Do Catholics no longer believe in salvation by works?

[JonNC]

This is how I like to think about it. When Jesus was asked what it took to be saved, he said. " Love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind ," and then he said to" love your Neighbor as yourself". You need to have Faith, because without that, you can not Love God. You also need works, because you can’t love truly your Neighbor without doing good works.

I also like to think about the relative responsibility for man between the Catholic and Protestant positions. In the typical Protestant religion, God is solely responsible for salvation, saving those on which he gives his mercy and condemning those in which he does not. No where is the person given any responsibility for his own salvation

The Catholic position is one of personal responsibilty. God gives us the Grace to be saved, but he does not withhold these Graces from anyone who seeks it. But we need to do our part. That’s why we were given free will. We get to choose whether to respond to God’s call and we get to decide whether to do God’s will. Now of course we still need God’s grace and mercy to be saved, because we are imperfect creatures but we have hope that he will give us the necessary Grace and mercy if we ask for it and show our sincerity by doing our best to do his will…

Paul,
As a Lutheran, I don’t entirely agree with your characterization of the protestant view of works, at least not as Lutherans view it. In addition to my signature by Martin Chemnitz, I’ve posted here from our confessions:

8] 3. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.

10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: **The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins. **
12] 7. Yet this is not to be understood otherwise than as the Lord Christ and His apostles themselves declare, namely, regarding the liberated spirit, that it does not do this from fear of punishment, like a servant, but from love of righteousness, like children, Rom. 8:15.

13] 8. Although this voluntariness [liberty of spirit] in the elect children of God is not perfect, but burdened with great weakness, as St. Paul complains concerning himself, Rom. 7:14-25; Gal. 5:17;

14] 9. Nevertheless, for the sake of the Lord Christ, the Lord does not impute this weakness to His elect, as it is written: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, Rom. 8:1.

15] 10. We believe, teach, and confess also that not works maintain faith and salvation in us, but the Spirit of God alone, through faith, of whose presence and indwelling good works are evidences.

Lutherans certainly reject any notion that we are free not to do His good works, if we are regenerate.

Jon

 

[SSTeacher]

Paul,
As a Lutheran, I don’t entirely agree with your characterization of the protestant view of works, at least not as Lutherans view it.
Jon

Jon,

Clearly, when Paul referred to “the typical Protestant religion,” in his answer to my question he had decided to select Reform thought as “typical.” Not surprisingly, you, as a Lutheran disagree with his characterization of the Protestant view of works. As a matter of fact, I disagree with the Reformed view and lean toward the Arminian side but I understand Paul’s helpful intent.

The fact is that we Protestants have reached the stage where there are so many different interpretations and opinions within Protestant Christendom outsiders who venture to comment are likely to be pulled up by at least one of us. There is no uniformity or agreement to be found in Protestantism and our yet protesting theology demands that we continue to protest. Based on our performance so far, we are headed for even more division. Is there anything of substance that we agree about?

Wasn’t it your guy, Luther, who declared sometime before the end of his life something about there being as many different doctrines as there were heads?

And you know what? Neither the doctrine of Sola Scripture not the doctrine of Prima Scriptura can be used as a fix. They would be about as effective as a catflap in an elephant house, to quote Lord Blackadder out of context. Every time either has been invoked, it has led to more fragmentation, more confusion, more frustration, and more argument. What an appalling mess.

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[paul_c]

Paul,
As a Lutheran, I don’t entirely agree with your characterization of the protestant view of works, at least not as Lutherans view it. In addition to my signature by Martin Chemnitz, I’ve posted here from our confessions:

Lutherans certainly reject any notion that we are free not to do His good works, if we are regenerate.

Jon

I don’t quite get what your view is, so if you don’t mind let me tell you what I think you said and then maybe you can clarify further.

You seem to be saying that if you were truly “saved by Faith” then you would automatically do good works because that would be what your faith would require. People that sin, therefore, don’t really have faith.

But doesn’t this relegate humans into virtual automatons. If God gives them faith, then they won’t sin and they will be saved. If God doesn’t give them faith, then they will sin and will be condemned…

What is man’s role in this? Where does his free will apply, because if its all God’s will, then man has no free will…

I believe that this single doctrine was what separated Luther from the Catholics. He recognized himself as a sinful man but rather than blame himself for this, he instead created a doctrine that put the entire responsibility for his salvation in God’s hands , appealing to his mercy (which is right) but denying the Catholic Concept that each man has a role in his own salvation. Once he broke from the Catholic church on this point, all the rest of his doctrines had to follow. He had to worship on the Altar of Sola Scriptura, because the magesterium of the Church was no longer available to him… He also had to support a priesthood of the people for the obvious reason that he decoupled himself from the Apostolic progression. The rejection of purgatory was an obvious outgrowth of not accepting personal responsibility for sins or salvation.

 

[Reuben_J]

Can a Catholic have an assurance of salvation or would such a belief be considered presumptuous? And by an “assurance of salvation” I certainly don’t mean hollow utterances about “being saved” yet simultaneously living a life devoid of any of the milk of human kindness. I mean taking seriously Saint Paul’s injunction “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”

It’s been my sincere belief that this is my position. However, my growing uncertainty as to whether the Protestant doctrines of ***Sola Scriptura ***and ***Prima Scriptura ***are really tenable is leading me to look carefully and cautiously at my presuppositions.

Anticipating your help and support.

Grace and peace,
Mick

Hi Mick.

Welcome to the forum. I do like your honest approach in your posts.

You’ve been adequately answered on the Catholic’s position on ‘assurance of salvation’ by posters before this. I just would like to add on some practical aspect of this position.

Admittedly there is some bias on some phrases as being Protestant and ‘assurance of salvation’ is definitely one of them, at least from a Catholic’s mind, which we suspect derives from the theology of OSAS. It is not that we are not confident of being saved. We don’t declare we are saved simply because anything can happen between now and at the time of our death when judgment will be made.

It is not so much the now but by the time when we meet the Lord that we should be still in the ‘state of grace’. Thus Catholic do not normally declare they are saved even though basically they know where they stand and being aware that judgment is the Lord, then it is true to say it is presumptuous to boast about being saved.

But this does not mean we are not confident about being saved. It is quite simple really - if one truly has had a good confession (Sacrament of Penance), speaking for myself, at that moment I don’t mind if the Lord takes me. But the key word is good confession and what it entails. That state of grace can be further consolidated by receiving the Sacrament of Eucharist. Having been brought up in a Catholic tradition I would say that we have stronger basis to be confident to know when we are truly saved.

Baptism is not a guarantee of being saved but a vehicle, for want of better word, to lead us to being saved. Just like being the sons of Abraham are not guaranteed of being saved if they they do not live a life as commanded by the covenant. But they will be saved if they do.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[JonNC]

=paul c;4460659]
You seem to be saying that if you were truly “saved by Faith” then you would automatically do good works because that would be what your faith would require. People that sin, therefore, don’t really have faith.
But doesn’t this relegate humans into virtual automatons. If God gives them faith, then they won’t sin and they will be saved. If God doesn’t give them faith, then they will sin and will be condemned…

In the bold part, right. In the rest, no. There is a recognition by both of our traditions that even the regenerate sin. Otherwise, there would be no need for Confession and Holy Absolution, or even the Eucharist. Christ anticipated our sin, and instituted these things for our benefit. The regenerate who sin recognize it and ask forgiveness.

What is man’s role in this? Where does his free will apply, because if its all God’s will, then man has no free will…

The regenerate have free will to choose Christ or not, to follow His way or not. By choosing to follow His ways, we confess, receive the sacrament, etc., and do the good things He expects of us in this world. While we are justified by grace through faith, we participate in our sanctification, our growth in grace.
If, on the other hand, we choose to not follow what he has taught, that is evidence of a dead faith. Eventually, our justification is lost, because our faith is dead.

I believe that this single doctrine was what separated Luther from the Catholics. He recognized himself as a sinful man but rather than blame himself for this, he instead created a doctrine that put the entire responsibility for his salvation in God’s hands , appealing to his mercy (which is right) but denying the Catholic Concept that each man has a role in his own salvation.

Yes, it is, but I don’t think what you say here represents Luther’s belief.
He did recognize himself as sinful, beyond salvation by any means of his own. He believed that by Christ’s atonement, and not by any merit of his own, is salvation possible. “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.”
The quote from our confession does point out that we have a role in our salvation. While we can’t merit salvation, we are obliged to follow His commands. To do so keeps us in His grace, to fail to do so will soon drive the HS from us.

I think what I’m saying is that our beliefs are much closer than some (Lutheran and Catholic) want to admit.

Jon

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi Mick.

Welcome to the forum. I do like your honest approach in your posts.

You’ve been adequately answered on the Catholic’s position on ‘assurance of salvation’ by posters before this. I just would like to add on some practical aspect of this position.

Admittedly there is some bias on some phrases as being Protestant and ‘assurance of salvation’ is definitely one of them, at least from a Catholic’s mind, which we suspect derives from the theology of OSAS. It is not that we are not confident of being saved. We don’t declare we are saved simply because anything can happen between now and at the time of our death when judgment will be made.

It is not so much the now but by the time when we meet the Lord that we should be still in the ‘state of grace’. Thus Catholic do not normally declare they are saved even though basically they know where they stand and being aware that judgment is the Lord, then it is true to say it is presumptuous to boast about being saved.

But this does not mean we are not confident about being saved. It is quite simple really - if one truly has had a good confession (Sacrament of Penance), speaking for myself, at that moment I don’t mind if the Lord takes me. But the key word is good confession and what it entails. That state of grace can be further consolidated by receiving the Sacrament of Eucharist. Having been brought up in a Catholic tradition I would say that we have stronger basis to be confident to know when we are truly saved.

Baptism is not a guarantee of being saved but a vehicle, for want of better word, to lead us to being saved. Just like being the sons of Abraham are not guaranteed of being saved if they they do not live a life as commanded by the covenant. But they will be saved if they do.

God bless.

Reuben

Thanks, Reuben.

This exposition is most helpful to me. I’ll think on.

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[HappyRevert]

I don’t know if this helps or not but one particular thing that has fairly recently struck me as a difference between Catholics and Protestants which I think ties in here. I was raised Catholic became a Presbyterian for a while and then came back to my mother faith so this may have a Presbyterian slant. Anyway, my understanding is that Protestants in general believe that conversion is a one time event and after that they are saved. Catholics believe in multiple conversions over their entire lifetime so that in a perfect situation, by the end of our lives we will have allowed Jesus to so completely take us over that we leap into heaven (pause for a happy thought).

I think that is how some misunderstandings of our belief in salvation by works versus faith is due to this belief in lifetime conversion as opposed to a one time event.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know if this helps or not but one particular thing that has fairly recently struck me as a difference between Catholics and Protestants which I think ties in here. I was raised Catholic became a Presbyterian for a while and then came back to my mother faith so this may have a Presbyterian slant. Anyway, my understanding is that Protestants in general believe that conversion is a one time event and after that they are saved. Catholics believe in multiple conversions over their entire lifetime so that in a perfect situation, by the end of our lives we will have allowed Jesus to so completely take us over that we leap into heaven (pause for a happy thought).

I think that is how some misunderstandings of our belief in salvation by works versus faith is due to this belief in lifetime conversion as opposed to a one time event.

I think you are right, most Protesatants separate the moment of justification (being placed in a right relationship with God) from sanctification and glorification. All of these are elements of salvation. Catholics believe we are made righteous before God in baptism, and that we continue to grow in righteousness thrhoughout our lives.

 

[paul_c]

In the bold part, right. In the rest, no. There is a recognition by both of our traditions that even the regenerate sin. Otherwise, there would be no need for Confession and Holy Absolution, or even the Eucharist. Christ anticipated our sin, and instituted these things for our benefit. The regenerate who sin recognize it and ask forgiveness.

The regenerate have free will to choose Christ or not, to follow His way or not. By choosing to follow His ways, we confess, receive the sacrament, etc., and do the good things He expects of us in this world. While we are justified by grace through faith, we participate in our sanctification, our growth in grace.
If, on the other hand, we choose to not follow what he has taught, that is evidence of a dead faith. Eventually, our justification is lost, because our faith is dead.

Yes, it is, but I don’t think what you say here represents Luther’s belief.
He did recognize himself as sinful, beyond salvation by any means of his own. He believed that by Christ’s atonement, and not by any merit of his own, is salvation possible. “He that believes and is baptized shall be saved.”
The quote from our confession does point out that we have a role in our salvation. While we can’t merit salvation, we are obliged to follow His commands. To do so keeps us in His grace, to fail to do so will soon drive the HS from us.

I think what I’m saying is that our beliefs are much closer than some (Lutheran and Catholic) want to admit.

Jon

Perhaps… But then why did Luther feel a need to abandon the one true faith. And if its true, what is keeping you and the entire Lutheran Church (es) from reconciling with the Catholic Church.
What are the differences that you think are meaningful enough to keep us apart…

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps… But then why did Luther feel a need to abandon the one true faith. And if its true, what is keeping you and the entire Lutheran Church (es) from reconciling with the Catholic Church.
What are the differences that you think are meaningful enough to keep us apart…

I think, speaking for myself, that Luther saw in the selling of indulgences and some other practices in the Church of his time, errors that were not scriptural. Notice I said practices. Sadly for all of us, there were other issues involved at the time to led to further separation of positions.

I believe there is movement, in at least some parts of both churches, toward unity. There are 500 years of differences, understandings of terms (semantics), etc., that need to be overcome, as well as a deeper mutual understanding of what scripture tells us. I believe the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was a good first step, and I pray it continues.

Today’s Gospel reading, Mat. 25 31-46 should put all Christians on notice that we have an obligation to allow the Holy Spirit to do His good works through us to be His sheep.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Perhaps… But then why did Luther feel a need to abandon the one true faith.

Paul,
I just wanted to make a brief comment here. I think of the reformers Luther was the least interested in schism. And even the CCC makes clear that there was enough fault to go around. That said, both sides now have an obligation to work together to heal the wounds to the church, and allow the HS to guide us together. I think that’s in keeping with what thepope said that started this thread.

Jon

 

[Fisher]

can a Cathloic know if he or she is saved?

 

[Church_Militant]

We never believed in salvation by works.

We have always believed in salvation by faith and works from that faith.

I’m not saved by saying I’m “saved” because I believe in Christ as savior. I’ll BE saved because I believe in Christ as savior and do what I’m supposed to do as commanded of me by our Savior.

:shamrock2:

 

[Church_Militant]

can a Catholic know if he or she is saved?

We do not ascribe to OSAS/Eternal Security as they are unscriptural teachings.

Therefore no one can rightly KNOW that they are saved. According the the New Testament, we know we have hope, but no man can know the final end of another.

 

[Fisher]

We do not ascribe to OSAS/Eternal Security as they are unscriptural teachings.

Therefore no one can rightly KNOW that they are saved. According the the New Testament, we know we have hope, but no man can know the final end of another.

If that is true how did Paul know that the names were in the book of life?

Phl 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names are ** in the book of life. **

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found **written in the book of life **was cast into the lake of fire.

 

[Cristiano]

can a Cathloic know if he or she is saved?

Yes! But only once he/she dies and goes to heaven.

If you think that you have that “knowledge” when you are alive then you are a gnostic.

If you have faith, hope and charity, that means that you “trust” in God and have “confidence” that you will be there because of “love”.

 

[sambos671]

If that is true how did Paul know that the names were in the book of life?

Phl 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names are ** in the book of life. **

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found **written in the book of life **was cast into the lake of fire.

You bring up a good point.

 

[Fisher]

Yes! But only once he/she dies and goes to heaven.

If you think that you have that “knowledge” when you are alive then you are a gnostic.

If you have faith, hope and charity, that means that you “trust” in God and have “confidence” that you will be there because of “love”.

what about 1John 5:13 you are a catholic right. well you believe in
(transubstantiation) well what about this John 6:54, Jesus said “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life…”; the word i want to point out is (hath) the Greek is (ἔχω echō) 1) to have, i.e. to hold 2) to have i.e. own, possess

 

[Church_Militant]

If that is true how did Paul know that the names were in the book of life?

Phl 4:3 And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and [with] other my fellowlabourers, whose names are ** in the book of life. **

Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found **written in the book of life **was cast into the lake of fire.Probably because he shares the same theology that St. John does when he wrote the following in Revelation 3, which definitely shows that one can lose one’s salvation.

5 He that shall overcome, shall thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

 

[Church_Militant]

what about 1John 5:13 you are a catholic right. well you believe in
(transubstantiation) well what about this John 6:54, Jesus said “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life…”; the word i want to point out is (hath) the Greek is (ἔχω echō) 1) to have, i.e. to hold 2) to have i.e. own, possess

The big problem for you there is that St. John also taught St. Ignatius of Antioch, (the Bishop of that church, a martyr by being thrown to wild animals, and a friend of St. John) what he should believe about the Eucharist and transsubstantiation and which he passed on to us in his letter to the church at Smyrna.
Do you agree with him?

CHAP. VII.–LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.

They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer,(7) because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death(11) in the midst of their disputes. But it were better for them to treat it with respect,(13) that they also might rise again. It is fitting, therefore, that ye should keep aloof from such persons, and not to speak of(15) them either in private or in public, but to give heed to the prophets, and above all, to the Gospel, in which the passion[of Christ] has been revealed to us, and the resurrection has been fully proved.(16) But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils.