Catholic Faith alone

[elgom]

Thank you for your help. Am I right also that actually Martin Luther added the word “alone” to scripture. If we aren’t to make any changes to scripture then how can we trust such a man to help us understand the scriptures.

 

[Zski01]

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THE ARTICLE BY JAMES AKIN MENTIONED ABOVE IN A FEW POSTS, AND HIS MORE COMPLETE VERSION IN HIS BOOK THE SAVLATION CONTROVERSY. THIS BOOK SHEDS LIGHT ON QUESTIONS ASKED BY CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS ALIKE, AND SHOWS HOW SIMILAR WE ARE IN THOUGHT IN MANY AREAS.JAMES AKIN IS AN INCREDIBLE THEOLOGIAN AND APOLOGIST (ALONG WITH THE MANY OTHERS WHO UPKEEP THIS SITE)!

 

[Zski01]

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND Dr. James Akin’s The Salvation Controversy. It’s a great book and is an expansion of the essay he wrote (mentioned in replies above)

 

[Zski01]

Earlier in this thread, someone claimed that Protestants are heretics. Let me just state that we, as Catholics, do not believe this. The Catechism refers to Protestants as “separated brethren” in Christ, not heretics. Luther is no longer held as a heretic in the Church.

If we hold the attidude of supremacy or aloofness from Protestants, the “iron curtain” between us will remain and keep us steeped against each other, opposed to fulfilling our commission to spread the Gospel to non-Christians.

I’m not trying to be confrontational, but factual.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Earlier in this thread, someone claimed that Protestants are heretics. Let me just state that we, as Catholics, do not believe this. The Catechism refers to Protestants as “separated brethren” in Christ, not heretics. Luther is no longer held as a heretic in the Church.

That’s incorrect.

One can be a “separated brethren” and still be a heretic. The Catholic Church merely asserts “all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ … have a right to be called Christians … are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Therefore, they are still Christians (brethren) yet separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, “… ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish * heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin” (CCC 817).

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“***Heresy ***is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same” (CCC 2089)

For example, if one believes that St. Mary was not immaculately concieved, they deny a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith according to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, therefore, they are a certainly a heretic. They may be merely a material heretic and not a formal heretic. But they are still a heretic.

Formal heresy differs from material heresy in that the latter may be due to impediments to the intellect and/or will, such as invincible ignorance, which dimish or take away the guilt of the sin.

From Fr. John Hardon, S.J.,

In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (*Pocket Catholic Dictionary - *

Heresy)
*

 

[Pug]

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.

I get lost in this somewhere. For me, any formula that puts works before justification seems to attempt to imply that one somehow merits initial justification by having done something, like gone to a church to get baptized or whatnot. My understanding is that Trent disallows any merit for works or faith before initial justification.

So by works being put before the initial justification, are they talking about your will consenting, but just not as meritorious? I accept that the Holy Spirit disposes us to have our will go along with the gift of faith, so our will is not like a dead thing as if we had none.

But then the formulas above would be trying to say that Catholics think we have a non-dead will that does go along with faith or consents or something to receiving the faith, but that Protestants think we are given faith by force, against our will or against our previous totally dead will? If this is the case, why do the formulas use the word “works” and not “will”?

Or is my confusion because the first (a type of Protestant) formula is for initial justification and that I am not supposed to figure that the second formula is about initial justification?

Here are two Council of Trent things I use as rudders:

“…we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification…”

and also the whole of chapter five in session 6

"It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God throught Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called: that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace;, so that, while God touches the heart of man throught the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiriation, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight. Hence when it is said in the sacred writings: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you”, we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply: “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,” we confess that we need the grace of God.

AAACK, my typing fingers are now broken :crying: no more typing.

 

[Les_Richardson]

Melchior:

What do you mean by works? Work of the law (which is the 10 Commandments). How many works must I add to my faith to be saved? How do I know it is a true work? You see where I am going.

Mel

Matthew 22:37-40
37 He said to him, 22 “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: 23 You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 24 The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”
That is the definition of works isn’t it?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Pug,

St. Augustine taught: “God works in man many good things to which man does not contribute; but man does not work any good things apart from God, since it is from God man receives the power to do the good things he does.” We believe in salvation by grace alone, and we do not believe man EVER earns grace by his own efforts. Not initially, not finally. It is always unearned by man. It is always merited by the Christ. However, by God’s providence, Christ merits our salvation by working in man.

God desires man to be a co-worker with God in receiving his gifts. We can resist the Holy Spirit, or we can be God’s co-worker. For example, God could have poofed manna into the bellies of His people. They need not have done a thing. Yet, He didn’t. He gave them the heavenly gift called manna without their earning it, while at the same time He required their participation, their synergy, in the receipt of that gift. They had to collect the manna a specific way or it would turn to worms and fail to have its effect. He required their obedience in order to receive the *still unearned *gift. One must remain clear, it was the gift, not their obedience that feed them. The obedience added nothing to the effect of the gift. The disobedience, however, detracted from the effect of the gift.

Same with other more perfect heavenly gifts such as salvific grace. God desires man to accept his salvific grace, not by resisting it, but instead by obeying it, in order to receive it. That obedience is not man attempting to work to earn heaven, but man’s “faith in action”–a faith that is impossible without grace. God requires obedience in order to recieve the *still unearned *gift of salvific grace. It is the gift, not the obedience that saves. The obedience adds nothing to the salvific effect of the free gift of grace. Yet, disobedience does indeed detract from the effect of the gift, such that like manna which turns to worms, it may be received in vain.

“Working together with (Gk “sunergountes”) Him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain” (2 Corinthians 6:1).

In the above passage, “working together with God” does not mean to a Catholic that man contributes some portion of the merit which is all Christ’s. It simply means, we are NOT working against God, but allowing the Holy Spirit to move us to obey God’s will.

Good works are not our works. They are “God working in man … which man does not contribute” (St. Augustine). While we do not contribute in ANY WAY our own salvation, we are indeed called to work together with God such that the unearned gift of grace is not accepted in vain.

“The Lord can only have fellowship with his servants as they obey.”
– Protestant theologian, C.H. Spurgeon

 

[jpusateri]

Pug:

I get lost in this somewhere. For me, any formula that puts works before justification seems to attempt to imply that one somehow merits initial justification by having done something, like gone to a church to get baptized or whatnot. My understanding is that Trent disallows any merit for works or faith before initial justification.

So by works being put before the initial justification, are they talking about your will consenting, but just not as meritorious? I accept that the Holy Spirit disposes us to have our will go along with the gift of faith, so our will is not like a dead thing as if we had none.

Pug,

You have laid your finger on the sore. This characterization of Catholics by Dr. Sproul is exactly the difference between the epistles to Romans and of James.

Romans disallows any works as good. Period. Dr. Sproul (and Protestantism) leans heavily on this book. James’ epistle, on the other hand, takes a less condemning view of works. Who is right?

It seems we have a Protestant, either-or vs. a Catholic both-and view.

As far as your formula is concerned, Catholic teaching is that Faith is the root of justification. But it is just the start. So works before justification fall into the Romans category. i.e. not worthy of God. Works after initial justification are meritorious works and fall into the James category (since James wrote to believers). These works continue the work of justification, which in Catholic theology is synonymous with sanctification, which is the process of becoming more Christ-like.

So, in this way, Catholics reconcile both Romans and James (i.e. two different contexts for works) and, as I recall, Luther wanted James out of the canon of Scripture.

Much more can be said… does this help?

 

[javelin]

jpusateri:

These works continue the work of justification, which in Catholic theology is synonymous with sanctification, which is the process of becoming more Christ-like.

Thank you to all who have participated in this discussion–it is very interesting.

I have one question for clarification that may help (and maybe not ) in differentiating the various viewpoints that have been expressed, and jpusateri touched on it in the above quote.

I remember learning something a while back (from a Scott Hahn tape maybe?) on the differences in the meaning and import of the words justification, sanctification, and salvation. I have the nagging feeing there was another that was important, but I can’t recall. . If I remember correctly, these events or processes take place in the Christian’s life and are all “fueled” by different things. Somehting like “justification is through faith (bought by Christ’s one-time death on the cross) , sanctification through works done in faith (i.e. love), and salvation solely by God’s grace”.

My memory is very foggy, which is why I’m asking for clarification here, and please don’t attribute these as Scott Hahn quotes!

It seems though, that when talking about “initial” vs. “final”, and what justification actuially is, many may be confusing one or more of the terms above with another one, or simply grouping them all under one term. If that is the case, then it’s no wonder there is general confusion!

Clarification anyone?
javelin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From Fr. John Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

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.)

SANCTIFICATION. Being made holy. The first sanctification takes place at baptism, by which the love of God is infused by the Holy Spirit (Romans 5:5). Newly baptized persons are holy because the Holy Trinity begins to dwell in their souls and they are pleasing to God. The second sanctification is a lifelong process in which a person already in the state of grace grows in the possession of grace and in likeness to God by faithfully corresponding with divine inspirations. The third sanctification takes place when a person enters heaven and becomes totally and irrevocably united with God in the beatific vision. (Etym. Latin sanctificare, to make holy.)

SALVATION. In biblical language the deliverance from straitened circumstances or oppression by some evil to a state of freedom and security. As sin is the greatest evil, salvation is mainly liberation from sin and its consequences. This can be deliverance by way of preservation, or by offering the means for being delivered, or by removing the oppressive evil or difficulty, or by rewarding the effort spent in co-operating with grace in order to be delivered. All four aspects of salvation are found in the Scriptures and are taught by the Church. (Etym. Latin salvare, to save.)

 

[jpusateri]

Javelin,

You bring up many of the key points.

I understand it as:

• God-given Grace fuels initial Faith
• Faith, “preventing and helping grace” and meritorious works fuel justification/sanctification.
• Once sanctified, you have sanctifying grace which is what Adam lost (among other things) at the Fall and is necessary for eternal communion with God.
• Salvation is the term for the whole process.

Did I answer the question?

 

[theMutant]

javelin:

Somehting like “justification is through faith (bought by Christ’s one-time death on the cross) , sanctification through works done in faith (i.e. love), and salvation solely by God’s grace”.

Well, it’s not necessarily a bad formula but I don’t think I can completely agree with it. After all, we are justified at baptism and, if that occurs during infancy, then there is no faith. If we persevere in our faith in times of trial, then that sactifies us. It may be a good starting point but once that point has passed more is needed.

All of it is through Grace. Faith and works can only have any impact on our salvation through the Grace Christ provides to us through the Cross. To me, sanctification is the action of God’s grace in us to make us holy (through both faith that works in love). Justification is whenever Jesus acknowleges us before the Father. Salvation is that for which we hope in faith and for which we work in faith – eternal life with God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

After all, we are justified at baptism and, if that occurs during infancy, then there is no faith.

I believe there is faith … the faith of the community of believers. Remember, some were healed by Jesus because of their own faith, but others were healed because of the faith of their friends (e.g., the paralytic).

 

[theMutant]

itsjustdave1988:

I believe there is faith … the faith of the community of believers. Remember, some were healed by Jesus because of their own faith, but others were healed because of the faith of their friends (e.g., the paralytic).

Very true. I was only speaking of personal faith in relation to our own justification. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify this.

 

[Steven_Merten]

Jesus tells us that those who put faith in John the Baptist and believe in John the baptist are entering into the Kingdom of God.

**NAB MATTHEW 21:31 **

Jesus said to them, **"I assure you that tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God **before you. When John came preaching a way of holiness, you put no faith in him; but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did believe in him. Yet even when you saw that, you did not repent and believe in him. "
Sometimes I have to wonder if people use their bible on disk software just for Christmass tree ornaments. If you run the word believe on bible on disk software you will see that the biblical definition to the word believe means to obey God and to do what He tells you to do. geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/7a.htm
The term faith can be defined similiarly, yet it is not as well defined. geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/8a.htm

NAB MAT 19:16

“Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Jesus instructs us that, if we wish to go to heaven, keep the commandments. Yet the protestants do not believe in Jesus words. They do not put faith in what Jesus says. They do this because of the absolute biblical word of St. Paul. The only problem is that St. Paul is not talking about God’s commandments. St. Paul is talking about the pharisee created trivial Church laws and the law of circumcision. St. Paul also tells us to obey the commandments to go to heaven Romans 2:13. geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/5a.htm

Jesus condemns the Pharisee Church leader laws, which are used to manipulate God’s commandments, as St. Paul condemns such laws.

NAB MAR 7:9

(Jesus destroys the law to uphold the Law.)
He went on to say: **“You have made a fine art of setting aside God’s commandment in the interests of keeping your traditions! **For example, Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and in another place, ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death.’ Yet you declare, ‘If a person says to his father or mother, Any support you might have had from me is korban’ (that is, dedicated to God), you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother. **That is the way you nullify God’s word in favor of the traditions you have handed on.” **(MAT 15:7-20) (MAR 7:18-23)

Believe in Jesus and put faith in Jesus by doing what He tells you to do. Don’t listen to the protestants who teach opposite or anti-Christ’s instructions.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[theMutant]

Steven Merten:

Jesus tells us …

Maybe it’s just me but I just don’t see how what you have posted addresses the topic of this thread or answers Melchior’s questions.

 

[Steven_Merten]

theMutant:

Maybe it’s just me but I just don’t see how what you have posted addresses the topic of this thread or answers Melchior’s questions.

It was my interpetation that Melchior’s question was addressed to the long standing difference between Catholics and Protestants on “justification”. A difference which was one of the main causes of the Protestant Reformation scisim flowing from Martin Luther’s rebellion to the Catholic Church. The difference is what Jesus told us to do to go to heaven and what Protestants inturpert what St. Paul’s biblical writings tell us to do to go to heaven.

Galatians 2:16 (St. Paul is Speaking)

…who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

NAB MATTHEW 19:16 (Jesus is Speaking)

The dangers of riches. Another time a man came up to him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?” He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” In the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed by the Catholics and Lutherans they totally left out Christ’s teachings to obey the commandments if we wish to enter into life. In fact they quoted or refferenced St. Paul 10 to 1 over Jesus when defining what we must do to go to heaven. Is ecumenanism worth throwing out Christ’s teaching on what we must to go to heaven?

***JOINT DECLARATION ***
ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

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

My point on the issue is to go to scripture and use the hundreds of times the terms “faith” and “believe” are used biblically to come up with biblical definitions to these terms. We should do this rather than dreaming up definitions to these words on our own. It seemed to me Melchior was suggesting some different definitions to Catholic and Lutheran definitions to the terms “faith” and “believe”.

The way people go to heaven is through Jesus Christ, the reason people go to heaven is because they love God and love for God is accomplished through free from the will of God obedience to the will of God.

Melchoir asks, “What do you think?” and this is what I think.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[Pug]

jspusateri:

Works after initial justification are meritorious works and fall into the James category (since James wrote to believers). These works continue the work of justification, which in Catholic theology is synonymous with sanctification, which is the process of becoming more Christ-like.

 Okay, so the formula that is putting the works in front of the justification is trying to talk about ongoing justification.  For a Catholic that would be like how receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist brings about an increase in sanctifying grace?  Or perhaps Rev 22:11 "…the righteous must still do right, and the holy still be holy…"

I’d have to go back and look at Romans to see about if the works there are all pre-justification works. I do remember it is written to a believing community and that it mentions the obedience of faith. Actually I’m not that bad off , I remember a bit more, but not the part about the usage of works in it.

Yes, it helps. But then a Protestant does not believe in any sort of ongoing justification or increase in grace, I take it.

 

[theMutant]

Steven Merten:

It seemed to me Melchior was suggesting some different definitions to Catholic and Lutheran definitions to the terms “faith” and “believe”.

Odd, he stated very clearly that he only intends a “faith working in love” (an expression perfectly acceptable to the Catholic Church) when he speaks of faith. His question is that, since he believes, as do Catholics, that works must accompany faith, is there an understanding of “Faith alone” that is acceptable according to Catholic teaching. Ultimately, the answer is no because the Lutheran formula doesn’t acknowlege that we are justified by grace through the works we do along with being so justified by grace through the faith we have.

Your posts, so far have just seemed to emphasize the necessity of works; a point which Melchior himself emphasized when he started this thread.