Catholic Faith alone

[Emmaus]

Melchior:

Is there any definition of Faith Alone

that would be acceptable to Catholics?

No, because the Catholic Faith is by its very nature a Faith that integrates many facets of Faith. Where as by nature protestantism sesm to separate and put in separate boxes all the varios facets of Faith. In practice they believe in and do good works, but idealogically thay cannot put the two into the same box or they might be Catholic. A lot of this is also tied up with a denial of and different definition of the Sacraments and the Priesthood.

Here is why I am asking. It seems to me that many, many Catholics have the worst possible understanding of the idea. It basically boils down to intellectually acknowledging that Jesus is who He said he was.

You are probably right about that.

But that is clearly not what is meant by the idea of Faith Alone.

Unfortunately that is what it means to some people

So by Faith Alone I mean a faith that is never alone, but working in love. Nevertheless it is faith itself that is primary and must not be set against works but seen as something that includes good works, while understanding that these works do not contribute to Christ’s finished work of atonement but only prove that we have a real faith and not a mere intellectual belief.

Faith alone. Not a faith that is alone.

What you says above is pretty much what R.C Spoul the Presbyterian minister,Seminary Professor and radio show host says.

What do you think?

I think the documents on Justification by the Council of Trent are very helpful and should be read by all Catholics and protestants. to understand what the Church realy says about Faith and Justification. A lot of people in both camps would be surprised.
Here is the link.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM

 

[jpusateri]

theMutant:

I will assume that you quickly scanned through this thread. The portion of my post which you quoted was not my own belief, but my understanding of the Protestant belief of Faith Alone.

David,

You are correct that I didn’t quite unravel your beliefs apart from your agreement that J_Chrysostomos had correctly restated what you had said previously.

It actually hard to tell who believes what and who is presenting the “other side”.

I posted this morning so I am fairly familiar with the thread, though.

I apologize for the mis-characterization.

 

[jpusateri]

Emmaus:

No, because the Catholic Faith is by its very nature a Faith that integrates many facets of Faith. Where as by nature protestantism sesm to separate and put in separate boxes all the varios facets of Faith. In practice they believe in and do good works, but idealogically thay cannot put the two into the same box or they might be Catholic.

I believe that this view is somewhat supported by this article by Peter Kreeft catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

One nugget from here is that what Catholics refer to as “faith”, Protestants are referring to the bundle of faith, hope and love as “faith”.

An interesting angle.

 

[theMutant]

jpusateri:

I apologize for the mis-characterization.

Not a problem. I have difficulty keeping track of who says what myself

 

[Matt16_18]

Melchior:

Don’t kid yourself, brother . The LCMS agrees with Catholicism on far more issues than justification. We have much closer moral stances, we don’t ordain women, we practice closed communion etc. … the ELCA, broke off from the LCMS because of the moral stands we share in common with Catholicism. Mainline Protestantism has nothing in common with Catholicism. They are just for ecumenism at any cost.

Mel

It would be hard to argue with that.

I have seen LCMS websites that say the pope is the Antichrist, and that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. What kind of company are you keeping by posting to this board?

So when are you going to become a Catholic and belong to the only church that has the fullness of truth?

 

[Matt16_18]

One who has true faith will do works but those works are merely evidence of the faith which alone saves us; they do nothing toward our justification.

Consider the state of grace that a Christian is in that has committed mortal sin (of say, adultery), but has not committed the mortal sin of apostasy, heresy, or schism, and has not been excommunicated by the church. The latter four things cause a Christian to lose membership in the Church. The sin of adultery would cause the Christian to be in a state of mortal sin, but he would still a member of the church. He would be united to the church in faith and hope, but not charity. It is possible to be a member of Christ’s church without being justified - and to have faith. The Chrisitan adulterer would have to give his adultery and repent of that sin to restore his justification. Sounds like a “work” that brings justification to me.

The big problem with the “faith alone” theology of the Lutheran’s of all stripes is their denial of the distinction between mortal sins and venial sins.

Lutherans don’t believe in OSAS, but they can never quite explain to you how a Christian could ever become damned either.

 

[Melchior]

Matt16_18:

It would be hard to argue with that.

I have seen LCMS websites that say the pope is the Antichrist, and that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. What kind of company are you keeping by posting to this board?

Well, I do know about the Pope thing. I completely disagree with them of course (it is just plain stupid in my opinion). Interestingly they consider the office of the Pope to be anti-Christ but the Catholic Church itself to be a true Christian church, but one that is in error. The whore of Babylon I have never heard in Lutheran circles. At least the Reformed got rid of the Pope as anti-Christ thing in the Westminster Confession.

So when are you going to become a Catholic and belong to the only church that has the fullness of truth?

When I am convinced. So convince me!

Mel

 

[Matt16_18]

Melchior:

So convince me!

Mel

Unfortunately, my rack and thumbscrews are in storage right now ….

 

[theMutant]

Melchior:

When I am convinced. So convince me!

Taking this and applying it to the topic of the thread, I feel the need to ask if you feel that your own understanding of the Catholic teaching on jusification by Grace through faith and works done in faith is compatible with your idea of what “Faith Alone” means.

Maybe I’m having difficulty with your question because my own understanding of what “Faith Alone” means based on my own studies and the Protestants I have in various ways encountered. I feel that you are suggesting that your idea of “Faith Alone” is compatible with Catholicism and I just don’t see how that is. If this is the case, then I could use a bit more explanation of your own views.

If this is not what you are suggesting, then I simply say that the Church teaches that, by God’s grace, faith justifies us. This Grace is available to us through the Sacrifice of Christ. The works we do in faith also justify us through that same Grace. The Holy Spirit prompts us to good works in the same way that He prompts us to have faith. In the same way that our positive response to His promptings to have faith justifies us, our positive response to His promptings to do good works justifies us. According to my studies and the nearly unanimous testimony the Protestants I have encountered, this is not what is meant by Faith Alone and those who believe in Faith Alone don’t believe that our works justify us, even if we do them as a response to our faith.

 

[Sirach14]

J_Chrysostomos:

Here’s how I’ve understood it. We are saved by grace alone, through the agency of faith (i.e., a trust, reliance on, and submission to the saving work of Jesus Christ, resulting from illumination and regeneration by the Holy Spirit) alone, but that true Christian faith will always result in works. One who is in Christ has their “want to” changed so that they want to do more things for God. (But we can do nothing for God without the assistance and grace of the Holy Spirit!) In this manner works are necessary to prove faith. Calvin said that “we are saved through faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.” Paul and James spoke on two sides of the same coin. One who has no deeds has no saving faith.

The apostles and the Catholic Church taught what the Bible teaches. Salvation is through grace alone but not faith alone as espoused by St. James 2:24. When an individual comes to God,that is, being in the right relationship with God, anything preceding justification whether it is good worksor faith can earn grace. When God instills his love in our hearts, we must live our lives doing acts of love ( Gal. 6:2)
" Even though only God’s grace enables us to love others, these acts of love please him, and he promisis to reward them with eternal life ( Rom. 2:6-7, Gal 6:6-10). Thus good works are meritorious. When we first come to God in faith, we have nothing in our hands to offer him. Then he gives us grace to obey his commandments in love, and he rewards us with salvation when we offer these acts of love back to him ( Matt. 25:34-40).

 

[Maresiedotes]

This has been a fascinating and wonderful thread! First of all, Mel, I’ve read a lot of your posts in other threads and I must say you have a really good grasp on what it means to be charitable. Some people go way off the deep end in their pursuit of “being right”. I don’t find that with anyone in this thread and it’s so TOTALLY refreshing!!

This topic of “sola fida” has come up with so many of my protestant friends…it’s easy for us to understand, but the evangelical bent of many makes it hard for them to know exactly what we mean.

I looked in the Catholic Catechism and found the following, which may shed light on this discussion. I apologize in advance for its length, but I believe it’s very important.

And Mel, no one can “convince” you to be a Catholic but the very grace (of God) you’ve all been talking about. However, you would make an awesome addition to our Church!!

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free amd undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. it introduces us into the intimace of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an “adopted son” he can henceforth call God “Father” in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.

1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our souls to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the source of the work of sanctification.

1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which be believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God. For this reason the believe seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith “works” through charity.”

 

[Pax]

Melchior,

I don’t blame you for getting a bit exercised over this issue. Clearly, justification is one of the primary areas of difference between protestants and catholics. I think that catholics get agitated because of the way most modern day protestants express their understanding of salvation by faith alone. Most of the time it does boil down to mental ascent or something very close to it.

I’ve asked many non-catholics if it were necessary to love God in order to be saved or if faith was sufficient. Most of them will not answer the question directly because deep down inside they know that loving God is “something we do.” Trusting God is “something we do” as well. Even having faith, i.e. believing, is “something we do.” While faith, hope, and charity are supernatural gifts from God, we either make them our own and let God’s grace work within us unto good works, or we grow apart from Christ and become a branch that withers and is eventually burned.

Luther’s teaching is different from that of the apostles. He would never have refered to the book of James as an “epistle of straw” nor would he have added the word “alone” to the book of Romans, if he did not disagree with the church’s historical position as reiterated in the decrees of Trent. While there may be many things in common we cannot in honesty ignore those elements that separate us. A catholic can never have an acceptable version of salvation by faith alone. We might, on the other hand, find some protestants that have something close to the catholic understanding, but we can’t nuance the differences. Scripture and tradition simply will not allow us to compromise.

 

[Maresiedotes]

Continued from previous post:

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it. But “faith apart from works is dead”: when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of His body.

1. The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it; “All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persections which the Church never lacks.” Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation; "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven .

In Christ’s love,

Mary

 

[Gratias_Grace]

Melchior:

Is there any definition of Faith Alone that would be acceptable to Catholics?

Here is why I am asking. It seems to me that many, many Catholics have the worst possible understanding of the idea. It basically boils down to intellectually acknowledging that Jesus is who He said he was. But that is clearly not what is meant by the idea of Faith Alone. It has to do with clinging to or embracing Christ for Salvation. Even better throwing oneself at the Mercy of the Crucified one alone for Salvation. In this context faith means a commitment to something or someone. It is not mere believe combined with a complete change in disposition; submitting to God. This type of faith looks like something.

I think that way to often Catholics pour the worst meaning into the definition of Faith used by Protestants. Just as Protestants assume the definition or Works is something separate and superior to faith in Catholicism. In other words we both have defined ourselves in opposition to each other, rather than having stand alone definitions.

So by Faith Alone I mean a faith that is never alone, but working in love. Nevertheless it is faith itself that is primary and must not be set against works but seen as something that includes good works, while understanding that these works do not contribute to Christ’s finished work of atonement but only prove that we have a real faith and not a mere intellectual belief.

Faith alone. Not a faith that is alone.

What do you think?

Mel

Faith without good work, can’t be a real faith because faith in God will make believers behave according to their faith. Work without faith is like magic.

"Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works" (from the JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION
by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church)-

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

God Bless!

G.G.

 

[GoodME]

I had a quote thrown at me by someone from R. C. Sproul (whoever that is) that stated the following:

Protestant Faith - Faith = Justification + Works

Catholic Faith - Faith + Works = Justification

Apparently this Sproul guy is a writer and nation-wide. What he is saying is that when a protestant has faith, that leads to justification, and this justification (being born again as a new creation …) is what leads to works. He contends that Catholics believe that in the absence of Faith, works can substitute to lead to justification.

The first thing I did was correct the equation for the Catholic Faith model, which I believe is more accurately reflected by:

Faith X Works = Justification

In other words, as earlier posted, works can serve to amplify a weak Faith, and vice-versa. But note that if either term in the equation is zero, the result (justification) is zero also.

So when I hear “Faith Alone”, I take it to mean a belief that works are some kind of by-product of justification. It is very easy from this position to fall into a calvinist determinism position. Some would say that the absence of this “works” by-product indicates a “non-saving” faith. So that means that even if I think my faith is a saving one, it may not actually be??

I think, therefore, that a “Faith-alone” concept is in error and would not ever be acceptable to Catholics. We believe that Faith, Hope and Charity are requisite to salvation. The only way to come up with an acceptable “Faith Alone” concept is to broaden the scope of the definition of “Faith” to include the elements of Hope and Charity.

Just an opinion. Enjoyed the thread so far.

 

[jpusateri]

GoodME,

R.C. Sproul is indeed a Calvinist, being part of the Reformed movement. However some of his theology has softened (but not bent) toward the Catholic position.

One of his radio shows that I heard (many can be heard at www.ligonier.org) teaches on Justification and while it follows the forensic justification / imputation model, Sproul twists the meaning of imputation to an ACTUAL change in the person. This confused me at first, but reading what we Catholics ACTUALLY believe, I unraveled the confusion. He teaches that, rather than JUST being covered by righteousness (concealing an unchanged sinner underneath the covering), God’s judicial declaration of righteousness is REAL. That is, when God SAYS you are righteous you BECOME righteous by fiat. Catholic teaching is that we become righteous by choice (faith), perseverance (hope) and good works (charity) whether on earth or in Purgatory.

So while still not Catholic, he admits that the forensic justification model is lacking for if God let us hide in Jesus’ righteousness that would impugn God’s perfection since nothing unrighteous will enter heaven.

Another good comparison of Dr. Sproul against Catholic justification is found at catholicintl.com/epologetics/SproulJustification.asp

God bless!

 

[Prometheum_x]

Hey Melchior,

I’ve seen your presence on other threads on this board and I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I just became Catholic this Easter, but I had spent all the previous years of my life as a member of the LCMS. While the church I was at was certainly not the most conservative LCMS church out there (for ultra conservative, one need only look to the WELS, haha), it was certainly not an ELCA church. I am no expert on either Luther or Lutheran doctrine, but I am certainly familiar with a lot of it – from a Lutheran perspective.

In regards to the JDDJ, the LCMS did not officially participate, but a number of LCMS congregations did, including my own. A letter was even sent to A. L. Barry expressing disappointment in his disregard for the work of the groups involved in the JDDJ, however imperfect that work might have been. My pastors view on it was that, while it certainly did not address everything and was not perfect, it was a start. Additionally (and this is for anyone reading the thread), the JDDJ only dealt with the issue of initial justification and did not deal with *final *justification. Also, from the Catholic side, it was a committee that worked on it and signed the Declaration; however, the JDDJ did not receive official approval from the Catholic Church (unless that has changed recently, I have not followed its progress lately).

 

[elgom]

Well, everybody, I have really enjoyed this discussion. I am a cradle Catholic and I guess all the differences of understanding on the terminology has me a bit confused, but I am learning. I need to ask a question, even if it is stupid. Aren’t we really all talking about Sanctifying Grace.

In a book I read by Frank Sheed he said we all have a problem understanding what Sanctifying Grace is. He said that Sanctifying Grace is the life of God. He gave the following analogy.

If you always wanted to go the moon on a space ship and someone had one and was willing to take you. Then you hopped on board and went to the moon with no preparation. When you got off you would die because you couldn’t breathe the air there (or lack thereof).

He explained that the whole purpose for Jesus’ leaving us a visible Church is to help us grow in Sanctifying Grace, or the life of God. Through the sacraments and in following the Commandments and Teachings of Jesus like Love your Neighbor as yourself, etc. the sanctifying grace of God grows in our souls. This sanctifying grace then pours out of us to others in the form of works or loving actions, etc.

When and if we die in this state of sanctifying grace which is God’s life in us we can live in heaven. Without it we can not. If it is not perfected, we cannot.

Am I correct in thinking that this is part of this same subject. Please help me learn. Thank you in advance.

 

[Matt16_18]

eglom

*When and if we die in this state of sanctifying grace which is God’s life in us we can live in heaven. Without it we can not. If it is not perfected, we cannot.

Am I correct in thinking that this is part of this same subject. *

This is indeed germane. Some have asserted that Catholics believe that to be saved one must have both faith and works of charity. But what about an child that is baptized and dies before the age of reason? Is that child saved by his faith and his works of charity? No. Is the child saved by faith alone? No. The child is saved by grace alone. We are all saved by grace alone.

The real question is this: can a Christian earn his damnation by doing evil works? The answer is, yes, he can. Sins are works that earn a wage. Eternal life is a free gift of God.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

 

[Tom]

Melchior:

We are in 100% agreement. I don’t know any Christian who thinks faith without works is not dead.

And there is the problem. There are a lot of Protestants who think faith without works is fine. Actually I’ve argued with some who claimed if you did “works” you weren’t trusting God.
My question is why add the word “alone”? It implies leaving everything else out. I would disagree with any “sola” even sola Christi. Christ alone, it would delete the Father and the Holy Spirit, which of course can not be done. Can’t you just say your salvation is from faith? Why would you have to limit that? The problem is the words faith alone leads the uninformed to believe that all they need to do is believe, nothing else.