Definition of faith: Catholic and Protestant

[ltwin]

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.

Well, that’s one way to look at it. But let me offer another way.

Faith is foundational to our union and fellowship with Christ. Hebrews 11:6 states that “And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” That chapter is essentially one long list of what people did “by faith”: we receive our commendation, Noah built the ark and saved his household, Abraham obeyed, Sarah conceived, the Hebrews crossed the Red Sea, etc. Faith is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

For Christians, our hope is in Christ. Though we have not seen him nor the fulfillment of all the promises made to us, divinely given faith assures and convinces us that he is alive and all of God’s promises are yes and amen in Christ.

When we sin, we do violence to our union with Christ, and there is confession and repentance needed. However, it would be a mistake to think that every time we sin we completely sever our communion with Christ, and are from that moment damned once again, forced to start all over again as if we had never been regenerated. This is where justification by faith comes in. God’s righteousness is like a protective covering over us, allowing us to do battle against our sin while we yet continue to struggle.

This is not a license to sin, at least from my perspective, because it is still possible to forfeit salvation. However, we do not forfeit our salvation every time we sin. Rather, we forfeit our salvation through sustained unbelief and deliberate sin. In such cases, “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26).

 

[JonNC]

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’.

You seem to be referring to his letter to Melanchthon. Luther did not believe that faith was somehow a ticket to sin. In fact, his teaching was quite the opposite.
Faith requires one to participate in the means of grace, including confession. Moved by faith, we recognize our sin and seek forgiveness and Absolution. We further seek forgiveness and strengthening of faith through the Eucharist and hearing the word.
Faith guides us back to the cross.
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. “
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Repeated, unrepented sin, including the sin of not caring for our fellow man, drives out faith

 

[CzechMan]

Concerning my comment about Luther’s mistranslation, I am referring to his translation of the Bible into German, specifically of Romans 3:28, there he added the word allein.

 

[ltwin]

Concerning my comment about Luther’s mistranslation, I am referring to his translation of th

Luther intentionally added that word because he felt the context demanded it. Though you are correct, “alone” is not in the original language.

 

[JonNC]

Concerning my comment about Luther’s mistranslation, I am referring to his translation of the Bible into German, specifically of Romans 3:28, there he added the word allein.

Read Luther’s open letter on translating. In part:

know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [ klar und gewaltiglich ], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.
In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add allein in order that nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words " kein money" do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a completely clear German expression. We do not have to ask the literal Latin how we are to speak German, as these donkeys do. Rather we must ask the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, by the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to them.”

http://www.bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

 

[ltwin]

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.

As a Pentecostal myself, of the Trinitarian variety, we would never say someone “lost salvation” over one minor cultural sin. Yes, at certain times and places, Pentecostals have condemned watching movies but not because movies are intrinsically sinful but because of the real possibility that they desensitize us to sin. They are not sinful but they can warp our minds and lead us into sin. That is what a Pentecostal would repent of–opening themselves up to temptation and evil influence.

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

As JonNC pointed out, Luther’s concept of faith necessitates works. Works do not cause justification–faith does that–but works are the result of justification.

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.

True, but even Calvinists would say works are important as part of progressive sanctification and evidence of one’s faith. How else are we to know that we are among the elect if we never bear any fruit?

The Puritans after all were Calvinists, and we know they were not casual sinners.

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.

Holiness churches have never taught “sinless perfection.” What they have taught is Christian perfection or “perfect love.” There is a big difference.

 

[rcwitness]

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?

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.

I agree, but abuses happened with Luther too… and they continue in the Catholic Church to this day!

Reform should be constant and living. Like conviction and comversion.

We cannot reform enough, where abuses will never happen. The problem is establishing a Eucharist celebration apart from the Bishop of Rome.

 

[fhansen]

This is not a license to sin, at least from my perspective, because it is still possible to forfeit salvation. However, we do not forfeit our salvation every time we sin. Rather, we forfeit our salvation through sustained unbelief and deliberate sin. In such cases, “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26).

Of course, your view here is not a universal position among Protestants but it is essentially consistent with Catholic teaching, except that aside from being sustained and deliberate, the sin must also be considered to be grave. Such sin is an act against love, most importantly.

 

[CzechMan]

Thank you for your quote of Luther’s letter on translating. I have looked online at Rom. 3:28. Incidentally, I was told that Luther also translated the Apocrypha. Yet in all the online versions of Luther’s Bible that I have seen, they have only the basic 66 books of Protestantism, not the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books.

 

[ltwin]

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

Thanks for the link. Interesting.

 

[Wannano]

ltwin:

This is not a license to sin, at least from my perspective, because it is still possible to forfeit salvation. However, we do not forfeit our salvation every time we sin. Rather, we forfeit our salvation through sustained unbelief and deliberate sin. In such cases, “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:26).

Of course, your view here is not a universal position among Protestants but it is essentially consistent with Catholic teaching, except that aside from being sustained and deliberate, the sin must also be considered to be grave. Such sin is an act against love, most importantly.

While Itwins view is not a universal position among Protestants, I do believe it represents the larger percentage when one takes the time to really decipher what is being said.

 

[Dovekin]

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church has something interesting to say about that:

the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

 

[fhansen]

Yet there are many Protestants who hold to OSAS. Either way I would agree that in actual practice, if not in theology, most Protestants live as if what they do counts.

 

[Dovekin]

The faith and works discussion goes back to the letter of St James:

someone may say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.
You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. James 1:18-19

This sets the stage for the Reformation era conflict, with one side treating “faith” as St James does, as belief in specific tenets, while the other side supports a more robust definition of faith like St Paul’s presentations. It is unfortunate that they did not work together to achieve a deeper understanding of the issue that expressed St Paul AND St James together.

 

[ltwin]

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?

This sets the stage for the Reformation era conflict, with one side treating “faith” as St James does, as belief in specific tenets, while the other side supports a more robust definition of faith like St Paul’s presentations. It is unfortunate that they did not work together to achieve a deeper understanding of the issue that expressed St Paul AND St James together.

There were attempts at a meeting in Regensburg , Germany, in April 1541 by both Lutheran and Catholic theologians to work out a consensus agreement on justification and faith. The Pope even sent delegates, and Henry VIII sent representatives. However, by the time that meeting took place positions had hardened and other theological issues had presented themselves, such as debates on the Eucharist and transubstantiation.

 

[rcwitness]

Interesting. Are there documents of what was offered by them?

 

[GladTidings]

but a sigopart revolves around things like indulgences,

I’ve never heard that word. I cannot find it anywhere. What is the definition of the word, sigopart, in post 17?

 

[rcwitness]

St Paul actually does relate faith and works… he just uses different language, as not to imply that Jesus did not need to die for each and every person to be reconciled with God.

1st Cor 15

Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.

“If you hold it fast” is a qualifier to belief alone. and “unless you believed in vain” belief without manifested faith does not save.

Romans 8

“… and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.”

“Provided” is a qualifier to mere assent of faith. “Suffer with Him” means to manifest faith in deed.

Romans 11

Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off

This is another qualifier. And also refutes OSAS

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The poster’s automatic spellchecker or text entry likely messed up while he was trying to type “significant part”.

 

[GladTidings]

Yes, that’s kind of what I thought. I never know for sure, what with all these folks who done be knowing all these big words ‘n’ such.