Definition of faith: Catholic and Protestant

[ltwin]

On other threads that have touched on Catholic and Protestant views on salvation, things often get bogged down on faith and works. I’ve noticed that when Protestants talk about faith or “faith alone”, Catholics seem to be interpreting that to mean “belief” or “belief alone”. I think that is a devastatingly simplistic understanding of what Protestants mean by “faith”. But it does raise, for me, the question of whether Catholics reduce faith to mere belief or mental assent to a propositional truth or something.

So, does faith = belief for Catholics? Or is that just what Catholics think Protestants believe? Would love to hear how your faith tradition defines “faith.”

For me, I’d define faith as “belief that God was in Christ seeking to save; trust that God will keep his promises; and commitment to his will and way.”

 

[Gorgias]

I’ve noticed that when Protestants talk about faith or “faith alone”, Catholics seem to be interpreting that to mean “belief” or “belief alone”. I think that is a devastatingly simplistic understanding of what Protestants mean by “faith”. But it does raise, for me, the question of whether Catholics reduce faith to mere belief or mental assent to a propositional truth or something.

No, I don’t think that’s exactly what’s in play. However, if “mere belief or mental assent” is insufficient, is “belief, trust, and commitment” much better?

I mean, when Jesus describes the general judgment (using the metaphor of 'sheep and goats"), the sheep have done a whole lot more than “believe, trust, and commit”, haven’t they?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I like to refer to Fr. Heilman’s meditations on topics like “how do we define Faith”.
He makes it pretty clear (using references from the Catechism) that there’s a lot more to it than “mere belief”.

I thought the issue with the Protestants is that they like to dismiss the “works” part of the equation.

The theological virtues are the foundation of Christian moral activity; they animate it and give it its special character. They inform and give life to all the moral virtues. They are infused by God into the souls of the faithful to make them capable of acting as his children and of meriting eternal life. They are the pledge of the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the faculties of the human being. There are three theological virtues: faith, hope, and charity (CCC 1813). Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself.

By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith “work through charity” (CCC 1814). “Our faith must be complete. We completely submit our intellect and will to God. Our faith therefore illuminates our daily life. Our fallen race inherits from its first parents a propensity to sin, but our constant objective must be to live as Holy Mother Church teaches. We seek to live by the theological and cardinal virtues. We consciously avoid the seven capital sins. We go to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every day if possible, or every Sunday at minimum. We go to Confession every month if possible, or every year at minimum. We do all this because we have faith that the Catholic Church has Christ’s authority to teach us how to prepare for heaven.”

 

[ltwin]

However, if “mere belief or mental assent” is insufficient, is “belief, trust, and commitment” much better?

Yes, it’s a lot better. The dictionary defines commitment as:

1. the state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc.
   synonyms: dedication, devotion, allegiance, loyalty, faithfulness, fidelity
2. an engagement or obligation that restricts freedom of action.
   synonyms: responsibility, obligation, duty, tie, liability

I mean, when Jesus describes the general judgment (using the metaphor of 'sheep and goats"), the sheep have done a whole lot more than “believe, trust, and commit”, haven’t they?

No, that’s pretty much all they’ve done. Jesus said that the sheep fed him, clothed him, invited him in, looked after him when he was sick, and visited him in prison. They did these things to “the least of these” because they believed, trusted and were committed to Christ.

I mean, can you be committed to Christ and not do these things? If so, then you are using a unique definition for the word “commitment.” If I was married and claimed I was committed to my wife but then cheated on her, then my claim to being committed would not be very strong would it?

 

[Gorgias]

No, that’s pretty much all they’ve done. Jesus said that the sheep fed him, clothed him, invited him in, looked after him when he was sick, and visited him in prison. They did these things to “the least of these” because they believed, trusted and were committed to Christ.

Well, that kinda reads into the text, don’t you think?

Jesus doesn’t say anything about whether the goats – who didn’t do those things – “believed, trusted, or committed”, does He? He just points out that they didn’t do them. But, it’s not just the things done, by themselves and on their own merits. No, these folks know Jesus… and call Him ‘Lord’ !!! So, I think I would say that they have the requisite belief – but don’t put that belief into action.

I mean, can you be committed to Christ and not do these things?

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’"

Jesus sure seems to be saying that folks will be doing these things but not be committed to Him. But, that’s not the question you’re asking, right? What about the other way around? Can folks have faith but not works? James seems to say “yes”, and feels the need to exhort folks who “believe, trust, and commit” to also do works that demonstrate that belief.

 

[ltwin]

By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.” For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will.

I like this and would agree with it.

I thought the issue with the Protestants is that they like to dismiss the “works” part of the equation.

There certainly is a strain of popular Protestantism that can tend to do this, often reduced to “once saved always saved.” However, even thoughtful Calvinists would not dismiss works entirely. Protestants generally place works in the context of faith.

The famous phrase we are “justified by faith alone” could be phrased another way : we are justified by faith only, but faith is never alone. Faith will always be accompanied by good works that flow from the sanctifying grace of God and the gratitude of a changed heart.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yeah, but it’s my understanding that the Lutherans and Calvinists just see the works as the fruits of faith. Catholics see them as on an equal footing with faith, an expression of faith, not just something good that’s going to happen as a result of having faith.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

There certainly is a strain of popular Protestantism that can tend to do this, often reduced to “once saved always saved.” However, even thoughtful Calvinists would not dismiss works entirely. Protestants generally place works in the context of faith.

I was brought up Baptist. I was brought up with a strange mix of faith alone (absolutely no works necessary), but if you don’t follow Christ’s example and help those in need you are probably going to hell. It was very confusing as a child and totally unsatisfactory as an adult.

In practice, most people including the clergy did a lot of clapping and praising on Sunday, but couldn’t care less about helping the needy.

So, I was brought up with Faith= belief and trust. No consistent aspect of commitment required.

 

[ltwin]

Well, that kinda reads into the text, don’t you think?

Perhaps I am, but I believe I have good reason to do so, in part because I’m my reading is informed by other parts of Scripture . . .

Jesus doesn’t say anything about whether the goats – who didn’t do those things – “believed, trusted, or committed”, does He?

No, but if they did he obviously doesn’t think much of their so called belief, trust or commitment.

He just points out that they didn’t do them. But, it’s not just the things done, by themselves and on their own merits. No, these folks know Jesus… and call Him ‘Lord’ !!! So, I think I would say that they have the requisite belief – but don’t put that belief into action.

Did they really know him? Did they really believe? Or did they know of him? Did they believe stuff about him? I know a lot about Donald Trump, but I don’t know him personally. I believe that he exists, but I don’t believe in him and certainly wouldn’t trust him to change a light bulb.

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’"

The last two sentences are key. They knew about Jesus, but he never knew them. There is something fundamentally missing from the equation here–an intimate knowledge of the real person.

Jesus sure seems to be saying that folks will be doing these things but not be committed to Him.

Yes. Isn’t it possible that even outwardly moral acts might be sinful in the eyes of God? Why? Because they do not proceed from a life of faith.

What about the other way around? Can folks have faith but not works?

As I said above, I believe it is possible to do good things without faith. For the reverse, no there can be no faith without works–at least not any authentic faith. Maybe a cheap imitation of faith.

James seems to say “yes”, and feels the need to exhort folks who “believe, trust, and commit” to also do works that demonstrate that belief.

James says, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” The point being that the former cannot because such a faith is dead, i.e. non-existent, useless, powerless. God would never give us a dead faith.

 

[ltwin]

So, I was brought up with Faith= belief and trust. No consistent aspect of commitment required.

That’s very sad.

 

[fhansen]

So, does faith = belief for Catholics? Or is that just what Catholics think Protestants believe? Would love to hear how your faith tradition defines “faith.”

The problem is that the “faith alone” doctrine can be understood as a license to remain lawless, as if grace is nothing more than forgiveness and adoption into God’s family as long as one believes. Or as if faith is the equivalent of righteousness for man in God’s eyes because He imputes righteousness to us as long as we believe.

But in Catholicism faith is a gift, that we can accept or reject, that in effect constitutes reestablished relationship or communion with God, a relationship that was shattered at the Fall. That relationship, itself, is what man’s justice consists of, and it implies the virtues of faith, hope, and love as the result, the most important of which is love, which is why the Greatest Commandments are what they are.

So the Catechism can correctly state, quoting St John of the Cross regarding our judgement,
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

Love, and not faith alone, is what justifies man. Faith is meant to lead to this love because consistent communion with God inevitably leads to it (which is why we must remain in Christ, ‘apart from whom we can do nothing’, John 15:5). So the Church teaches that faith is ‘the beginning of salvation’, the ‘foundation and root’ of our justification. And St Paul can say in 1 Cor 13,
"…if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing."

And St Augustine could say,
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

Where love is placed as the centerpiece of Christian justice or righteousness, the gospel is understood.

 

[CzechMan]

I think the main difference between Catholic (and also Orthodox) and most Protestants is that most Protestants believe so much in salvation by faith only that they believe that if you commit even a very serious sin, like a crime, but you still have faith, then you remain saved, because at least you have faith. The Old Order Amish certainly (and perhaps other Mennonites too) reject this idea, they say you then lost your salvation. Likewise among Oneness Pentecostals the predominant belief is if you sin, you have lost salvation. They might believe for example if you went to see a movie, you have sinned, you lost salvation. Of course if you repent of the sin, you return to salvation.
Very different from the usual Protestant beliefs. Luther taught that the only way you can lose salvation is if you lose faith. So it does not depend on works at all. Calvin taught that no one who has true faith can ever lose salvation. So once saved, always saved. So if someone seems to lose faith and is not Christian any more, then the true explanation is that he or she never really had true faith, was never saved. But both believed that people with faith, saved people, sin less often than unsaved people. But then nobody can avoid never sinning again, unless of course you die very soon after you are saved. But some Protestants believe that some time after you are saved, you can have another experience, sanctification, after which you do not sin. That belief is usual in Holiness Churches and Holiness Pentecostal Churches.

 

[JonNC]

Luther taught that the only way you can lose salvation is if you lose faith. So it does not depend on works at all.

Luther also taught that good works are necessary. From his commentary of Galatians, 5:6:

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

 

[JonNC]

James Akin has a wonderful essay in the topic of faith:

http://jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant’s idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan “salvation by faith alone” becomes the Catholic slogan “salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone).”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Possibly stupid question:

If as you’re saying, good Protestants pretty much believe all the same things as Catholics do about faith, then why did they break with the Church over this issue?

 

[CzechMan]

I suppose that just like Luther taught that saved people sin less often than unsaved people, then he apparently also believed that saved people do good works more often than unsaved people. Still, he taught that if you sin, and still have faith, you do not lose salvation. To him the idea that you could lose salvation because of a sinful work, was wrong, salvation not by faith alone, but also by works. He even mistranslated a verse, where it says you are justified by faith, he added in German the word allein, meaning ‘alone’.

 

[JonNC]

Possibly stupid question:

If as you’re saying, good Protestants pretty much believe all the same things as Catholics do about faith, then why did they break with the Church over this issue?

There were lots of issues then, too many to go into, but a sigopart revolves around things like indulgences, not to mention that Lutherans would balk at the claim that we merit from works.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Well, indulgences are in a totally different place now than they were back in the day, and the abuses have stopped, so it’s sounding like now two issues are solved, one being faith and one being indulgences.

Perhaps we are coming closer to re-unification then. I would hope so.

 

[JonNC]

Well, indulgences are in a totally different place now than they were back in the day, and the abuses have stopped, so it’s sounding like now two issues are solved, one being faith and one being indulgences.

Perhaps we are coming closer to re-unification then. I would hope so.

Speaking personally, soteriology is not the major issue I have with the Catholic Church in communion with the pope.

I share your hope.

 

[1ke]

Marcellino d‘Ambrosio’s video I Believe discusses just this thing.

I Believe - The Heart of Catholic Faith: DVD Set - Crossroads Initiative