Catholic view of Justification, the Biblical support for this view, and associated theological terminology.

[fhansen]

TEST SOME OF FURTHER TEACHINGS OF THE CATECHISM ON OUR SALVATION

1813 The theological virtues are … infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make

them capable of acting as his children and of meriting eternal life. …

1821 … In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to

persevere “to the end” and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s ***eternal

reward for the good works*** accomplished with the grace of Christ. …

2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the

Holy Spirit, **we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain

eternal life**, as well as necessary temporal goods.

KEY POINTS OF THE ABOVE THEACHINGS OF THE CATECHISM

1. God’s children can merit eternal life.
2. The joy of heaven/our salvation is the reward of our works.
3. Apart from the initial grace, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

THE TEST IS CONCLUSIVE

1. Part of the Catechism is a disgrace.
2. The catechism contains the most serious heresies in Christianity.
3. The Roman Curia is infiltrated by Satan’s undercover agents as it is repeatedly

described throughout in the Scripture. – Matt.7:15-18; Matt.13:24-30, 36-43;

Matt.24:4-5, 11, 24; Acts 20:29-31; 2 Cor.11:13-15; 2 Pet.2:1-3; Jude 4.

1. Satan’s undercover agents in the Roman Curia working on hard to keep our Catholic brothers and sisters in the state of Bible illiteracy.
2. 2 Pet.2:1-3 explains: False prophets and false teachers who are among us SECRETLY bring in destructive heresies.

They SECRETLY put their heresies into among the genuine teachings.

When Bible illiterate Catholics read these heresies consider them genuine teachings, they

don’t have the knowledge to test them, they don’t even consider need to, they just believe

it and as the results their knowledge and their faith doomed to fail and as 2 Pet.2:2

describes it; “many will follow their destructive ways.” – This is the very reason those who

infiltrated the Roman Curia do everything to keep us Catholics Bible illiterates.

WE CAN READ THE RESULTS OF OUR BIBLE ILLITERACY AND THEIR INFILTRATION AS FOLLOWS

YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE by Peter Kreeft

Peter Kreeft is one of the most popular and widely-read Catholic authors of today.

Peter Kreeft is on The Advisory Board of the Catholic Education resource Center.

“Highly recommended to all those who want to deepen their spiritual lives.

The beauty of this book is that it literally makes the [Bible] come to alive.” – John A. Harden, S.J.

Quote from pages 230, 248, 249.

“The mistakes of the Corinthians were mistakes of addition; the mistakes of the Galatians

was subtraction. The Corinthians had polluted the gospel.

The Galatians had abandoned it for another religion, “a different gospel.” …

Many religiously uneducated Catholics still believe this Galatian heresy today (Gal.1:6-9). …

**No mistake could be more serious. Yet as we shall see, this is the single most common

mistake in the Church today. **

Not a small minority but a large majority of the Catholics today not only don’t know the

basic doctrines of the Catholic theology anymore, they don’t even know how to get to Heaven!

Until this unbelievable failure is remedied, it is pointless to pray to God for ecumenical

peace and reunion between Christian churches.

It is not clear that one who does not even know how to get to Heaven can accurately be called a Christian.

I am not suggesting, as many Protestant Fundamentalists do, that most Catholics are not saved.

But I am suggesting that perhaps most will be saved as good pagans, as “anonymous

Christians” rather than as Catholic Christians.” End quote

God bless.

LatinRight

Now tell us how you* really* feel, LR. Took long enough to get to this point.

 

[Wesrock]

Not a small minority but a large majority of the Catholics today not only don’t know the basic doctrines of the Catholic theology anymore, they don’t even know how to get to Heaven!

I agree, more Catholics need to pick up their Catechisms and give it a serious read through and trust in actual Church teaching.

Reading through sections of Summa Contra Gentiles now. The Catechism seems to echo Saint Thomas in many places.

[1] From what has been said it is quite manifest that man cannot merit divine help in advance. For everything is related as matter to what is above it. Now, matter does not move itself to its own perfection; rather, it must be moved by something else. So, man does not move himself so as to obtain divine help which is above him; rather, he is moved by God to obtain it.” Now, the movement of the mover precedes the movement of the movable thing in reason and causally. Therefore, divine help is not given to us by virtue of the fact that we initially move ourselves toward it by good works; instead, we make such progress by good works because we are preceded by divine help.

…

[1] Since what is given a person, without any preceding merit on his part, is said to be given to him gratis, and because the divine help that is offered to man precedes all human merit, as we showed, it follows that this help is accorded gratis to man, and as a result it quite fittingly took the name grace. Hence, the Apostle says, in Romans (11:6): “And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace.”

…

[1] Now, for the solution of these points one should first set down that certain signs of the original sin appear with probability in the human race. For, since God takes care of human acts so as to give reward for good works and set a penalty for bad works, as was previously shown, it is from the very penalty that we can assure ourselves of the fault. Now, the human race commonly suffers various penalties, both bodily and spiritual. Greatest among the bodily ones is death, and to this all the others are ordered: namely, hunger, thirst, and others of this sort. Greatest~ of course, among the spiritual penalties is the frailty of reason: from this it happens that man with difficulty arrives at knowledge of the truth; that with ease he falls into error, and that he cannot entirely overcome his beastly appetites, but is over and over again beclouded by them.

…

12] Moreover, as was shown in Book III, by divine providence sinners deserve punishment, and those who do well a reward. But in this life men, composed of soul and body, sin or act rightly. Therefore, in both the soul and the body men deserve reward or punishment. But that in this life they cannot achieve the reward of ultimate happiness is clear from the points made in Book III. And time after time sins are not punished in this life; rather, in fact, as we read in Job (21:7) here “the wicked live, are advanced, and are strengthened with riches.” Necessarily, then, we must assert a repeated union of the soul with the body, so that man can be rewarded and punished in the body as well as in the soul.

…

[4] One reason is taken from the very purpose of the resurrection. For both the good and the evil will rise for this: that in their very own bodies they may receive their reward or their punishment for the deeds they performed while they lived in the body. But the reward of the good, felicity, that is, will be everlasting; in like fashion, too, everlasting punishment is due to mortal sin. Each of these points was established in Book III. Necessarily, then, in each case an incorruptible body must be assumed.

…

[1] From these points, of course, we can gather that immediately after death the souls of men receive either punishment or reward according to their merits.

…

[1] It is apparent from the foregoing that man’s acts are punished or rewarded by God.

…

3] Again, wherever there is a proper order to an end, this order must lead to the end, while a departure from this order prevents the attainment of the end. For things which depend on the end derive their necessity from the end; that is to say, this means is necessary if the end is to be attained—and under these conditions, if there be no impediment, the end is achieved. Now, God has imposed on men’s acts a certain order in relation to the final good, as is evident from preceding statements. So, it must be, if this order is rightly laid down, that those who proceed according to this order will attain the final good, and this is to be rewarded; but those who depart from this order by means of sin must be cut off from the final good, and this is to be punished.

…

Hence, just as when natural things adhere to a due order in their natural principles and actions, the preservation of their nature and the good in them necessarily follows, while corruption and evil result when there is a departure from the proper and natural order—so also, in human affairs, when a man voluntarily observes the order of divinely imposed law, good must result, not as if by necessity, but by the management of the governor, and this is to be rewarded.

…

Therefore, it is necessary that human sins be given punishment of divine origin and, for the same reason, that good deeds receive their reward.

…

1] Since divine justice requires, for the preservation of equality in things, that punishments be assigned for faults and rewards for good acts, then, if there are degrees in virtuous acts and in sins, as we showed, there must also be degrees among rewards and punishments.

I really don’t think I need to continue.

 

[LatinRight]

Now tell us how you* really* feel, LR. Took long enough to get to this point.

God bless Fhansen,

As a Christian I feel well and free, as a Catholic Christian I feel sad of those Catholics who are on the way to be saved as “good pagans.”

I wish Fhansen you become for them their “Billy Graham.”

Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t mean to lead the Catholics to be Protestants, I mean to lead the Catholics to heaven to the Wedding Banquet.

The RCC has very good Doctrines and teachings, far superior then the Protestants has.

Yet in general the Catholics believe the teachings of our uninvited guests.

In general Catholics don’t believe our teachings of 1992, 2020, etc. they believe the teachings of our uninvited guest 1813, 1821, 2027, etc.

I wonder how many % Catholics know the conditions of good work/supernatural work?

Of course they cannot that because that would contradict the teachings of our uninvited guests. – A Catholic cannot chose to work freely he must work for to merit his own salvation, even to merit God’s unmerited grace.

But you know Fahnsen, Catholics personally responsible for their situation.

Many Catholics has incredible religious pride. I wish instead of religious pride should study the Scripture and they would recognize the teachings of the RCC.

I help my Catholic brothers and sisters as much as I can and I don’t leave the Catholic Church, but I’m sad for their luck of care.

If they would study the Scripture they wouldn’t be on the road to be saved as “good pagans.”

You might can do something about that Fhansen to inspire the Catholics to start to study the Scripture.

God Bless

LatinRight

 

[Cathoholic]

LatinRite.

You know a lot of people here at CAF have been very patient with you.

But when you place inappropriate posts about the Catholic Catechism being a “disgrace”, calling teachings in the Catechism “heresies”, running down the “Roman Curia”, etc. etc. this is not acceptable.

That is not how to behave in another person’s “house”.

If you have a rational argument present it.

I sense you falling into insulting the Church here, due to you painting yourself theologically speaking, into a corner.

I didn’t need to appeal to the Catechism here. I did so because you labeled yourself “Catholic”.

If you want, I would be happy to show you the same teachings using a Scripture ALONE method instead.

But it appears you do not want to enter into dialogue. And that’s fine. Remember, you can always come here to CAF and just read the posts too.

I would suggest you read and re-read them over many times.

I will try to deal with some of the issues you have brought up later.

Hang in there LatinRite and keep praying.

After spending time daily worshiping the one true Triune God, might I suggest praying at least a decade of the Rosary daily. If you won’t consider that, then perhaps a few minutes of praying the Psalms every day.

Consider adding in some fasting as well (perhaps a “bread and water lunch” on Wednesdays and Fridays?).

If this fits with your schedule, try to spend time in front of the Blessed Sacrament at Adoration about an hour a week if possible. Read your Bible there, sit and think, and worship Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

I’ll be praying for you (and you pray for me please too).

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[Cathoholic]

Some here are getting tripped up on the concept of merit I think.

There is STRICT merit. Only Jesus “strictly merits”.

But then Jesus gives us grace or “talents”.

Once we have this GIFT, we, by cooperating, are expected to DO something with those talents (grace).

This is a different kind of merit (sometimes broken down into condign and congruous merit - see here for example).

It is not strict merit.

Once we have grace, we CAN MERIT.

Once the Holy Spirit is in us, once we are born again or born of water and the Spirit (Baptized), we CAN merit because God is AT WORK IN US in a special way.

Not merit on our own . . . . but merit WITH Christ who works IN US and through us.

And it is not saying we cannot REJECT graces and refuse to merit. We CAN refuse.

It is inappropriate to refuse to “earn interest” with the graces or “talents” we have been given, but we ARE FREE to refuse.

• Strict Merit (ONLY Jesus)
• NOT Strict Merit (Us ALONG WITH Jesus who works in us and through us)

So there is a sense we cannot merit, but in another sense we CAN merit (with the grace of Christ).

That is why BOTH meriting and inability to merit are true.

And this is not a self-contradiction, because both types of “merit” are used in different senses.

A self-contradiction is diametrically opposed propositions used in the SAME sense.

The Catholic Christian concept of merit does NOT have this self-contradiction (strict merit is a different sense than non-strict merit).

That’s WHY we affirm ALL of what the CCC teaches about inability to merit AND (in another sense), the ability to merit (WITH GRACE) and hopefully everything else.

And with GRACE we MUST merit according to our state in life.

See grace in the parable of talents and I think it may be of value.

See it here and here.

 

[fhansen]

Some here are getting tripped up on the concept of merit I think.

There is STRICT merit. Only Jesus “strictly merits”.

But then Jesus gives us grace or “talents”.

Once we have this GIFT, we, by cooperating, are expected to DO something with those talents (grace).

This is a different kind of merit (sometimes broken down into condign and congruous merit - see here for example).

It is not strict merit.

Once we have grace, we CAN MERIT.

Once the Holy Spirit is in us, once we are born again or born of water and the Spirit (Baptized), we CAN merit because God is AT WORK IN US in a special way.

Not merit on our own . . . . but merit WITH Christ who works IN US and through us.

And it is not saying we cannot REJECT graces and refuse to merit. We CAN refuse.

It is inappropriate to refuse to “earn interest” with the graces or “talents” we have been given, but we ARE FREE to refuse.

• Strict Merit (ONLY Jesus)
• NOT Strict Merit (Us ALONG WITH Jesus who works in us and through us)

So there is a sense we cannot merit, but in another sense we CAN merit (with the grace of Christ).

That is why BOTH meriting and inability to merit are true.

And this is not a self-contradiction, because both types of “merit” are used in different senses.

A self-contradiction is diametrically opposed propositions used in the SAME sense.

The Catholic Christian concept of merit does NOT have this self-contradiction (strict merit is a different sense than non-strict merit).

That’s WHY we affirm ALL of what the CCC teaches about inability to merit AND (in another sense), the ability to merit (WITH GRACE) and hopefully everything else.

And with GRACE we MUST merit according to our state in life.

See grace in the parable of talents and I think it may be of value.

See it here and here.

Looked at from this perspective, with grace preceding all of our acts, even the act/response of faith is a requirement for obtaining justification, for “meriting” justification. Otherwise justification and salvation would be universal, which they are not.

 

[goout]

Lack of formatting makes posts really hard to read. Paragraphs are good.

 

[Cathoholic]

Looked at from this perspective, with grace preceding all of our acts, even the act/response of faith is a requirement for obtaining justification, for “meriting” justification. Otherwise justification and salvation would be universal, which they are not.

Except that merit flows from supernatual virtue, not natural.

We don’t have initial natural faith without grace. But we do initially have a natural faith as a gift or grace from God. This is unmerited.

But it isn’t enough. We need a supernatural faith on top of that natural faith we had been given to enter the Christian life.

Our supernatural faith comes via Baptism. That’s WHY when an adult seeks Baptism and the Priest asks him what he seeks . . . . he/she can respond with . . . . “Baptism” but he can alternatively respond with . . . .“Faith”.

God made the first move to us with the grace of natural faith and a proverbial tug on our hearts… in a sense this is the beginning of our justification, but it in and of itself is not enough. We need more grace after this.

That initial move by God to us is called God’s prevenient grace.

God makes the first overture . . . He proverbially taps us on the shoulder of our soul.

These are natural graces. This is a natural faith. In a sense, it is the beginning of the process of justification and is totally unmerited.

This is different than when we receive the grace of a “supernatural faith” when we are Baptized which is the entrence ramp to the Christian life. Which is also unmerited.

Faith has a natural dimension as well as a supernatural dimension (so do hope and charity for that matter - “We love, because God first loved us.”). Faith is a human act. Faith is ALSO a grace.

This from the CCC . . . .

**
Faith is a grace**

CCC 153 When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come “from flesh and blood”, but from “my Father who is in heaven”.24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and ‘makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.’"25

Faith is a human act

CCC 154 Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act. Trusting in God and cleaving to the truths he has revealed is contrary neither to human freedom nor to human reason. Even in human relations it is not contrary to our dignity to believe what other persons tell us about themselves and their intentions, or to trust their promises (for example, when a man and a woman marry) to share a communion of life with one another. If this is so, still less is it contrary to our dignity to “yield by faith the full submission of. . . intellect and will to God who reveals”,26 and to share in an interior communion with him.

**CCC 155 ** In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."27

God needs to make the first move toward man. Man cannot make the first move toward God.

This again is God’s prevenient grace upon mankind.

This from the Council of Trent . . . .

COUNCIL OF TRENT

CHAPTER V.

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace . . .

CANON III If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema. . . .

As a matter of fact, the people in the early Church that said otherwise were considered heretical. The semi-pelagians held such views.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia on Semipelagianism . . .

QUOTE:

Vitalis was of the opinion that the beginning of faith springs from the free will of nature, and that the essence of “prevenient grace” consists in the preaching of the Christian doctrine of salvation. On the basis of such faith man, as Vitalis held, attains justification before God. This view was entirely “Semipelagian”. To controvert it, Augustine pointed out that the grace preceding faith must be an interior enlightenment and strengthening, and that the preaching of the Word of God could not, unassisted, accomplish this; consequently the implanting of grace in the soul by God is necessary as a preliminary condition for the production of real faith, since otherwise the customary prayer of the Church for the grace of conversion for unbelievers would be superfluous.

• God making the first move to mankind = God’s prevenient grace

With God’s prevenient grace we are drawn to the Baptismal font, where we receive the riches of the Divine life within us.

Once God is at WORK in us (through Baptism), in this special way, merit can ensue . . . WITH the GRACE of God (not on our own).

 

[Cathoholic]

LatinRite.

I think some of the Council of Trent quotes below may help you harmonize some of your perceived intellectual conflicts with the Catechism (if not we can do this by a sola Scriptura method, but I will only work on one verse at a time with you instead of you “birdshotting” verses and you proclaiming they mean what you say they mean).

So once we are Bapized, once we have the UNMERITED GIFT of God taking up residence within us (through Baptism), this is the MOMENT we are justified.

But justification is not a mere “moment”.

Justification is a moment followed by a process. A lifelong process.

And THEN with GRACE we in a sense merit further justification.

That’s WHY the Council of Trent can give us the following admonition (with emphasis mine) . . .

COUNCIL OF TRENT (link here)

CHAPTER X.

On the increase of Justification received.

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity."

Also from the Council of Trent (not necessarily in order) . . . .

CANON XXXII If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, **does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-**if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXVI If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

CANON XIX If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

CANON XX If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

CANON XXI If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

CANON XXII If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

 

[Cathoholic]

Dr. Scott Hahn has talked about John 2 and how it contrasts a natural faith, with a supernatural faith.

JOHN 2:23-24 (NIV) 23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people.

If you plug in the Greek you get something to the affect of . . . . .

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not believe himself to them, for he knew all people.

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name (natural faith). 24 But Jesus would not believe himself to them (supernatural faith that will not come until later at Baptism), for he knew all people.

 

[fhansen]

Except that merit flows from supernatual virtue, not natural.

We don’t have initial natural faith without grace. But we do initially have a natural faith as a gift or grace from God. This is unmerited.

But it isn’t enough. We need a supernatural faith on top of that natural faith we had been given to enter the Christian life.

Our supernatural faith comes via Baptism. That’s WHY when an adult seeks Baptism and the Priest asks him what he seeks . . . . he/she can respond with . . . . “Baptism” but he can alternatively respond with . . . .“Faith”.

God made the first move to us with the grace of natural faith and a proverbial tug on our hearts… in a sense this is the beginning of our justification, but it in and of itself is not enough. We need more grace after this.

That initial move by God to us is called God’s prevenient grace.

God makes the first overture . . . He proverbially taps us on the shoulder of our soul.

These are natural graces. This is a natural faith. In a sense, it is the beginning of the process of justification and is totally unmerited.

This is different than when we receive the grace of a “supernatural faith” when we are Baptized which is the entrence ramp to the Christian life. Which is also unmerited.

Faith has a natural dimension as well as a supernatural dimension (so do hope and charity for that matter - “We love, because God first loved us.”). Faith is a human act. Faith is ALSO a grace.

I understand this-which is why I put “merited” in quotes. But no grace is strictly merited as you point out. And we can resist* any of it. So, if a Protestant objects to our cooperating in any way with the prevenient grace required to turn in faith to God for initial justification, or any other grace afterwards with which He prompts us to do good works that he’s prepared for us to do, we can counter that either one, whether for faith or works, requires our response in order for that gift of grace to be efficacious. Otherwise, as I said, justification/salvation would be universal. Or*, it would be a matter of grace being irresistible, for the elect, as per Calvinism.

 

[po18guy]

LatinRite: Bandwidth, dude! Huge, spacious, bandwidth-eating posts do not a valid argument make. Take a breath and condense it all, please.

And, you are losing credibility with your (so far) unsubstantiated opinion that the Curia is actively enforcing scriptural illiteracy. How? Burning bibles?

 

[Cathoholic]

So, if a Protestant objects to our cooperating in any way with the prevenient grace required to turn in faith to God for initial justification, or any other grace afterwards with which He prompts us to do good works that he’s prepared for us to do, we can counter that either one, whether for faith or works, requires our response in order for that gift of grace to be efficacious.

A great point fhansen.

I have pointed that out so several of my Protestant friends.

I have told them, “What YOU say about faith, WE as Catholics say the same about faith and works and (supernatural) hope.”

We AFFIRM GRACE (as you Protestants do), not deny it. But we see grace being active in our lives in a more complete way.

And when I mention this stuff, and SHOW them the verses to back it up, they have either just changed the subject, or ignore it and continue to falsely accuse Catholics of “earning” their way to Heaven in a strict sense.

They follow that up with Romans 11 stating “And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works”. Which I agree with. But I disagree with “all” works being lumped into this verse because St. Paul does not allow that interpretation. Nor is this interpretation allowed anywhere else in Scripture. “Works” here are being used in a different sense (I know YOU know that. But others may not so I feel compelled to repeat it here).

So, if a Protestant objects to our cooperating in any way. . . we can counter that either one, whether for faith or works, requires our response in order for that gift of grace to be efficacious.

 

[fhansen]

A great point fhansen.

I have pointed that out so several of my Protestant friends.

I have told them, “What YOU say about faith, WE as Catholics say the same about faith and works and (supernatural) hope.”

We AFFIRM GRACE (as you Protestants do), not deny it. But we see grace being active in our lives in a more complete way.

And when I mention this stuff, and SHOW them the verses to back it up, they have either just changed the subject, or ignore it and continue to falsely accuse Catholics of “earning” their way to Heaven in a strict sense.

They follow that up with Romans 11 stating “And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works”. Which I agree with. But I disagree with “all” works being lumped into this verse because St. Paul does not allow that interpretation. Nor is this interpretation allowed anywhere else in Scripture. “Works” here are being used in a different sense (I know YOU know that. But others may not so I feel compelled to repeat it here).

Yes, Eph 2:10 certainly isn’t talking about “works of the Law”:
"For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

 

[Cathoholic]

I have pointed that out so several of my Protestant friends.

Sorry abou that.

I meant . . .

I have pointed that out to several of my Protestant friends.

Sometimes its painfully obvious when I use an android device vrs. a keyboard/computer which is a lot easier (for me at least) to navigate.

 

[LatinRight]

God bless Cathoholic,

I believe, your post to show the differences between natural faith and supernatural faith is really good.

The way I see it.

NATURAL FAITH

People and Nicodemus believed in his name, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher

come from God; for no one can do this signs that you do, unless God is with him.” – John 3:2.

It is a deficient faith in those who marvel at his miracles, even to believe God is with him.

Natural faith FAIL to grasp the significance of Christ’s mission.

SUPERNATURAL FAITH

The starting point of our supernatural faith is the point when God does His part of our baptism.

At this point God raises us up from spiritual death into spiritual life.

We are spiritually alive/born again, initially justified (all sins forgiven, washed clean) we are in the state of grace.

This is the point of the fulfillment of 1 Cor.2:15-16 in our life, we are spiritual “… We have the mind of Christ.”

Of course we need to realize our supernatural life and faith also a continues development in our Christian life.

WE ALSO NEED TO HAVE SUPERNATURAL FAITH TO DO SUPERNATURAL WORKS

Which means: After our baptism; all our works MUST be decided freely to do and MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY out of love for the Glory of God.

After our baptism by supernatural faith we put our life and our salvation into the hands of God, and all our works by the best our ability, (whatever we do) done freely out of love for the Glory of God.

Our supernatural faith and our supernatural works also the gifts of God.

I would like ask a favor from you Cathoholic,

I have read two articles and I like to have your view on both.

I send you from both a sample. Neither of them too long. Both on the internet. If you have time please read both.

I also like to have your view on: Is that correct “Franciscans never believed that “blood atonement” was required for God to love us?”

The Meaning of the Atonement by Mark M. Mattison

Introduction

The foundational truth of Christianity is that Christ Jesus died on the cross for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3). In this way he fulfilled the old covenant sacrificial system, reconciled us to God, and changed our lives forever.

That is the doctrine of the Atonement. Its reality is not in dispute. However, many Christians struggle to understand and live this doctrine better. We know that the Atonement works; but how it works is not as clear.

Over the centuries many different theories have been suggested to explain how the Atonement works. As C. S. Lewis and others note, no one interpretation has been singled out as the only valid theory.

With this fact in mind, we would do well to consider some of the principal theories and their limitations, using the Scriptures as our touchstone.

A Ransom Payment In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (cp. Matt. 20:28, NIV).

This is a powerful statement. Jesus redeemed his followers from sin. The price of this redemption, however, was his own life (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:18,19), the supreme expression of his love for us (cf. John 15:13).

That Jesus described his death as a ransom payment is clear. But to whom was the ransom paid? Jesus never said. End quote.

Richard Rohr, O.F.M. is a Franciscan friar ordained to the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church in 1970.

He is an internationally known inspirational speaker and has published numerous recorded talks and books, most recently The Divine Dance: The Trinity and Your Transformation, Yes, And…: Daily Meditations, Immortal Diamond …

Richard Rohr: Incarnation instead of Atonement

Franciscans never believed that “blood atonement” was required for God to love us.

Our teacher, John Duns Scotus (1266-1308), said Christ was Plan A from the very beginning (Colossians 1:15-20, Ephesians 1:3-14). Christ wasn’t a mere Plan B after the first humans sinned, which is the way most people seem to understand the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

The Great Mystery of Incarnation could not be a mere mop-up exercise, a problem solving technique, or dependent on human beings messing up.

Scotus taught that the Enfleshment of God had to proceed from God’s perfect love and God’s perfect and absolute freedom (John 1:1-18), rather than from any mistake of ours.

Did God intend no meaning or purpose for creation during the first 14.8 billion years?

Was it all just empty, waiting for sinful humans to set the only real drama into motion?

Did the sun, moon, and galaxies have no divine significance?

The fish, the birds, the animals were just waiting for humans to appear?

Was there no Divine Blueprint (“Logos”) from the beginning?

Surely this is the extreme hubris and anthropomorphism of the human species!

The substitutionary atonement “theory” (and that’s all it is) seems to imply that the Eternal

Christ’s epiphany in Jesus is a mere afterthought when the first plan did not work out. End quote.

I apologize for my emotional state of shock when I did the test on my # 76 and # 77 posts.

To tell the truth I still have a shock about that, but I will explain it later.

God bless.

LatinRight