4,5,6, and 9 of Trent.

The problem most people have in understanding faith, justification, and (supernatural) good works (as distinct from natural good works) is a precise meaning of those terms. Instead of “justification by faith alone,” which can be understood in so many various and often heretical ways, I prefer to tell my Protestant friends that Catholicism teaches that there is no other meritorious cause (causa meritoria) of justification than “Jesus Christ, who as mediator between God and man, has made atonement for us and merited the grace by which we are justified.” (Ott, 251)
 
It seems to me as if there is a misunderstand of the doctrine of faith alone. The doctrine is that we are justified by faith alone and works are a fruit of our justification / sanctification / righteousness / Holy Spirit / etc.

Faith is not a work; faith is a gift that we receive from God. As a result of faith we believe which is a work or fruit of the faith. This is taught throughout the NT Scriptures; Eph 2:8-10; Titus 3:5; James 2:17-24; Romans 4:9-12 just to name the better known ones.

Scripture teaches that we have faith to be justified then as a result of our faith being true we do good works to glorify God, and that it is His merit (righteousness) that will get us into heaven but our merit will get us a reward in heaven. :dancing:
 
I will break your post down and respond to it, but it may take a little while. In the mean time, one of the quotes your provided from the JD, is heresy - explicitly condemned by Trent:

JD: “The strict emphasis on the passivity of human beings concerning their justification never meant, on the Lutheran side, to contest the full personal participation in believing; rather it meant to exclude any cooperation in the event of justification itself. Justification is the work of Christ alone, the work of grace alone” (VELKD 84,3-8).

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

The quote your provided is explicitly condemned by Trent. Which do you believe? Do you believe that justification does not require “any cooperation”, and that it is the work of “Christ alone” as the JD says; or do you believe that “man’s free will… cooperates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of justification”?

Who will deny that the first quote denies the cooperation of the human will in justification?

Council of Trent: “…they [the unjustified], who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration…”

JD: “The strict emphasis on the passivity of human beings concerning their justification… meant to exclude any cooperation in the event of justification itself. Justification is the work of Christ alone, the work of grace alone” (VELKD 84,3-8).

Which do you believe? You can’t have it both ways.
 
This is the most basic and easy to understand answer to that question in the original post: NO
 
I believe RSiscoe and itsjustdave both make really good points. That’s tough when I want to jump back and forth between two opposing sides of a position (I really wasn’t wishy-washy before you two)

Since your argument centers around the Joint Declaration, I gave it another close peek. This is what I found:

JD #5 - “the Declaration … does not cover all that either church teaches…it does encompass a consensus on basic truths … and shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.”

That statement acknowledges that differences still exist.
One would expect the Declaration to be composed of points of differences, as well as points of agreement.
That is exactly what I see. For example, some paragraphs begin:

In agreement -
#14 "The Lutherans and Catholic Church have together listened…
#15 “In faith we together hold…”
#17 “We also share the conviction…”
#19 “We confess together…”
#22 “We confess together…”
#25 “We confess together…”
#28 “We confess together…”
#31 “We confess together…”
#34 “We confess together…”
#37 “We confess together…”

then, as a Lutheran position -
#21 - “According to Lutheran teaching,…”
#23 - “When Lutherans emphasize…”
#26 - “According to Lutheran understanding…”
#29 - “Lutherans understand this condition…”
#31 - “Lutherans state…”
#35 - “This was emphasized by the Reformers:”
#39 - “The concept…is also held by Lutherans.”

and lastly, as a Catholic position -
#20 - “When Catholics say…”
#24 - “When Catholics emphasize…”
#27 - “The Catholic understanding sees Faith…”
#30 - “Catholics hold that the grace of Jesus Christ…”
#33 - “…Catholics can say that …”
#36 - “Catholics can share the concern…”
#38 - “According to Catholic understanding…”

When we look at #40 - "…The Lutheran and Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths.

OK, RSiscoe, #41 might still stand as contrary to Trent… but it’s getting pretty gray at this point, to hammer JPII,and the Declaration as a blatant heresy.

I mean, why break the whole document into 3 separate areas:
  1. Lutheran positions
  2. Catholic positions
  3. Positions of agreement
    and then turn around and insist that all 3 positions must be equally accepted as written, by all parties? That’s illogical.
The only paragraphs equally accepted, to me, would be those which say so. Otherwise, why would they bother to specifically say so?

I think “the consensus” mentioned in #40 refers to the paragraphs of agreement, not those which mention Lutheran or Catholic leanings. So anyone who wants to hammer the Church for signing off on this Declaration would need to stay within the paragraphs of joint agreement. RSiscoe’s objections seem to come heavily from “Lutheran” paragraphs.

(By the way, RSiscoe, thanks for all those earlier Church document refs. I’m slowly finding and printing them a few at a time… I need to actually print them, because when I find my solid reading time, it’s usually *not *in front of the computer, which is at my work!)

God Bless Us All!
 
Dave,

Although I do not want to get away from free-will (which I believe Canon 9 is addressing), I do want to address one point you made.
40.png
Dave:
In other words, faith is not a justifying faith according to Catholic theology if it is understood to be apart from charity, said to have been formed by charity.
Click to expand...
Such an unformed faith was called by Catholic Scholastics: fides informis. The Scholastics taught that fides informis alone was insufficient for justification. Moreover, the Scholastics taught that we are justified by fides formata, or faith formed by charity.

Martin Luther rejected the Catholic doctrine of justification by faith formed by charity. Observe,

*Luther: [Catholics] say that this faith does not justify unless it is “formed by love.” This is not the truth of the Gospel; it is a falsehood and pretense … For faith that takes hold of Christ, the Son of God, and is adorned by Him is the faith that justifies, *not a faith that includes love. …we refuse to concede … that faith formed by love justifies. (LW 26, 88-90, emphasis added)

Luther taught that faith alone is what justifies; not a faith that is “formed by charity”, as you said. However, he did teach that true faith would produce charity, and that charity was necessary.

Catholics know that faith alone, without charity (the state of grace) does not justify. We know that charity (sanctifying grace) is what justifies; and that to be justified by charity (grace) a person must have faith. Luther taught that faith alone justifies, but that charity was produce by this justification. Do you see the difference? It is subtle, but there is a difference.

Have you ever heard a Protestant say “we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone”? Well, that is basically what Luther taught. He taught that faith alone is what justifies, but that it was not enough unless it included – produced - charity.

Luther: “Faith alone does not suffice, yet faith alone justifies, because if it is real faith it beseeches the Spirit of love …. Hence the whole thing is attributed to faith" (LW 27: 30).

So, Luther did not deny that charity was necessary, but rather that charity was produced by the justification that came about by faith alone. He taught that true faith must include charity, but that faith “formed by charity”, or faith including charity, is not what justified: faith alone justifies, he taught, then produced charity, which was necessary. A little confusing, but that is what he taught. Here are a few quotes:

Luther: 7. “But if it [faith] justifies and purifies, charity must be present. The Spirit cannot but impart love together with faith. In fact, where true faith is, the Holy Spirit dwells; and where the Holy Spirit is, there must be love and every excellence” (A sermon on Christian love #7).

continue…
 
*“And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor.”*The following is Luther’s commentary on that verse: “In other words, ‘Were I to perform all the good works on earth and yet had not charity… I would nevertheless be lost’.(A Sermon on Christian Love 12)"

So actually the statement from the Joint Declaration is very consistent with what Luther taught. He did not deny that faith must include charity; what he denied was that we were justified by a faith formed by charity – he said we were justified by faith alone, but that true faith included charity. The following are the statement from the JD, followed by Luther’s actual teaching.

Joint Declaration #22: When persons come by faith to share in Christ … the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love.

“Faith alone does not suffice, yet faith alone justifies, because if it is real faith it beseeches the Spirit of love. But the Spirit of love flees all these things and thus fulfills the law and attains the kingdom of God. Hence the whole thing is attributed to faith" (LW 27, 30).

Joint Declaration #25: [They] place their trust in God’s gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. (25)

Luther: 7. “But if it [faith] justifies and purifies, charity must be present. The Spirit cannot but impart love together with faith. In fact, where true faith is, the Holy Spirit dwells; and where the Holy Spirit is, there must be love and every excellence” (A sermon on Christian love #7).

“We maintain that faith alone justifies and saves. But that we may not deceive ourselves and put our trust in a false faith, God requires love from us…” (A Sermon on Christian Love 13)

My reason for pointing this out is to show that “the Lutherans have changed nothing”, as I said before.

I also believe that Canon 9 of Trent was speaking of the necessity of the cooperation of free will with the movements of actual grace, rather than faith hope and charity; but I did want to address that point that you made.
 
I really do not understand the misunderstanding :confused: . I agree with Luther and with all the quotes you have presented.

Christ is the ultimate source of justification in which He uses the tool faith (which is a gift and not a work) to justify us, and works follow as a fruit of justification and faith. If there are no works your faith is in vain; it is fake (fake because you are the author not God) or you believe like the demons in a historical figure and not in the living God. Works must exist in a healthy relationship with Christ, but not to justify ourselves but give evidence to others that we are justified and to glorify God.

I will bring up the formula example:

Protestant position:
Faith = Salvation + Works

Catholic position (as I understand it):
Faith + Works = Salvation

Now James said faith without works is dead. So plug it in the equation. In the Catholic view if you take out works it makes your salvation dead. In the Protestant view if you take out works it makes faith dead.

I really do not know why Luther had an issue with James. I read alot about him, but it seems to me as if his “hatred” of James (and Heb and Jude) is a little over exaggerated, because those were different times. When a man does a “big” sin his punishment was usually death, but now in days do you get sentenced to death when you sleep with another mans wife? So from what I read of Luther I think he is a little misunderstood by both sides.

Alright now please inform me if I misunderstood the Catholic position because I am interested in learning your beliefs. Please describe how a man gets justified and were works and faith come in also who’s righteousness we will have before the Holy God. Thanks and God bless.
 
40.png
RehLlits:
Alright now please inform me if I misunderstood the Catholic position because I am interested in learning your beliefs. Please describe how a man gets justified and were works and faith come in also who’s righteousness we will have before the Holy God. Thanks and God bless.
Click to expand...
What Dave and I are talking about is our initial justification, which is a result of God’s grace. The Bible says we are “saved by grace”. Grace is also called “charity” and it is the supernatural life of God that he shares with us.

Due to original sin, we are not born as children of God, because we do not possess the Spirit of God. When we are baptized, we are "born again of water and the spirit" (John 3). This second birth is a spiritual birth, whereby we become “adopted” children of God (as the Bible says). We become God’s adopted children, because when we were born of our mother, we did not possess the Spirit of God; but when we are born again, we receive a new form of life - supernatural life - within our soul. This supernatural life is nothing less than God’s life - the Holy Spirit - which makes us “a partaker of the Divine Nature” (1st Peter), and a “temple of the Holy Ghost, who [then] dwell within us” (Corinthians). When a person is born again, all of their sins are washed away, and they become, as the Bible says “a new creation in Christ Jesus”.

This higher form of life is called “grace” because it is freely given to us, and we have absolutely no right to it. No good work we do can deserves, or earn, this “grace”.

For a person who has the use of their reason (an adult, for example) God requires faith for them to be able to receive this grace. If a person has faith, and is baptized, they receive this Spiritual life within them. That is how a person is saved: by dying with the supernatural life of God within their soul. That is why the Bible says we are “saved by grace, through faith” (Eph 2:8).

Good words must follow this initial justification. When the Bible says we are “justified by works, and not by faith alone” it is refering to a secondary justification, not the initial justification. Good works should flow forth from the love of God which was infused into the soul when they were born again.

There is much more that can be said, but that is the basic Catholic belief.

Please feel free to ask any questions.
 
The quote your provided is explicitly condemned by Trent. Which do you believe?
Click to expand...
I believe both. I believe that the meritorious cause of justification is none other than Jesus Christ. Yet, I believe cooperation with antecedent grace is necessary, and our free will actions before justification are not causative toward justification in any strict sense, they can be barrier.
**
I don’t accept your interpretation of JD. The appendix is clear as to what JD teaches with regard to free will cooperation.
 
RehLlits,

A brief description from Fr. John Hardon, *Pocket Catholic Dictionary, *follows:
**JUSTIFICATION, THEOLOGY OF. **The process of a sinner becoming justified or made right with God. As defined by the Council of Trent. “Justification is the change from the condition in which a person is born as a child of the first Adam into a state of grace and adoption among the children of God through the Second Adam, Jesus Christ our Savior” (Denzinger 1524). On the negative side, justification is a true removal of sin, and not merely having one’s sins ignored or no longer held against the sinner by God. On the positive side it is the supernatural sanctification and renewal of a person who thus becomes holy and pleasing to God and an heir of heaven.

The Catholic Church identifies five elements of justification, which collectively define its full meaning. The primary purpose of justification is the honor of God and of Christ; its secondary purpose is the eternal life of mankind. The main efficient cause or agent is the mercy of God; the main instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is called the “sacrament of faith” to spell out the necessity of faith for salvation. And that which constitutes justification or its essence is the justice of God, “not by which He is just Himself, but by which He makes us just,” namely sanctifying grace.

Depending on the sins from which a person is to be delivered, there are different kinds of justification. An infant is justified by baptism and the faith of the one who requests or confers the sacrament. Adults are justified for the first time either by personal faith, sorrow for sin and baptism, or by the perfect love of God, which is at least an implicit baptism of desire. Adults who have sinned gravely after being justified can receive justification by sacramental absolution or perfect contrition for their sins. (Etym. Latin justus, just + facere, to make, do: justificatio.)
Click to expand...
 
40.png
itsjustdave1988:
I believe both. I believe that the meritorious cause of justification is none other than Jesus Christ. Yet, I believe cooperation with antecedent grace is necessary, and our free will actions before justification are not causative toward justification in any strict sense, they can be barrier.

I don’t accept your interpretation of JD. The appendix is clear as to what JD teaches with regard to free will cooperation.
Click to expand...
I have never heard of anyone who has ever taught that the free will of man is the cause of justification. Obviously, it is God who initiates by drawing man toward himself - “no man comes to me unless the Father draws him”. This “drawing” is the principal cause; however, the response of man’s free will is the “secondary cause”, which must respond the the primary cause. You yourself quoted the following in your first post:
40.png
Dave:
Asserted positively, Catholic theology insists: "the sinner can and must prepare himself by the help of
Click to expand...
actual grace for the reception of the grace by which he is justified." (Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 252), and “Besides faith, further acts of disposition must be present.***” ***(Ott, pg. 253).

God’s grace is the primary cause; the response of the will is the secondary cause. Man corresponds to the initial movements of grace - which turn him towards God - by obeying that initial call; or, as you like to say “not puttin up any barriers”. This “not putting up any barriers” is the secondary cause, which is required of man.

Since Lutherans deny free will, they deny the part played by the “secondary cause” (free will). That is clearly what the quotes from the JD still confirm, and what Trent condemned.

Council of Trent: “…they [the unjustified], who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration…”

Joint Declaration: “The strict emphasis on the passivity of human beings concerning their justification… it meant to exclude any cooperation in the event of justification itself. Justification is the work of Christ alone, the work of grace alone” (VELKD 84,3-8).

This is not speaking of the primary cause, which moved the will; this is saying that not “any cooperation” is required. That is false. To defend that is to defend what is not true. See what happens when you try to defend such a comprimise of a document?

He who says that man’s free will in no way cooperates in disposing itself for justification, and that it does nothing whatever, but is merely passive, is anathema:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

The fact that God’s grace is the cause of justification, which you have emphasized, is totally beside the point. Yes, God’s grace is the cause, but man must correspond to the call of God, by the proper use of his free will; thus, free will plays a very necessary part in justification. If it didn’t every man would be justified, since God sends actual grace to all.

continue…
 
continuation…

If you continue to defend this indefensible document, you will probably end in heresy. That is what it looks like at this point. As it is, you are already defending justification by faith “alone”, which any Catholic with a 6th grade education should know is heresy. There is no way at all that it can be said man is justified by faith alone. Man is not justified by faith alone (sola Fide) in any way whatsoever. Yet the Joint Declaration stated the following and claimed it is not heresy:

“26. According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide). In faith they place their trust wholly in their Creator and Redeemer and thus live in communion with him.”

You tried to defend this heretical position, which you have probably refuted many times when arguing wtih Protestants, by saying: "It seems that not just any sort of assertion that has the phrase “faith alone” in it is anathema, but Trent is condemning a rather specific “faith alone” doctrine", as if the term "justification by faith alone is an acceptable term.

*Fine, if that is what you beleive, please tell me how a person can ever be justified by faith alone.

I am very much looking forward to your answer.*
 
Hi everyone! 👋

Here’s how I look at it:

Our Protestant brothers and sisters speak of “accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior”. Accepting Jesus as “Savior” is the part that we Catholics would call “faith”; acknowledging that Jesus Christ died for our sins and that salvation is through him alone. But then there’s the “Lord” part. If Jesus is Lord of your life you are living in obedience to him. That’s what we Catholics call “works”; living in obedience to Christ, Jesus being Lord of our lives.

What I don’t understand, and hopefully there are some Protestant bretheran here who can explain it to me, is that if we accept Jesus, not only as Savior but as Lord, what exactly does Jesus being “Lord” mean to you and how is Jesus’ Lordship in your life separate from your works (actions)?

Thanks!

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top