C
concretecamper
Guest
Faith must involved the intellect, without which, it is romantic folley of human origins.
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
Jon…I like what Luther wrote there…It’s interesting that it really doesn’t seem to match the definition of the Greek word “Pistis”.
It does help to understand how people can actually wind up talking right past one another…Each using the same word - but with very different definitions…
Peace
James
R
rcwitness
Guest
To say the least! It is though he is describing the union of faith and works together:shrug:Jon…I like what Luther wrote there…It’s interesting that it really doesn’t seem to match the definition of the Greek word “Pistis”.
It does help to understand how people can actually wind up talking right past one another…Each using the same word - but with very different definitions…
Peace
James
So where does the faith alone part come from, if faith cannot be alone? Before faith considers if good works are to be done, it has already wrought them! Amen.
I agree, it is a good confession of faith…though faith and works.
How can the work described coming inevitably from this saving faith not be a completion and participation of the Christian’s justification?
P
Peter_J
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
Yes - I am Catholic of the Latin Rite. I don’t understand your confusion…???
Your profile says that you’re Catholic …
Peace
James
P
Peter_J
Guest
How does “Can we drop “alone” from faith and grace?” makes any sense (if the person asking it is Catholic)? That’s like a Protestant saying “Can we drop the requirement to believe in Papal Infallibility?”
P.S. If you meant to say “Can Protestants drop “alone” from faith and grace?” then I could understand that.
J
JRKH
Guest
OK - I wasn’t terribly clear in my OP…But of course I DID ask the question on the “non-Catholic” forum…
And if you read my opening post - I tried to express the idea that “alone” did not make much sense linguistically (or at least that was my intent).
Although the thread did not really stay firmly on topic…there was some good exchange on this very issue…
To summarize, the linguistic aspect of the conversation - - someone said that Luther included “faith alone” in his translation of Roman’s because in the German usage (at least at that time) it made the most sense. In short it would be better understood in the German if translated as Luther did.
My reply to that idea was, Ok - that’s fine in German, but in speaking English, saying “alone” does not clarify…an opinion that I still hold.
Eventually this then led into someone asking how the non-Catholic defines “faith”…Which was quite enlightening but is also about where the thread petered out…
If you have anything to offer on the subject…We are all eyes…
Peace
James
P
Peter_J
Guest
IC.OK - I wasn’t terribly clear in my OP…But of course I DID ask the question on the “non-Catholic” forum…
And if you read my opening post - I tried to express the idea that “alone” did not make much sense linguistically (or at least that was my intent).
Although the thread did not really stay firmly on topic…there was some good exchange on this very issue…
To summarize, the linguistic aspect of the conversation - - someone said that Luther included “faith alone” in his translation of Roman’s because in the German usage (at least at that time) it made the most sense. In short it would be better understood in the German if translated as Luther did.
My reply to that idea was, Ok - that’s fine in German, but in speaking English, saying “alone” does not clarify…an opinion that I still hold.
Eventually this then led into someone asking how the non-Catholic defines “faith”…Which was quite enlightening but is also about where the thread petered out…
If you have anything to offer on the subject…We are all eyes…
Peace
James
B
benjohnson
Guest
I like the WELS paraphrase of Luther’s quote:
“We are justified by faith alone, but justifying faith is never alone.” - that living faith produces works that give evidence of faith.
“We are justified by faith alone, but justifying faith is never alone.” - that living faith produces works that give evidence of faith.
C
concretecamper
Guest
If faith produces works, then how does an atheist produce works? How does an atheist produce works? Is it possible faith can be separated from works?
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
R
rcwitness
Guest
Indeed Martin’s definition of a “saving faith” is most telling…
And your (JRKH) observation that it is the definition of faith that has led to both sides talking past one another is most relavent.
Martin has given us a definition of his faith that saves. It describes this faith as “living”, “busy” and “active”. All three of these descriptions are outside of the term “Pistis” as you have brought up. To say that faith is active is to say that it contains actions, and actions are works!
Now, “protestant thought” (if there is such a ONE) or at least the well grounded Lutheran one, is that though faith to be saving must have work, it is still not those works that save us.
This is where Catholic teaching further makes distinction, therefore the misunderstanding. Catholic teaching acknowledges that it is NOT nor NEVER can be our works that earned us God’s love and desire to save us. He called us,…He sought us,…He made reconciliation to God while we were still in sin. We did not nor could ever have a saving faith without Jesus Christ’s death at calvary for ALL sins. This is the grace that we are always under. The distinction, then, is that works done which DO save us are not outside the sacrifice of Jesus, but offered to God through His sacrifice.
Protestant accussations always wants to describe Catholic “work” that has saving merit as outside faith. When Catholic teaching only maintains that the two cannot be seperated. A work done that is accepted by God is done in the love of Jesus. Jesus being God and neighbor.
This concept can be observed as far back as Cain and Able. Who’s work was accepted by God and why?
All of the examples in the New Testament where Jesus forgives people their sins because of their faith contained action in order for their faith to manifest itself. Their was always a participation and a moving of their faith that completed their faith. The motivation is Love.
Michael
And your (JRKH) observation that it is the definition of faith that has led to both sides talking past one another is most relavent.
Martin has given us a definition of his faith that saves. It describes this faith as “living”, “busy” and “active”. All three of these descriptions are outside of the term “Pistis” as you have brought up. To say that faith is active is to say that it contains actions, and actions are works!
Now, “protestant thought” (if there is such a ONE) or at least the well grounded Lutheran one, is that though faith to be saving must have work, it is still not those works that save us.
This is where Catholic teaching further makes distinction, therefore the misunderstanding. Catholic teaching acknowledges that it is NOT nor NEVER can be our works that earned us God’s love and desire to save us. He called us,…He sought us,…He made reconciliation to God while we were still in sin. We did not nor could ever have a saving faith without Jesus Christ’s death at calvary for ALL sins. This is the grace that we are always under. The distinction, then, is that works done which DO save us are not outside the sacrifice of Jesus, but offered to God through His sacrifice.
Protestant accussations always wants to describe Catholic “work” that has saving merit as outside faith. When Catholic teaching only maintains that the two cannot be seperated. A work done that is accepted by God is done in the love of Jesus. Jesus being God and neighbor.
This concept can be observed as far back as Cain and Able. Who’s work was accepted by God and why?
All of the examples in the New Testament where Jesus forgives people their sins because of their faith contained action in order for their faith to manifest itself. Their was always a participation and a moving of their faith that completed their faith. The motivation is Love.
Michael
J
JRKH
Guest
:thumbsup:
J
JRKH
Guest
To me, where Luther’s description differs from the Greek is in where he describes it as an Action of God that produces certain things. The opening sentence that Jon quoted says this:
Thus faith is a divine work in us, that changes us and regenerates us of God, and puts to death the old Adam, makes us entirely different men in heart, spirit, mind, and all powers, and brings with it [confers] the Holy Ghost.
To me - none of this contains even a germ of what the term “pistis” is defined as. In fact, from my perspective, this thing that Luther describes above I would say mor closely resembles “grace” than “faith” - and since “faith” (pistis) is defined as a belief…then “faith” would strike me more as man’s proper response grace.
This difference may be due to the difference in view between Catholic and protestant on the matter of “Depravity”…I don’t know.
Anyway - the other things that you mention above - the actions - that Luther wishes to roll into and under the banner of “faith” are indeed the output of a lively pistis but they are not pistis itself…at least not on my understanding of the meanings of the Greek.
Amen - I had a very long on-line conversation with some protestants on this very issue after someone had referred to Catholicism as teaching a “works based salvation”…
The claim being that, even though the Catholics required faith, as soon as you added works it became “works based”…
To which I replied that such a view was like building a wooden house on a concrete foundation and then saying the house was “wood based”…
Works and faith cannot be separated…
Peace
James
R
rcwitness
Guest
Very good analogy.Amen - I had a very long on-line conversation with some protestants on this very issue after someone had referred to Catholicism as teaching a “works based salvation”…
The claim being that, even though the Catholics required faith, as soon as you added works it became “works based”…
To which I replied that such a view was like building a wooden house on a concrete foundation and then saying the house was “wood based”…
Works and faith cannot be separated…
B
benjohnson
Guest
The quote has more to do with justification - it makes no claim that only the justified do good works.
Just as even the faithful can sin, those without faith can do good works.
It’s helpful to remember that Lutherans can have differing definitions of Justification and Sanctification.
B
benjohnson
Guest
In conversations like this, it’s also helpful to remember that Lutherans aren’t so much rebelling at modern (and ancient) Catholic teaching - we Lutherans are still fighting the 15th Century idea that works are necessary for salvation that was promulgated.
Hence, why we such sticklers for even the tiniest idea that works can justify.
Hence, why we such sticklers for even the tiniest idea that works can justify.
R
rcwitness
Guest
The point is…is that those good works are not saving works, because they lack the faith.The quote has more to do with justification - it makes no claim that only the justified do good works.
Just as even the faithful can sin,** those without faith can do good works. **
It’s helpful to remember that Lutherans can have differing definitions of Justification and Sanctification.
C
concretecamper
Guest
you quoted …“faith produces good works”. but as you pointed out, faith is not necessary for good works. so you can have one without the other…correct? so one can have faith but do ZERO good works…correct?
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
I
IgnatianPhilo
Guest
Thats like asking a protestant to remove their heart, they will die without it.
C
concretecamper
Guest
Ben said himself you can do good works without faith. He has already separated the two…I am just clarifying.
Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
- Status