Can we drop "alone" from faith and grace?

[utunumsint]

I have been reading John of the Cross’ Dark Night of the soul, the parts that have to do with passive purgation. This is God’s action working in us to remove our sinful nature and establish us in virtue. This is not a step we can circumvent or pass over. God’s constant flow of graces in these purgations are not optional. They are necessary. Just as Moses lead the people into the desert in faith, it is God’s actions that kept them there, purging them from bad works, cleansing them in progressive ways. The attitude of the people had to be faith, but faith in a God that works in us, transforms us, leads us to purify our intentions, purify our desires, makes us to understand our utter dependency on God for every good thing we have. Ultimately, it is faith in God working in us, causing us to do the works of God. And ultimately, the works do not save, because salvation is union with God. And only God can grant us that union. We must simply allow him to achieve that end in us. The works manifest where God is at in the processes, and how much we are resisting his action.

The part of the gospels where the disciples come back to Jesus and say, look what great things we have accomplished. Jesus says, rejoice rather that your names are inscribe din heaven. That is not our work. That is God’s work, which we have cooperated in and have not resisted. He accomplishes this end. He is ultimately the source and the energy for all we do. The more we unite ourselves to God, the more we clearly realize that all we do, is by his actualizing, purifying, and perfecting power.

God bless,
Ut

 

[aidanbradypop]

justforcatholics.org/benedict_justification.htm

This is a response to Pope Benedict attempting to bring understanding and union regarding faith and works vs faith alone.

We agree faith alone saves! We agree works are neccessary! Amen!

Benedict wished only to distinct that a faith that saves must not be opposed to charity! This was not enough for protestants!

If something is neccessary for salvation, it is part of what saves us. It does not mean It is why God decided to save us. There is a big difference.

James tells us that works complete faith! So faith without works is nothing!
Paul tells us if we have faith but not love, we are nothing!

Therefore, faith and works saves us…not faith alone!..not works alone…but faith and works together! For it is faith manifesting itself. It is no reason to boast. That was Paul’s point. These works are not from us, but from our Father, that we know in our hearts through faith.

Michael

Very well stated Michael. I like how Paul tells us that if we have faith and lack love then we are left with nothing. Works are acts of charity done out of love for God and man.

James…I believe Lutherans and Anglicans could drop the “alone” after faith but many other Protestant denominations could not.

 

[JRKH]

I did a little digging this morning…I’m no linguist or even student of the ancient languages…but I found the following in Strong’s Concordance…

The Greek term Translated most often as “Faith” in the writings of both Paul and James is
“Pistis”. A quick look at the link provided will give the definition of the term…
Nowhere in this definition is there a requirement for action. The nearest might be where it mentions, “…holy fervour…” yet this could mean many things - not all of which will assure salvation (I’m thinking of those who cry “lord lord”).
So - based on this, I have to wonder how the modern “Faith alone” adherent can hold that works are a natural product of faith since such is not included in the definition.

The term works used by Paul and James in the NT is
Ergon
Like Pistis above, that does not require action…Ergon does not require a firm belief in a given thing. I dare say that many people today are employed in jobs in which they have no great or firm belief.

So why do I bring these things up?

It is with this idea. That in trying to understand why the Catholic Church says “faith and works” it is good to understand what ancients understood the terms to mean. Thus - faith and works is actually quite clear and demonstrates the necessary interplay between firm belief and conviction - and acting on that conviction.

Saying “faith alone” - and trying to role works into the definition of faith…just does not fit with the meanings…

Just some thoughts.

Peace
James

 

[aidanbradypop]

I did a little digging this morning…I’m no linguist or even student of the ancient languages…but I found the following in Strong’s Concordance…

The Greek term Translated most often as “Faith” in the writings of both Paul and James is
“Pistis”. A quick look at the link provided will give the definition of the term…
Nowhere in this definition is there a requirement for action. The nearest might be where it mentions, “…holy fervour…” yet this could mean many things - not all of which will assure salvation (I’m thinking of those who cry “lord lord”).
So - based on this, I have to wonder how the modern “Faith alone” adherent can hold that works are a natural product of faith since such is not included in the definition.

The term works used by Paul and James in the NT is
Ergon
Like Pistis above, that does not require action…Ergon does not require a firm belief in a given thing. I dare say that many people today are employed in jobs in which they have no great or firm belief.

So why do I bring these things up?

It is with this idea. That in trying to understand why the Catholic Church says “faith and works” it is good to understand what ancients understood the terms to mean. Thus - faith and works is actually quite clear and demonstrates the necessary interplay between firm belief and conviction - and acting on that conviction.

Saying “faith alone” - and trying to role works into the definition of faith…just does not fit with the meanings…

Just some thoughts.

Peace
James

I trust you listen to the Son Rise Morning Show in Cinn w/ Brian Patrick?

A guest on the show once spoke of this. Maybe you are on to something.

 

[JonNC]

=JRKH;11046940]Jon -

Some great stuff posted by folks on the why of Luther adding alone to the biblical text in German…and in a way you make my very point for me…

Sorry I didn’t respond earlier.

We are speaking English - not German…Therefore “alone” is not necessary either in the written translations or in speech…So why use it???

If Luther added it in order to be more clear in the German…Shouldn’t English speakers eliminate it (in conversations and discussion/debate) for the same reason - - clarity within the language being used?

I think the concern among some, and I think it’s been expressed here, is that without the exclusive adjective “sola” that it will be construed that something else could be involved.

Remember that my OP is speaking about the term being repetitive… not because I don’t believe in the necessity of faith.

As I said, and this is a personal opinion, not speaking for other Lutherans, I know what is taught when it is said that we are justified by grace alone through faith in Christ.

Peace also with you,
Jon

 

[JRKH]

I trust you listen to the Son Rise Morning Show in Cinn w/ Brian Patrick?

A guest on the show once spoke of this. Maybe you are on to something.

Actually no I don’t listen to the morning show.
However I have had similar discussions from time to time on the meaning of greek terms and how they translate.
JonNC mentioned earlier about Luther adding “alone” because of the ways of German speech and writing…and that adding “alone” would be more clear (see my post 57 in reference).
This, along with the post above by rcwitness got me thinking about it again - so I looked it us - again…

So - If, as JonNC said earlier, Luther’s point in adding “alone” was for clarity in the German vernacular - then it can easily be said that the Catholic expression of faith and works is made for the same reason. For Clarity based on the definitions of the words used.

And tying this back into the actual topic of this thread…
Saying “Faith Alone” might have been reasonable in the German of Luther’s day…and might have made sense in discussions among Germans of that time…
The term “faith and works” (or faith that works) makes much more sense in the language we are using here today which is English (or Aw-mericun ).

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

justforcatholics.org/benedict_justification.htm

This is a response to Pope Benedict attempting to bring understanding and union regarding faith and works vs faith alone.

We agree faith alone saves! We agree works are neccessary! Amen!

Benedict wished only to distinct that a faith that saves must not be opposed to charity! This was not enough for protestants!

If something is neccessary for salvation, it is part of what saves us. It does not mean It is why God decided to save us. There is a big difference.

James tells us that works complete faith! So faith without works is nothing!
Paul tells us if we have faith but not love, we are nothing!

Therefore, faith and works saves us…not faith alone!..not works alone…but faith and works together! For it is faith manifesting itself. It is no reason to boast. That was Paul’s point. These works are not from us, but from our Father, that we know in our hearts through faith.

Michael

Actually, for this Lutheran, I found pope Benedict’s words moving, and indicative of the growing understanding between Lutherans and Catholics.

I’m not sure any Lutheran here said that works are necessary for salvation… We say they are necessary for the regenerate, because they are the command of Christ. We also say that repeated and unrepented sin leads to loss of saving faith. Failure to obey His commands is sin.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Actually no I don’t listen to the morning show.
However I have had similar discussions from time to time on the meaning of greek terms and how they translate.
JonNC mentioned earlier about Luther adding “alone” because of the ways of German speech and writing…and that adding “alone” would be more clear (see my post 57 in reference).
This, along with the post above by rcwitness got me thinking about it again - so I looked it us - again…

So - If, as JonNC said earlier, Luther’s point in adding “alone” was for clarity in the German vernacular - then it can easily be said that the Catholic expression of faith and works is made for the same reason. For Clarity based on the definitions of the words used.

And tying this back into the actual topic of this thread…
Saying “Faith Alone” might have been reasonable in the German of Luther’s day…and might have made sense in discussions among Germans of that time…
The term “faith and works” (or faith that works) makes much more sense in the language we are using here today which is English (or Aw-mericun ).

Peace
James

lol @ Aw-mericun

But that leave me scratching my chin. It might have really seemed natural to say it that way in German, but saying it like that changes the whole meaning and doctrine for that matter. I guess what I’m saying is why write it like that for the sake of German when it goes against what St. James wrote about and even St. Paul?

If that were the case then probably every different culture with a different language will have a different belief. Right? Some words do not translate etc.

 

[JonNC]

Actually no I don’t listen to the morning show.
However I have had similar discussions from time to time on the meaning of greek terms and how they translate.
JonNC mentioned earlier about Luther adding “alone” because of the ways of German speech and writing…and that adding “alone” would be more clear (see my post 57 in reference).
This, along with the post above by rcwitness got me thinking about it again - so I looked it us - again…

So - If, as JonNC said earlier, Luther’s point in adding “alone” was for clarity in the German vernacular - then it can easily be said that the Catholic expression of faith and works is made for the same reason. For Clarity based on the definitions of the words used.

And tying this back into the actual topic of this thread…
Saying “Faith Alone” might have been reasonable in the German of Luther’s day…and might have made sense in discussions among Germans of that time…
The term “faith and works” (or faith that works) makes much more sense in the language we are using here today which is English (or Aw-mericun ).

Peace
James

James,
Are the terms “faith and works”, and “faith that works” of the same meaning in Catholic thinking? The two phrases seem rather different to me. The “and” implies works are equal to faith regarding justification, whereas “that” implies works are a necessary result of faith.

Jon

 

[Isaiah45_9]

lol @ Aw-mericun

But that leave me scratching my chin. It might have really seemed natural to say it that way in German, but saying it like that changes the whole meaning and doctrine for that matter. I guess what I’m saying is why write it like that for the sake of German when it goes against what St. James wrote about and even St. Paul?

If that were the case then probably every different culture with a different language will have a different belief. Right? Some words do not translate etc.

Further,

Why did it take 1,500 years to translate more “clearly”?

Nah, there are things I might agree with the beer toting monk, but this is not one of them.

Cheers,

 

[aidanbradypop]

Further,

Why did it take 1,500 years to translate more “clearly”?

Nah, there are things I might agree with the beer toting monk, but this is not one of them.

Cheers,

Leave the beer out of it lol

Yeah I am with you.

 

[JonNC]

Further,

Why did it take 1,500 years to translate more “clearly”?

Nah, there are things I might agree with the beer toting monk, but this is not one of them.

Cheers,

Jose,
I don’t think German translations went back 1,500 years. Additionally, I don’t think it was Luther’s intent to translate “more clearly”. That would presume a comparison. He simply wanted to translate clearly for Germans.

But here’s the main point: lacking evidence to the contrary, it seems Christian charity to take him at his work, regarding his reasons for translating the way he did, including Romans 3:28.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

lol @ Aw-mericun

But that leave me scratching my chin. It might have really seemed natural to say it that way in German, but saying it like that changes the whole meaning and doctrine for that matter. I guess what I’m saying is why write it like that for the sake of German when it goes against what St. James wrote about and even St. Paul?

If that were the case then probably every different culture with a different language will have a different belief. Right? Some words do not translate etc.

The problem here is that we cannot know what the German mind of that time understands when they read certain German words expressed in a German way.

As a parallel…Consider the language that Shakespeare used. It’s English - but to us today it is difficult to read and understand because of differences in terms, sentence structure and so forth. Yet we can assume that, even if Shakespeare was speaking in a more poetic way than the average person on the street, still the general tone and structure of the language made easy sense to those listening and watching the play…

My point being that different cultures and different times expressed and understood things in different ways linguistically. We should take this into account as we look at these matters - and I thank JonNC for pointing this out earlier.

The question before the board is really one in this same vein. Today, here in the English speaking nations, this form of expression “faith alone” (which Jon asserts made perfect sense in 16th century German) does not make the same sense in 21 century English.
And I say this based on many conversations with protestants about what is actually meant by the term faith.

So - setting aside any doctrinal issues - Linguistically “Faith alone” in English makes no sense given what we are told the reformers wished to convey…

Peace
James

 

[JonNC]

The problem here is that we cannot know what the German mind of that time understands when they read certain German words expressed in a German way.

As a parallel…Consider the language that Shakespeare used. It’s English - but to us today it is difficult to read and understand because of differences in terms, sentence structure and so forth. Yet we can assume that, even if Shakespeare was speaking in a more poetic way than the average person on the street, still the general tone and structure of the language made easy sense to those listening and watching the play…

My point being that different cultures and different times expressed and understood things in different ways linguistically. We should take this into account as we look at these matters - and I thank JonNC for pointing this out earlier.

The question before the board is really one in this same vein. Today, here in the English speaking nations, this form of expression “faith alone” (which Jon asserts made perfect sense in 16th century German) does not make the same sense in 21 century English.
And I say this based on many conversations with protestants about what is actually meant by the term faith.

So - setting aside any doctrinal issues - Linguistically “Faith alone” in English makes no sense given what we are told the reformers wished to convey…

Peace
James

Hi James
It isn’t so much that it doesn’t make sense, but that it isn’t necessary in Romans 3:28 for that text to make sense in the English. And as I said, many feel the need for it to make clear the doctrine. For me, when it is said that justification is by grace alone through faith in Christ, I understand that this excludes anything that I can do, and be able to boast in.

Jon

 

[JRKH]

James,
Are the terms “faith and works”, and “faith that works” of the same meaning in Catholic thinking? The two phrases seem rather different to me. The “and” implies works are equal to faith regarding justification, whereas “that” implies works are a necessary result of faith.

Jon

Jon - consider this, two things can be equal and BOTH be necessary…

The terms I covered above bespeak of belief (conviction) and action.
Can one be saved by belief (pistis) without action (argon)? James says no…
Can one be saved by action (argon) without belief (pistis)? Paul says no…
the two things are intertwined…both necessary…

Allow me a poor analogy (that I mentioned earlier)…
Consider three aspects of a car - Fuel (grace) Engine (faith) - wheels (work)…
Which of these things is more important than the others???
In truth - we can’t say that any one is more important than the other. For all practical purposes they are all equal - because they are all necessary…
Remove one of these necessaries and your car turns into an inert pile of metal and plastic.

Now - one can express the interaction of the pieces however they wish…but the essence of the interrelationship - the necessity of all three does not change…

Now - to answer your question…I would say yes that essentially the two phrases you propose express the same idea in Catholic thinking…
The thing that Catholics don’t like (well this Catholic anyway) is how the term “faith alone” seems to isolate and divide things and all too often cause essential principles to be minimized or even discarded by some communities. Here I am thinking of the OSAS types.

I say again - "Faith Alone may have made sense in the German Translation of the 16th century…but in modern English it makes no sense at all.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Hi James
It isn’t so much that it doesn’t make sense, but that it isn’t necessary in Romans 3:28 for that text to make sense in the English.

Agreed.

And as I said, many feel the need for it to make clear the doctrine.

To me - it fails in this.

For me, when it is said that justification is by grace alone through faith in Christ, I understand that this excludes anything that I can do, and be able to boast in.

I understand that when you say this it has a certain meaning - and a good meaning at that.
However If you were to say that, “justification is by grace through faith in Christ”, has the meaning changed?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Further,

Why did it take 1,500 years to translate more “clearly”?

Nah, there are things I might agree with the beer toting monk, but this is not one of them.

Cheers,

The thing about translation is that it is a continual process. Languages change, word usage changes etc…So things that were clear in centuries past may not be clear today.
The best that we can do is to, through apostolic succession, Spirit guidance, and training…make sure that each generation contains scholars on ancient languages as well as various translations and historical context, so that future translations will continue to be "more clear’…

Peace
James

 

[fhansen]

To my protestant brothers and sisters…

If I say that I am save by Grace through Faith - am I saying anything different than if I say Grace alone through Faith alone???

What is the significance of that term…Alone???

It strikes me as repetitive and unnecessary and more of a barrier than a help to understanding one another. I would be happy, and I think it would be constructive to conversation, if this unnecessary term were dropped.

And to my Catholic brothers and sisters…Let us allow the protestants to speak for themselves. Of course if you are a convert and wish to share your insights…or you wish to relate what a protestant friend has shared with you on the matter - that’s fine

Peace
James

There’s another, separate, issue to be dealt with here IMO. To some Protestants we’re saved by our faith, alone, as if faith is the only necessary response to the grace which precedes it. In Catholicism faith is only the beginning step; we’re saved through faith, which then must lead to more than mere faith, but this faith by itself won’t ensure that this happens, or continues to happen. There’s no such thing as a “saving faith”, which either requires no other response on our part or that will, of necessity, lead to other virtues and actions on our part.

Faith, on our part, re-establishes relationship between faithless fallen man and God so that His indwelling Spirit may begin a work of justification/salvation in us. So while faith is essential, it’s not the only essential after grace, just the first one-it’s possible to separate it from other necessary responses.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb4x2iGPex1qe06muo1_500.jpg

Leave the beer out of it lol

Yeah I am with you.

Goodness, I just drooled on my keyboard…

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Jose,
I don’t think German translations went back 1,500 years. Additionally, I don’t think it was Luther’s intent to translate “more clearly”. That would presume a comparison. He simply wanted to translate clearly for Germans.

But here’s the main point: lacking evidence to the contrary, it seems Christian charity to take him at his work, regarding his reasons for translating the way he did, including Romans 3:28.

Jon

Jon,

Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t referring to German specifically but to any other Church translation for 1,500 years.