Catholics saved by Grace alone?

[De_Maria]

Although we are saved by grace alone is certainly a teaching of the Catholic church,

It certainly is not.

I think it is understood differently to the protestants.
The way I see it is that unless God extends grace to us we cannot be saved, but if he does extend grace to us and we respond in faith and good works then we can be saved.

There is no IF there. God does extend grace to everyone.

But why does God extend faith to one man and not to another.

God extends faith to everyone. Some men do not exercise the faith which God gives them.

In the protestant mindset there is nothing of any merit in a man that would cause him to look upon a man with favour. Every man is regarded as utterly evil and all of his works are filthy rags. That God should extend grace to one and not another is completely up to God and we can do nothing to influence God’s decision to extend Grace.

This however is not scriptural, nor does it comply with Catholic teaching. The Catholic teaching is that although man is gravely impaired by original sin and his constant inclination is to rebel against God, that nevertheless their lies within every man through the natural law to recognise and resist evil and seek after good. And that these meritorious works are pleasing to God and are likely to cause God to extend Grace to that man in his good time and at his good pleasure.

The misunderstanding that you are expressing here is called “pelagianism” or “semi-pelagianism”. It is the idea that we do something good which triggers God to give us grace.

That is not the teaching of the Church. God gives us grace first:
**CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS
****It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through 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 through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, 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,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:
Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.
ewtn.com/library/councils/trent6.htm

Therefore the Lord says “Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you”.
Likewise we have the story of Cornelius
“Acts 10:10 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, 2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway. 3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius. 4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God. 5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:”

So we see that God highly favours those who are kind, devout, seek God, give to the poor, and pray.

But not before God gives them the grace they need to convert us:
Psalms 79:4
Convert us, O God: and shew us thy face, and we shall be saved.

John 15:16
**You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; ** and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.

Now notice this scripture
“1 Cor 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.”

So God favours someone who humbles themselves and who does not strive after glory and who is weak and downtrodden. He loves the poor.

con’td

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

So we are starting to get a profile of the kind of people that God extends Grace to. Does this mean that men are saved because they did these things? No of course not because it goes to the deep mysteries of the heart and motivations that only God understands and sees. And none of these things which they have done are adequate to merit God’s grace or pardon, but they are meritorious acts nonetheless which please God and cause him to be moved with affection and love for us. But these meritorious acts are not enough to merit or deserve salvation.

Also God may extend his Grace to someone who exhibits few if any of these traits and intervene in powerful ways in their life to almost compel them to the faith, whereas others he may lead gently over decades. All of these issues are the vast impenetrabile mysteries of Grace which no man can discover. Another word I like is Serendipity I understood this from a psychologist who from a secular viewpoint could see this mysterious working of Grace in people’s lives and called it serendipity. Scott Peck of Road Less travelled.

Another way I think of this is I picture some parents walking through an orphanage to choose a child to take home to be their son or daughter. They will talk to the boys and girls and ask them some questions get to know them a bit, and choose one or the other. Why? Was it because one was better, gooder, more attractive, older, taller, friendlier than the others? Who knows. But by some astonishing mystery one child was chosen amongst all the others.

Now what would that child think if one day he grew up and his parents said “All the children in the orphanage were incorrigibly evil children, they had no good quality whatsoever, there was nothing deserving in any of them, and I rolled a dice and picked you but I could have picked any one of them” How would the child like to be told that? That is like the protestant idea of grace. But is that grace? Is that a demonstration of love? No that is almost an act of hatred.

Very interesting. The part with which I disagree and which is in contradiction to Catholic teaching is the idea that we have anything good which pleases God and triggers His giving us grace. The Church teaches that God gives us grace first and we must cooperate with it.

But the Catholic teaching of grace the parents say “We went through the whole orphanage and we really liked your eyes and your happy smile and you were friendly towards us and we just had an immediate bond with you and straightaway knew that you were the one”. Now that is love, that is grace.

So what did the chosen child do throughout all of his/her life which was so much better than the other children in the orphanage? Did all the things he do mean that he deserved to be chosen and that it would have been an injustice if the parents had not chosen him? No, in fact the parents were under no obligation to adopt a child in the first place, they did so out of the goodness of their heart. Nor were they obligated in any way to choose that child and not another. It was a free choice motivated by love and goodness to share their life with a needy child.

All of which is why Paul likened adoption to the exercising of grace in this passage here in *Ephesians 1:15 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. 7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; *

Very good point. Although I’ve never adopted a child, I would think that the person who adopts a child would be swayed by the response of the child to his presence. If the child ran away, he would probably not be chosen. If the child ran to his arms and smiled, he would have a better chance. If the child threw a tantrum, he would probably not be chosen.

Therefore, although the parent initiated the grace by visiting the orphanage, the child did not do absolutely nothing in return, but cooperated with the grace of the parent in order that he might be selected and thereby saved from living in the orphanage any longer and becoming a member of the Father’s household.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

It “goes without saying” because it has never been said (at least by the Church).

It has been said by the Church, but you are reading the letter of the word and not the Spirit or intent of the word.

OK, I just want to present ONE SINGLE case to you. It is an absurd case, but it could happen (and, maybe it has). If Grace applies to this ONE case, it applies to EVERY case.

Ok.

There is not one mode of Salvation for 99.9%, and another completely different mode of salvation for 0.1%. We are all saved the same way - what saves the absurd 0.1% of us saves us all.

Ok.

OK - Suppose there is a certain Hindu who really hates Muslims (these faiths have a long history of conflict - read up on India/Pakistan if you are not familiar with it). Muslims and Catholics also have a long history of conflict (read up on the Crusades if you are not familiar with it). But Catholics and Hindus have had relatively few conflicts.

So a Hindu might figure, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Hindus and Catholics have both waged open war against Muslims. So this Hindu approaches me (a Catholic) and asks me, “what can I do to really torque my Muslim enemies?” Of course, I would tell him this is a bad idea, but let’s assume he caught me on an off-day. I might tell him, “give Christian Baptism to their babies.”

He might ask me, “what is Christian Baptism?” I tell him he doesn’t need to know - all he needs to have is the intent to do what the Catholic Church does in Baptism.

And there it is. You have proven my case. Name one case in which the Catholic Church intends to punish Muslims by baptizing their infants?

I rest my case.

If he really wants to torque his Muslim enemies, he must have this intent (even if he does not understand what it is). Of course, he sincerely wants to cheese-off Muslims (he’s a very hateful guy), so he sincerely has this intent (it’s the only way he can spread his hate).

No friend. He doesn’t have that intent. He sincerely intends to cheese off the Muslims.

I furthermore instruct him in the proper matter and form.

All is now in place. This Hindu snatches a baby from the stroller of a Muslim couple. While the parents scream in protest, he produces clean water and Baptizes this baby using the Trinitarian form - as a hateful means of attacking this baby and this Muslim family.

Immediately afterward, a bomb goes off and kills everybody.

De Maria - I ask you - Is this baby Baptized? Is this baby saved?

No.

There is valid minister,

There is not. The absence of proper intent (which must be grounded in faith by the way) in the minister invalidates the minister.

intent

,

There is no proper intent. The Church does not intend to baptize in order to punish the enemies of the Hindus.

form,

There is no proper form. The absence of faith in the Trinitarian God invalidates the Trinitarian formula.

matter, and subject.

The only two valid items in this scenario.

According to the Catholic Church, this is a valid (though illicit) Baptism.

It is neither valid nor licit.

If THIS baby is Baptized (even though the circumstances are absurd) then s/he is saved by Grace alone (because there is NO faith involved from any person present). If THIS ONE BABY is saved by Grace alone, then everybody is saved by Grace alone. We are all saved the same way.

If you claim that this baby is not saved because there was no faith, then you have invented new doctrine.

No. You have invented new doctrine in claiming the child is saved.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

**Let me give you examples from history of valid baptisms which were illicit.
**
Throughout history, faithful Christians of all denominations have invented situations wherein they would baptize the children of the heathen without the knowledge of the parents. It has happened in the case of children of heathen on every continent. Even priests have been known to commit these errors. Aborigines from Australia, natives in America and Africa, have all been subjected to Christians who baptized their children without the consent of their parents.

The Baptisms were valid. But not licit.

Why were they valid? Because they had the right intent along with the other four requirements. And the right intent recognizes the faith of the Church in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let me give you an example of a valid baptism, similar cases of which have occurred in history, which were conducted in the absence of anyone who had any faith, but which still were grounded in faith as is required by the Church and by God:

A couple died in a violent accident leaving behind a seriously injured but unbaptized child. The heathen slave woman present is instructed by the mother her dying wish that the child be baptized. The heathen slave, having witnessed the procedure several times, baptizes the child according to the faith of the beloved mistress and mother of the child.

Without faith, no sacrament is valid. Faith is not mentioned in the particular text you cited, because it is presupposed that only people of faith will administer the Sacraments or that only people of faith will request that the Sacraments be administered by the heathen. But the fact it is not mentioned does not mean it is not required. That text is based upon the Word of God. And the Word of God certainly requires it, in Scripture and Tradition.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[excubitor]

It certainly is not.

Originally Posted by excubitor
Although we are saved by grace alone is certainly a teaching of the Catholic church,

Thanks de Maria for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It was very thought provoking and I learned a lot from it.

However I see some problems with your response. On the one hand you reject Sola Gratia and then on the other hand you reject semi-pelagianism. In fact Sola Gratia was affirmed at the Council of Orange in 529 in direct rejection of semi-pelagianism. Then Sola Gratia was affirmed again at the Council of Trent.
“Man can merit nothing before God has bestowed grace upon him. Grace alone works every one of our good merits in us. When God rewards our merits, he is rewarding His own gifts in us.”
(Augustine, Ep. 194, 5, 19 against Pelagians)

Even you quoted the statement of the church
“CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS
It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called”

This too is a statement of Sola Gratia.

My object in my post was to show that the operation of God’s grace allows a place and importance for free-will and meritorious deeds whereas the Calvinist doctrine does not.

I admit however that in attempting to show this I made some statements which were incorrect and were quite clearly semi-pelagian so thanks for pointing that out, however if we had been in a conversation I would have always happily have admitted that all such actions of free will and meritorious deeds like fasting and praying and seeking God are themselves workings of God’s grace. These kinds of deeds are not intrinsically meritorious but are made so by the sanctification of Grace. Nor would I have ever claimed that deeds acting alone without Grace could in any way trigger grace to be given like an automatic tap being switched. All I was trying to say was that it was a mystery and that these deeds were praiseworthy and caused an influx of Grace to come in God’s time and at his discretion. I still think that. Grace comes and goes depending on our level of cooperation. If we sin Grace is removed from our life. If we do good works and seek God then Grace grows in our lives. So a germ of Grace is available to all men, but this kernel of Grace grows with the cooperation of man to the point where he believes in faith, repents, is baptised and the receives justification and salvation. Thereafter he must constantly remain in a state of Grace by believing in faith and performing good deeds; persevering until the day of the Judgement.

 

[excubitor]

Here is a statement of Sola Gratia from the scripture
*Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
*
So this is where the protestants get in a mess. They take this statement “Salvation by Grace alone” and try to make it mean “Salvation by faith alone”. Grace is the free gift of God to man. Faith is the extension of trust and belief from man to God which is given in response to Grace, and which must be accompanied with good works.

 

[diggerdomer]

In baptism. Adults are saved by grace through their own faith.

Right. And nothing about people being saved through their parents’ faith. Right?

 

[diggerdomer]

But I see it here in the prerequisite for the Sacraments:
**1123 **“The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the Body of Christ and, finally, to give worship to God. Because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it. That is why they are called ‘sacraments of faith.’”

and I know, because I’ve had four children baptized, that the Church will not baptize anyone’s children if the parents or guardians will not promise to raise them in the faith. Nor will they baptize anyone’s children against the parent’s will:

Private Baptism: ***
An emergency, bare-essentials baptism which can be performed anywhere, by anyone – Catholic, pagan, Jew, Protestant – who uses the proper matter and form and intends to do what the Church does when She baptizes. Because of that last condition, Baptism by heretics or apostates should always be followed by a conditional Baptism (see below). Note that Baptism must only be administered to those who request it; Baptism must never, ever be against the will of the person to be baptized, or his parents’ will if he is a child.* Also, rest assured that those who, with contrite hearts, have expressed a true desire for Baptism and have vowed to receive the Sacrament, but die before receiving it are baptized “by desire.” In any case, a person baptized in a private Baptism should participate in the Solemn Rite of Baptism if and when he is able.
fisheaters.com/baptism2.html

The Church does not teach salvation by Grace Alone if that’s what you’re getting at.

Nor do you see anything in those paragraphs about the “faith of parents” required for baptism. Please note I specifically use the word “required.” You note the exception well.

Also, please recall, my earlier posts said that the faith of the parents is NOT salvific in Baptism. Nothing you cited here contradicts that. That’s my point.

 

[diggerdomer]

In baptism. Adults are saved by grace through their own faith.

Not according to Catholic teaching. According to Catholic teaching, people are saved by God. Not by their own (faith, works, whatever).

All salvation comes from Christ. See the Catechism 846 for example. We do not earn or merit salvation by our own faith (or works, or whatever).

 

[diggerdomer]

diggerdomer;7221530:

As far as I know, a child will not be baptized a Catholic, even if the non-Catholic parents agree. They must first convert and then the entire family will be baptized.

Reference from Catholic teaching? Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

No.

Really?

Then how do you interpret Canon 868?

 

[DavidFilmer]

[citing CCC 1123]They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen, and express it. That is why they are called ‘sacraments of faith.’

Read the next article. This is talking about the faith of the Church, not the faith of either the minister or the recipient (and we’ll get back to this at the end of my post).

Anyone who is baptized without faith will be condemned. Anyone, any atheist or other non-baptized person, who baptizes a child without the intent of expressing the faith of the Church, is simply performing a blasphemy.

Blasphemy, yes - but it is still VALID if the person has valid intent. The intent is NOT to “express the Faith of the Church,” but only to “do what the Church does.” It is not to “understand” what the Church does, or to “believe” what the Church does, but only to “do” what the Church does (whatever that is).

What is that “will to do what the Church does when she baptizes”, in your opinion?

She makes the recipient a Christian. At least, that’s what our hateful Hindu acquaintance understands. He need not understand the deeper theology - he only needs this intent. He wishes to use Baptism as a **weapon **against Muslims by making their babies Christians. And Baptism is how you make a baby a Christian. And it can never be undone.

What we have here is a matter of legalism on YOUR part. You seem to believe that the mere fact that faith is not mentioned explicitly means that it is not necessary. It very certainly is necessary. And if it isn’t possessed by the parents, then it is possessed by the minister who is baptizing with the “intent” of the Church. And the Church’s intent is very much rooted in FAITH.

No, this Hindu has no Christian faith and his motives are very much rooted in hatred. He sincerely wants to make the children of these Muslims into Christians (thus, he has valid intent, for that is *exactly *what Baptism does). But he has no Christian faith (and thinks it is all hooey).

What is it that the Church intends to do?

Make people Christians (ie, members of the Church). That’s all I need to know. I do not need to understand it. I do not need to believe that it carries any significance. I need not be able to explain the concept of original sin, or even know who Adam and Eve were. I do not need to know who Jesus was, or what he did on the Cross. I don’t need faith, and I don’t need understanding - all I need is intent (and that is a *very *low bar).

Can anyone do this without faith as the foundation? No. Very simply because even if the heretic or atheist who baptizes has no faith, the Church whose intent he is passing on certainly does.

OK, so you are saying that the *minister *does not need faith, and the *recipient *does not need faith, but there is faith out there somewhere, so that covers it.

Well, I can’t argue with that, actually. If there is no faith *anywhere *then there is no Church. The Sacraments belong to the Church, so if there is no Church then there are no Sacraments.

If THAT is what you have been trying to say then I agree completely. We are saved by Grace alone, but that Grace is made possible by the faith of the Church (not of the minister or the recipient), because without Faith (somewhere) there would be no Church at all. I can get on-board with that.

So that Muslim baby who was baptized by that hateful Hindu would be saved, then?

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes, it is. All we need to do is look at Scripture where many children were "saved’ from death and illness by the action of Christ as a result of the faith of their parents:
Matthew 15:28

Sorry, that hardly qualifies as asserting baptism is salvific through the faith of parents. Please…share some Catholic teaching?

 

[diggerdomer]

Faith is presupposed. Therefore it is absolutely required.

And the Catholic Church teaches this…where? Just to clarify. Thanks.

 

[diggerdomer]

NOT according to Catholic Teaching.

**1697 ***Catechesis *has to reveal in all clarity the joy and the demands of the way of Christ. Catechesis for the “newness of life” in him should be: - a catechesis of the Holy Spirit, the interior Master of life according to Christ, a gentle guest and friend who inspires, guides, corrects, and strengthens this life;

• a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;
• a catechesis of the beatitudes, for the way of Christ is summed up in the beatitudes, the only path that leads to the eternal beatitude for which the human heart longs;
• a catechesis of sin and forgiveness, for unless man acknowledges that he is a sinner he cannot know the truth about himself, which is a condition for acting justly; and without the offer of forgiveness he would not be able to bear this truth;
• a catechesis of the human virtues which causes one to grasp the beauty and attraction of right dispositions towards goodness;
• a catechesis of the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity, generously inspired by the example of the saints;
  -* a catechesis of the twofold commandment of charity* set forth in the Decalogue;
• an ecclesial catechesis, for it is through the manifold exchanges of “spiritual goods” in the “communion of saints” that Christian life can grow, develop, and be communicated.

Note that there is no catechesis of Grace Alone.

We weren’t talking about catechesis, we were talking about salvation. Your reply to my post does not make sense.

 

[sambos671]

I think when it comes down to it we both believe this. And hold that the catholic faith holds this.
De Maria:

God calls us and gives us grace to accept His call and exercise His Gifts. Therefore it is God who saves us IF
we accept and exercise the gifts He gives us.

By saying we are saved by God alone or by Grace alone we are not accerting that there is no cooperation or choice to be made by man. What we are saying is that apart from grace there is no choice to be made.

You’re stuck on the aspect of Sanctification. There as I’ve seen it no disagreement that sanctification and cooperation with the will of God leads to salvation. However, we are saying apart from God’s activities we couldn’t even get to that point. Accordingly it is the Grace gift that even makes it possible to make a choice or accent the will or cooperate with God. However, I choose to emphasize God’s rather than the later or we find ourselves in danger of relying upon our own efforts singularily to attain heaven. Or what Paul says us of when he says

God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

With this emphasise on the Grace of God then living in such a manner as supporting this verse

The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

is not such a difficult matter to understand.

 

[Ignatius]

***“Amen!” says the Catholic. We are saved by God’s grace and by God’s grace alone! ***

I’m sorry, but that is what Protestant’s teach. The Church teaches:

No, the Church teaches that we are saved by the free gift of Gods Grace without which we could not even have faith.

Protestants teach that they are saved by faith alone.

 

[roycelassley]

That is why the Church uses the term, “state of Grace.” If we die in a state of Grace, we are saved. If we are not in a state of Grace, we are condemned.

This is not what “state of Grace” means! State of Grace means to be without mortal sin! aka, having confessed all mortal sins.

 

[roycelassley]

Faith is a component of any sacrament. What is faith? Simple answer, the belief that God exists and that he died for the forgiveness of our sins (“so that sins ‘may’ be forgiven”), in terms of sacraments - the belief that the sacrament is a true Grace. In your list of 5 things, intent is mentioned. Logically, faith is a component of intent. Are you being baptized - done either by your own choice, or of your parents choice when you are unable to choose - to be faithful to God, or just to satisfy the feeling of “maybe this will help get me to heaven.” If it is the latter then you are not faithful and the sacrament is not true, based on the true definition of what ‘intent’ is.

Furthermore, on the original topic itself. The bible tells us in Ephesians 2, quote:
“For by grace you have been saved ‘through’ faith, and this is not of your own doing; it is the Gift of God - not the result of works, so no one may boast.”

You would be interpreting this incorrectly, and against the Church, if you assumed this is saying you are not saved by works. This is saying that grace itself (the very being of grace) is a gift from God - you are not given “grace” by the amount of works you do, grace itself is a gift. A gift is NOT something that is always free. Still this does not say we are saved by grace “period.” He continues saying “we are saved by grace ‘through’ faith.” Meaning that, the ‘gift’ of grace - needed for salvation - is only obtained if you have faith.

So then again we ask ourselves, what is true faith? The Gospel James says this very well for us in chapter 2:14-26:
“What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?..17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead…22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to ‘completion’ by the works…26 For just the body without spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.”
Jesus also tells, the rich you man, how we may gain eternal life (aka salvation) in Matthew 19:16:
Thew someone came to him and said, ‘Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?’ And he said to him…‘If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’"

You see salvation is a Gift from God (grace) that we may choose by having faith (“through faith”), if we have have faith then we have works (“faith without works is dead”), these works are the commandments ("If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments). I hesitate to say this, but faith and works is almost a paradox. The passage from James says that faith apart from works is dead, just as works apart from faith is dead. So you can only assume that when we are told “you are saved by grace through faith” that it is implied, having knowledge of ALL scripture, that works is included in faith, even though not blatantly stated in this passage.

The moral of scripture passages like this is that we must read the bible in accord with the what the Church teaches us, “we must read all scripture in the ‘whole’ context of the bible,” ad lib. - not piecing parts of the scripture to prove a statement. Adding words such as “Sola (alone),” completely negates this philosophy of the Church, and in turn makes scripture negate itself - resulting in saying the Word of God is contradictory, ending in Blasphemy.

May the Peace of Christ be with you all,

Royce Lassley