By faith alone, a catholic misunderstanding

[guanophore]

I see it as a choice not a work as in give me my reward for doing this or earning the free gift.

That is very Catholic of you.

But the salvation is fully done by jesus and given free, we accept and cant earn it in anyway according to protestants.

And according to Catholics.

We also do works of love or fruit that comes from that saving faith and holy spirit as the catholic church says, we differ on it adding the salvation jesus already fully achieved on cross.

Only Christ could purchase our redemption. But I am curious, what do you think Paul is talking about 'adding"?
biblehub.com/colossians/1-24.htm

 

[DavidFilmer]

May I ask, can you recall him saying anything similar to that? maybe not using ‘saved’ but more pointing out that in relation to faith and works and faith alone but faith without works is dead that were saying the same thing just in a different language?

There are no “works” (meaning specific acts of charity) that any Catholic is categorically required to perform as a condition of salvation. We are saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and by nothing else.

 

[josh987654321]

There are no “works” (meaning specific acts of charity) that any Catholic is categorically required to perform as a condition of salvation. We are saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and by nothing else.

My understanding of faith and works runs a little like this -
The Gospel of Matthew:

Biblegateway - biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18

The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

23 “Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. 24 When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents; 25 and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26 So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ 27 And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, ‘Pay what you owe.’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’ 30 He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt. 31 When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. 32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; 33 and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’ 34 And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. 35 So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart.”

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[JRKH]

or because it is just thought by catholics?. I have been to many donimiations and spoken with many others all agree. Catholics always claim but do not support ever on this subject.

Interesting…Yet we see the variations here all the time.
Not sure how you can say that we do not ever support this view since I gave an example of it in an earlier thread - and I believe others have too. Or perhaps we are talking passed one another somehow…

yes i would say they are not saved.
works are part of salvation in a certain way of looking at it yes.

Yes - They are a part of salvation in the biblical way of looking at it.

But salvation is not dependent on works, but salvation will produce works.

I think that you mean to say that salvation is not dependent on works apart from faith.

I would say the bible does so clearly, but that is for other thread, the bible never does separate works after salvation from salvation I agree 200% that might be what your saying

.

You agree that “faith without works is dead” and therefore cannot save. Catholics believe this also.
So again - - I try to make the point that the two things cannot be separated. Works without faith are worthless and faith without works is dead…The two things are intertwined.

What we do not understand why the protestant feel the need to separate the two things.
Could you explain this?

Peace
James

great post thanks. I think you are very correct in the differences and way of looking at it. There are protestants who say you can lose your salvation I tend to be on that viewpoint. I am not here to give a defense of protestant view to your biblical quotes on this thread. It may well happen in time, thanks for good accurate post.

 

[Ignatius]

Then, as the term is not Biblical, why not use an expression that means what you intend to say?

(BTW, I know a lot of Protestants who declare unequivocally that they do mean Faith Alone, without any qualification, when they say Faith Alone)

I did not make it up, that is why i wish to clarify it. I am sure when protestant brook off all understood what was meant, today some not most Catholics dont. I also mean faith alone, what we mean by that is the same, how Catholics [some] understand it is the problem and reason for post.

I know of many Protestants who would take issue with your definition, so that would mean that many Protestants have the same misunderstanding.

Why not, at least in conversation, just use an expression that means what you intend to say?

 

[guanophore]

what is meant by faith alone?

Maybe a catholic would better understand by Jesus alone. Protestant believe that our salvation comes from Jesus death on the cross for all our sins when we put our faith in him. It is not a mental faith or belief, but a trust in him as savior to pay the price of sin we could not so when god looks at us on judgment day he can look on Jesus as perfect sacrifice for sins. However this also includes repentance from sin, asking forgiveness for those sins to god, being born again or a change of heart and asking Jesus into your heart as lord and savior. It is not to say again, a simple mental faith/belief in god/bible/Jesus as James rightly rejects.

I am happy to see that at least some of my Baptist brethren have retained this aspect of the Apostolic Faith.

 I said from a protestant view catholics dilute the gospel. We see it as just as clear salvation is by jesus alone apart from works and separated from salvation faith , than the works follow as result.

Yes, this was a doctrinal innovation that was created during the Reformation. It is not found in the first 1500 years of the faith.

We are all in agreement, though, that works should follow “as a result”.

For us, what is required is more a QUALITY of faith - saving faith is a faith that works.

That is in part what I am doing here, to try and fix it, try and bring the groups closer together. I do disagree though that works have anything to do with salvation besides the results of it.

Glad you are here.

I’m going by conversations with members of various evangelical Protestant groups. They say things like “Faith + nothing = salvation.” “Nothing” means works. Of course it could be argued that they themselves misunderstand faith as well. Possibly so. But OSAS, for instance, is hotly debated among Protestants.

As an example, I ran across this passage on a CARM web page after acknowledging that the believer should not live in sin:
“Second, salvation is indeed easy. All we have to do is believe and be saved. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone; and no works are necessary either to obtain or maintain salvation. That is not to say that good works and repentance from sin don’t exist in the Christian life, but they exist because we are saved–not in order to become saved.”

This is consistent with what the Apostles taught about initial justification, except that they included baptism.

I said they agree on salvation. Just as catholics would differ in opinions for example in my state they did survey almost half rejected the actual presence of jesus in the euckerist, the bishop was pissed.

There is a major difference here, jj. Catholics who do such things have lost their Catholicity - They have separated themselves from the Apostolic faith, and defied the TEachings of the Church. The Apostolic faith is not a democracy, or a matter of personal opinion, or polls. There is ONE FAITH.

But to prove my point,** get in your car and ask every pastor about salvation.**

???

I find out plenty online with a lot less gas.
jjsmity;12470318:

Baptism happens after salvation in protestant view.

Yes, another departure from the faith of the Apsotles.

 

[Duane1966]

If Baptism happens AFTER salvation, then why does St. Peter say “baptism NOW saves you”?

St. Peter is clear. Who is diluting the Gospel?

 

[Porknpie]

If Baptism happens AFTER salvation, then why does St. Peter say “baptism NOW saves you”?

St. Peter is clear. Who is diluting the Gospel?

Duane,

This just shows how one can error reading the bible separated from the one faith that produced it. All of Christianity held to salvific baptism (and not just the Latin Catholic Church) for 1,500 years.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I’m going by conversations with members of various evangelical Protestant groups. They say things like “Faith + nothing = salvation.” “Nothing” means works. Of course it could be argued that they themselves misunderstand faith as well. Possibly so. But OSAS, for instance, is hotly debated among Protestants.

As an example, I ran across this passage on a CARM web page after acknowledging that the believer should not live in sin:
“Second, salvation is indeed easy. All we have to do is believe and be saved. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone; and no works are necessary either to obtain or maintain salvation. That is not to say that good works and repentance from sin don’t exist in the Christian life, but they exist because we are saved–not in order to become saved.”
guanophore;12472338:

This is consistent with what the Apostles taught about initial justification, except that they included baptism.

True about baptism. But the Apostles would also include in the essence of faith that justifies the intention to live by the moral teaching of the Gospel. If one is told by the Lord to “Repent/Reform your life and believe in the gospel”, then believing in the Gospel can’t involve renouncing the act of repentance which includes the intention not to sin.

 

[jjsmity]

Can you explain what you mean by “adding works”?

can you clarify how your view differs from the JDDJ?

right protestant language to say works, really meant sacraments to a catholic.

after i made a quick look through I would say no way that I noticed.

That is very Catholic of you.

And according to Catholics.

Only Christ could purchase our redemption. But I am curious, what do you think Paul is talking about 'adding"?
biblehub.com/colossians/1-24.htm

lol. Hey even I can be right sometimes right? lol.

indeed.

I think that was wrong passage, please check and repost.

thanks 4 emails.

There are no “works” (meaning specific acts of charity) that any Catholic is categorically required to perform as a condition of salvation. We are saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and by nothing else.

amen to that.

 

[jjsmity]

Interesting…Yet we see the variations here all the time.
Not sure how you can say that we do not ever support this view since I gave an example of it in an earlier thread - and I believe others have too. Or perhaps we are talking passed one another somehow…

Yes - They are a part of salvation in the biblical way of looking at it.

I think that you mean to say that salvation is not dependent on works apart from faith.

.

You agree that “faith without works is dead” and therefore cannot save. Catholics believe this also.
So again - - I try to make the point that the two things cannot be separated. Works without faith are worthless and faith without works is dead…The two things are intertwined.

What we do not understand why the protestant feel the need to separate the two things.
Could you explain this?

Peace
James

.

yes we may have. my thought is if catholics see a difference is because language used such as “faith alone” so that is reason for my post in part.

I would say not in the way you are using it, in fact** I quoted catholic doctrine** you left out showing it is not considered a work to accept jesus by faith from Catholics. They are the result of salvation, so if you wished to include salvation as past saved results than yes I agree.

fair enough

I agree with that staments the way your looking at it yes we would all agree. our differences are not that great. i will exspalin when I do post on book of james and salvation.

I know of many Protestants who would take issue with your definition, so that would mean that many Protestants have the same misunderstanding.

Why not, at least in conversation, just use an expression that means what you intend to say?

Please provide any.

That is reason for op please read.

 

[jjsmity]

I am happy to see that at least some of my Baptist brethren have retained this aspect of the Apostolic Faith.

Yes, this was a doctrinal innovation that was created during the Reformation. It is not found in the first 1500 years of the faith.

We are all in agreement, though, that works should follow “as a result”.

For us, what is required is more a QUALITY of faith - saving faith is a faith that works.

Glad you are here.

This is consistent with what the Apostles taught about initial justification, except that they included baptism.

There is a major difference here, jj. Catholics who do such things have lost their Catholicity - They have separated themselves from the Apostolic faith, and defied the TEachings of the Church. The Apostolic faith is not a democracy, or a matter of personal opinion, or polls. There is ONE FAITH.
jjsmity;12470318:

But to prove my point,** get in your car and ask every pastor about salvation.**

???

I find out plenty online with a lot less gas.

Yes, another departure from the faith of the Apsotles.

thanks i guess? any that have not?

I agree with all but the claim that the first 1500 years taught catholic doctrine. That will be for future thread. I know that is the claim.

Glad to be here thank you very much.

just as with any church teachings. BTW priest are teaching salvation in catholic church as protestants in some cases, I know it may be against church official doctrine…

lol, true yet not once has anyone provided a different view of salvation by protestants.

disagree fully, I ma sure that will come up on the book of james/salvation thread.

 

[guanophore]

True about baptism. But the Apostles would also include in the essence of faith that justifies the intention to live by the moral teaching of the Gospel. If one is told by the Lord to “Repent/Reform your life and believe in the gospel”, then believing in the Gospel can’t involve renouncing the act of repentance which includes the intention not to sin.

I got a real eye opener about this here on CAF. I argued for months about justification with a Reformed Christian who insisted that we did not need to repent of our sins. He finally made me understand that their belief is that we don’t turn away from or repent from our sins - only that repentance is from unbelief to belief. I remember how astonished I was, having been had a lifelong exposure to the need to bear deeds that befit repentance.

 

[guanophore]

 right protestant language to say works, really meant sacraments to a catholic.

I think I am still confused. When Protestants accuse Catholics of believing we are saved by “works” they mean we believe we are saved by participating in Sacraments?

after i made a quick look through I would say no way that I noticed.

Ok, that helps me get my bearings.

I think that was wrong passage, please check and repost.

Col 1:24
“Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.”

Since we would both agree that Christ alone could purchase our eternal salvation, and that we, by works, ,can add nothing to the redemption He purchased, what is Paul talking about here?

 

[guanophore]

BTW priest are teaching salvation in catholic church as protestants in some cases,

Can you give an example?

I know it may be against church official doctrine…

For Priests to teach about salvation? how so?

 

[fhansen]

There are no “works” (meaning specific acts of charity) that any Catholic is categorically required to perform as a condition of salvation. We are saved by the Grace of Christian Baptism, and by nothing else.

Actually, that’s not the full teaching of the Church:
2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."

 

[glendab]

Hello JJsmity.

QUOTE=jjsmity;12475212]

Glad to be here thank you very much.

just as with any church teachings. BTW priest are teaching salvation in catholic church as protestants in some cases, I know it may be against church official doctrine…

disagree fully, I ma sure that will come up on the book of james/salvation thread.

I think at this point it would be appropriate to ask what you consider works? Is this simply feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, forgiving offenses, etc. or do you also have other things you consider works that you see as following your salvation? Also key to this discussion is whether or not you consider the Catholic Sacraments as works and if so are all of them works or are there some you’d consider acceptable while others not? And if not, why not? Also important is a list of things you would consider falling outside the realm of works, prayer, worship, fellowship, etc.

These question are necessary for the rest of us to understand exactly your particular issues with Catholicism and where we converge and where we diverge. That way, we can better understand and reply to your questions. I hope you answer them completely.

Glenda

 

[JRKH]

Actually, that’s not the full teaching of the Church:
2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."

Yet if we look at Mt 22:36-40 we see Jesus summarize the whole of the law into two commands…Love God with all our heart mind strength and love neighbor as yourself. On these two all the others are built. So - While the commandments are obligatory, it is because Agape, Love, is obligatory.

Paul confirms this here…
Rom 13:8-10
Brothers and sisters:
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another;
for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery;
you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet, ”
and whatever other commandment there may be,
are summed up in this saying, namely,
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Love does no evil to the neighbor;
hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

And this is perhaps one of the things that gets lost in these sorts of “faith v works” discussions - - - The centrality of Love.
Certainly Paul tells us how were are not saved by by faith and not by works (apart from faith), But Paul also tells us that Faith without Love is nothing.
So I ask - - to no one in particular - - what one thing will produce more good works than Love?

Peace
James

 

[fhansen]

Yet if we look at Mt 22:36-40 we see Jesus summarize the whole of the law into two commands…Love God with all our heart mind strength and love neighbor as yourself. On these two all the others are built. So - While the commandments are obligatory, it is because Agape, Love, is obligatory.

Paul confirms this here…
Rom 13:8-10
Brothers and sisters:
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another;
for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery;
you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet, ”
and whatever other commandment there may be,
are summed up in this saying, namely,
“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Love does no evil to the neighbor;
hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

And this is perhaps one of the things that gets lost in these sorts of “faith v works” discussions - - - The centrality of Love.
Certainly Paul tells us how were are not saved by by faith and not by works (apart from faith), But Paul also tells us that Faith without Love is nothing.
So I ask - - to no one in particular - - what one thing will produce more good works than Love?

Peace
James

You’re right James. And somehow the centrality of love can even get lost-or overwhelmed?- in the teachings of the Church IMO, even as some post-Vat II teachers may have over-used, abused, and generally misunderstood the term. In any case love is the core of the gospel, the basis of the New Covenant. And until our obedience is compelled by love, faith hasn’t yet fulfilled its purpose, our works aren’t so purely motivated, and we simply aren’t yet in the place God desires us to be.

 

[JRKH]

You’re right James. And somehow the centrality of love can even get lost-or overwhelmed?- in the teachings of the Church IMO, even as some post-Vat II teachers may have over-used, abused, and generally misunderstood the term. In any case love is the core of the gospel, the basis of the New Covenant. And until our obedience is compelled by love, faith hasn’t yet fulfilled its purpose, our works aren’t so purely motivated, and we simply aren’t yet in the place God desires us to be.

Beautifully said.