Do Catholics no longer believe in salvation by works?

[Contarini]

Edwin,

What I mean by works is physical activity or movement.

I don’t think that’s a very helpful definition theologically. Christian theology has generally focused on will and intention as the significant factor in “works.” This of course is where you are going as well, but you start off with this straw-man definition.

Take three examples that were commonly seen in the Early Church: praying, almsgiving and fasting.

Would any of these three activities, laudable as they may be, save the person who is engaging in them? I would answer that they would not.

These actions do not, in and of themselves, save anyone. No one thinks that they do. However, Scripture strongly indicates in a number of places that they contribute to one’s salvation. One of the clearest such passages is Acts 10:4. There an angel tells Cornelius that his prayers and alms have come up before God as a “memorial,” which has led to God sending the angel to tell Cornelius how he can hear a fuller presentation of the Gospel. Now of course these acts on Cornelius’s part were themselves a result of God’s “prevenient grace”–they were not just his unaided human acts. But they clearly contributed to Cornelius’s salvation.

So why engage in them, then? I would answer that the motivation is – or, at least, ought to be – charity i.e. love.

I think you need to unpack what you mean by charity/love here. Are you suggesting that our love for God (which is surely involved in prayer and fasting–almsgiving might be purely motivated by love of neighbor) is entirely disinterested? Isn’t the idea of a disinterested love of God on our part both incoherent and arrogant? (Yes, Jonathan Edwards and some of his disciples tried to develop such an idea, and in some form it arguably goes back to the Reformation, but I don’t think it works.) We pray, surely, because we want to have an intimate relationship with God. We want something for ourselves, and we do not want to be deprived of that relationship, which is the purpose for which we were made (to be in loving union with God). This collapses your clear-cut distinction between doing something so we will be saved and doing something out of love. Surely our love of God is the same thing as our desire to be saved, if we have a Biblical understanding of what salvation is (i.e., union with God and not just some kind of paradise).

And similarly this collapses your distinction between love and fear. If I love someone (but not yet perfectly–few if any of us love perfectly in this life), I fear hurting them or disrupting my relationship with them. I fear becoming the kind of person who will no longer be capable of having a harmonious relationship with them.

The most obvious one to me is the one you mentioned in your post – the Catholic belief in the idea that some sins are mortal sins.

That’s hardly a “rule and regulation.” It’s an obvious consequence of the plain teaching of Scripture–see 1 Cor. 5:9-10 and Galatians 5:19 for starters. Paul says in the clearest possible manner that there are certain sins that are incompatible with sharing in the kingdom of God. If anything had to be defended, it would be the view that some sins are venial sins. (I myself am not at all sure that 1 John 5:16-17 is talking about the mortal/venial distinction, even though that’s where the Catholic terminology comes from.) Probably the real question is what we mean by “sin.” Wesley spoke of sins “properly so called,” and I’m willing to use that terminology rather than “mortal sins.” But I think the terminology of “venial sin” is useful, because it reminds us that even these failings, which don’t cut off our relationship with God, still mark a falling short of the standard of perfect love, and still stem from our sinful nature (or what Catholics call “concupiscence”).

 

[Contarini]

I should have thought that this belief would, at some time or another, make each and every Catholic very frightened indeed. And I don’t mean frightened in the sense of being in awe of God, either. I mean fear for self – petrified of what one’s fate or destiny might eventually be.

There’s no need to be petrified if you believe that God is loving and gracious. It seems to me that remarks such as this ironically show a lack of confidence in God. It’s as if you want God’s signature on a contract saying that you will be saved no matter what you may choose to do, or else you refuse to trust in God’s love at all.

Well, fear drives out love. Agreed?

No. Not agreed at all. And if you think you are quoting or accurately paraphrasing 1 John 4:18, you are wrong. 1 John does not say that fear drives out love, but the reverse–love drives out fear. Love drives out fear because the more perfectly you love someone, the more confident you are in the relationship and the less you worry about doing something that might alienate the other person. It doesn’t mean that certain acts would not in fact alienate the other person. Perfect love for my wife is not incompatible with the knowledge that committing adultery would seriously endanger if not destroy our relationship. But it is incompatible with fear that this will happen. This is what you are missing. You think that believing in mortal sin means that people are running around worried that they might commit a mortal sin any minute. Perfect love casts out fear not because it’s based on the knowledge that nothing you do has consequences, but because perfect love is incompatible with doing those things that would have those consequences.

However, most Christians have not yet been made perfect in love. And thus they do have some measure of fear, and this is a healthy thing. It’s not ideal, but it’s a good thing until a person has reached the degree of love for God that wholly casts out fear. A theology that tries to cast out fear by doctrines of imputed righteousness and eternal security is not promoting love–it’s short-circuiting it.

If you’re doing things out of fear – because you’re afraid of the consequences if you don’t do them – then you’re not doing it out of love. And if love isn’t the primary motivation then the action – however noble it may – defaults into the category of works.

Well no, not even by your definition above. You’ve gone from “works are physical actions” to an apparent definition of works as physical actions not motivated by love–which is an even odder definition.

But to the main point: fear and love are not simply incompatible. The more we love, the less reason we have to fear, particularly in the case of God, because God Himself is perfect love so we don’t need to worry about any shortcomings at His end. The only thing we should fear, as Christians, is not loving God. And a mortal sin is precisely an action incompatible with the love of God.

Edwin

 

[SSTeacher]

Edwin,

Many thanks for putting your thoughts together for me. You’ve been most helpful. I’ll think on. Thanks again.

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

On the contrary, I think its actually the Protestants which is more motivated by the fear of hell. I mean how can you explain “Once saved, always Saved”?

nilofc,

I can’t speak for any Protestant other than myself and although I don’t personally believe in the notion of “Once Saved, Always Saved,"but I’ll do my best to construct a case.

The Catholic and Orthodox understanding of salvation seem to be very similar in that salvation is understood to be a gradual process that unfolds over the course of a lifetime. In Orthodoxy, it has a name: theosis. However, in Evangelical Protestantism, salvation is understood to be an ***event ***that involves a spiritual experience of some sort – as happened with Saint Paul. The result of that experience is that the individual turns to God and away from sin: signifying that the individual has repented. Then comes the hard bit: actually living the Christian life – taking up your daily cross and following Christ. However, this is done with the knowledge that one is a child of God and assured of salvation. Protestants on the Reform side believe that once they are saved, God’s will is done and can’t be undone. There are numerous verses in Scripture that can and are used to support the belief. For example, Saint Paul wrote in Romans: For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

My stumbling block with the Catholic doctrine of mortal sins is that it seems to portray God not as a reliable Father one can trust but as someone who is prone to fits of pique. Mortal sins make Him get so mad that He will immediately damn you to hell for all eternity if you commit one and leave you hanging with that terrible threat weighing heavily upon you until you take the appropriate action to get back into the right relationship with Him by going to confession. But perhaps I’m not fully grasping the Catholic understanding.

At any rate, it seems to me that God is portrayed differently in Protestantism. Or perhaps it would more helpful to say that a different aspect of His nature is emphasized. In Evangelical Protestantism, God is a tender, loving Father, who has saved you. There’s no question that He will discipline you – pity the child whose parent doesn’t enforce discipline - but He won’t damn you to Hell.

In Orthodoxy and in Catholicism, I guess the emphasis is on God’s justice? And so what in Protestantism is seen as trusting in God that He has saved you (something good), is seen in Orthodoxy and Catholicism as presumption (something bad).

Cordially,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher,
I’m taking issue with your original thesis that Catholics are motivated by Fear to do good works. Why is your opinion of Catholics so low? When I explained that this was completely outside my Catholic experience, you then took issue with that, saying that my experience was illogical and that we must be motivated by fear. Doesn’t this simply betray your biases?

Paul,

Yes, I’ll certainly admit to having an anti–Catholic bias. If I said otherwise, I’d be bearing false witness. I’m here in this forum checking out Catholicism but I’m by no means in agreement with Catholic doctrine (as I understand it to be). I sure don’t mean to offend you – or anyone else for that matter. I daresay Catholics who involve themselves with this website and make contributions find themselves up against all sorts of hostility and abuse but I haven’t come with the motive of tearing the Catholic Church to bits or to insult people just for the sake of it. I hope I don’t have a low opinion of Catholics. Rather, I have objections to Catholic doctrine. It’s kinda hard to separate the people from the beliefs.

Perhaps you’ll feel able to give me the benefit of the doubt.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[nilofc]

nilofc,

I can’t speak for any Protestant other than myself and although I don’t personally believe in the notion of “Once Saved, Always Saved,"but I’ll do my best to construct a case.

The Catholic and Orthodox understanding of salvation seem to be very similar in that salvation is understood to be a gradual process that unfolds over the course of a lifetime. In Orthodoxy, it has a name: theosis. However, in Evangelical Protestantism, salvation is understood to be an ***event ***that involves a spiritual experience of some sort – as happened with Saint Paul. The result of that experience is that the individual turns to God and away from sin: signifying that the individual has repented. Then comes the hard bit: actually living the Christian life – taking up your daily cross and following Christ. However, this is done with the knowledge that one is a child of God and assured of salvation. Protestants on the Reform side believe that once they are saved, God’s will is done and can’t be undone. There are numerous verses in Scripture that can and are used to support the belief. For example, Saint Paul wrote in Romans: For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

In 1 Corinthians 1:18 Paul says “For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are **being saved **it is the power of God.”

Salvation is not a one time event, for why would St. Paul ask us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling?

In the verse that you mentioned, it is true that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

But did you notice that the verse that you sighted in Romans, there is no mention of your own culpability, your own wrongdoing which may separate you from the love of God.

As I said before, cooperation takes both parties’ effort for it to work. God will not let anything separate you from Him, but you can break that bond yourself. Two words… Free Will.

My stumbling block with the Catholic doctrine of mortal sins is that it seems to portray God not as a reliable Father one can trust but as someone who is prone to fits of pique. Mortal sins make Him get so mad that He will immediately damn you to hell for all eternity if you commit one and leave you hanging with that terrible threat weighing heavily upon you until you take the appropriate action to get back into the right relationship with Him by going to confession. But perhaps I’m not fully grasping the Catholic understanding.

Can you honestly say that since you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior then you can go on killing people and still be saved? I think you yourself will even have a problem with that.

At any rate, it seems to me that God is portrayed differently in Protestantism. Or perhaps it would more helpful to say that a different aspect of His nature is emphasized. In Evangelical Protestantism, God is a tender, loving Father, who has saved you. There’s no question that He will discipline you – pity the child whose parent doesn’t enforce discipline - but He won’t damn you to Hell.

Then why did Jesus say …not everybody that calls Him Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom og heaven? Why did he say that if you don’t bear much fruit you will be cut off from the vine?

In Protestantism, God is portrayed as a loving Father who does not have a choice but to save His children even if His children don’t want to. In protestantism, God will choose to look away and ignore that the grave and mortal sins of His children.

If you come to think of it…in Protestantism, God owes them their salvation.

In Orthodoxy and in Catholicism, I guess the emphasis is on God’s justice? And so what in Protestantism is seen as trusting in God that He has saved you (something good), is seen in Orthodoxy and Catholicism as presumption (something bad).

Cordially,
Mick

You seem to be lacking in the understanding of Salvation in the Catholic view. Salvation is a process. We are saved, we are being saved, we will be saved. But you can always choose to refuse that salvation… and I tell you… God will not save you if you yourself don’t want to. I know you want to…but you need to be obedient to Him and His Church. Think of it.

 

[guanophore]

Depends on what you mean by “salvation by works.”
The official Catholic position is that the works that the Holy Spirit produces in human beings, with the cooperation of the redeemed human will, are “meritorious” in the sense that they have value in God’s sight and are fittingly rewarded by eternal life.

Pope Benedict’s point is that this does not contradict “sola fide” if faith is defined in such a way as to be intrinsically connected with love and hence with good works.

Where I do see a conflict–and would be delighted if Pope Benedict were modifying the traditional understanding in this regard–is in the Council of Trent’s condemnation of the idea that faith is lost by every mortal sin. If the faith that is a gift of God is always accompanied by charity (as I believe and as most Protestants believe), then it would follow that every mortal sin would result in the loss of faith in the strict and proper Christian sense.

Obviously we are dealing with two different senses of faith here. I’d like to see ecumenical Catholics address this issue in more detail.

Edwin

Does Trent say that “faith” is lost? I have trouble with this because of my understanding of faith. Faith is a capacity that is part of our human makeup. People have the ability to put their faith in anything, which is why Jesus so often chided them “where is your faith?”. He also told them that their faith had saved them,a nd that it was done to them according to their faith. Yes, God kindles human faith, but not all respond to His grace.

I think the effect of mortal sin is that it cuts us off from the grace that kindles our faith, so that we are separated from that which can only save us. When we choose to commit sin, we are putting our faith in something other than God. It is not “lost” but misplaced. We can only be saved when our faith mixes with His grace.

 

[guanophore]

Edwin,

What I mean by works is physical activity or movement. Take three examples that were commonly seen in the Early Church: praying, almsgiving and fasting. Would any of these three activities, laudable as they may be, save the person who is engaging in them? I would answer that they would not. My view is that of a Protestant. So why engage in them, then? I would answer that the motivation is – or, at least, ought to be – charity i.e. love.

I don’t quite see how a Catholic can give that same straight answer without adding some sort of qualification. There seem to me to be all sorts of other rules and regulation involved that must intrude into the picture and inevitably force even the most well–meaning Catholic into a “works” mindset. The most obvious one to me is the one you mentioned in your post – the Catholic belief in the idea that some sins are mortal sins. I should have thought that this belief would, at some time or another, make each and every Catholic very frightened indeed. And I don’t mean frightened in the sense of being in awe of God, either. I mean fear for self – petrified of what one’s fate or destiny might eventually be.

Well, fear drives out love. Agreed? If you’re doing things out of fear – because you’re afraid of the consequences if you don’t do them – then you’re not doing it out of love. And if love isn’t the primary motivation then the action – however noble it may – defaults into the category of works. In what other category could it possibly be?

Do you follow my reasoning and see my difficulty?

Grace and peace,
Mick

Is this not what Jesus meant when He said “fear the one who can cast both body and soul into hell”? Is it not healthy to have some fears? children should fear playing in traffic, and we should all fear putting our hands on a hot stove.

 

[paul_c]

Paul,

Yes, I’ll certainly admit to having an anti–Catholic bias. If I said otherwise, I’d be bearing false witness. I’m here in this forum checking out Catholicism but I’m by no means in agreement with Catholic doctrine (as I understand it to be). I sure don’t mean to offend you – or anyone else for that matter. I daresay Catholics who involve themselves with this website and make contributions find themselves up against all sorts of hostility and abuse but I haven’t come with the motive of tearing the Catholic Church to bits or to insult people just for the sake of it. I hope I don’t have a low opinion of Catholics. Rather, I have objections to Catholic doctrine. It’s kinda hard to separate the people from the beliefs.

Perhaps you’ll feel able to give me the benefit of the doubt.

Respectfully,
Mick

I will indeed give you the benefit of the doubt. If you have questions, you will get the answers on this site. Its very thorough.

Look, the criteria for a sin to be mortal is three things

It has to be serious (grave matter)
you need to know its a sin
and you need to do it deliberately, knowing that it will separate you from God.

So, to commit a mortal sin, you are literally intentionally separating yourself from God. So you have made a decision that you prefered that sin to God. Now, God in his mercy, has created the sacrament of reconciliation (you might know it as confession) to provide a path back for the penetent sinner. But the sinner must desire to be reconciled and he must make the sin right in whatever way is appropriate. (I.e, if you steal, give it back, do pennance, etc). This is how souls are purified on earth. If the purification process isn’t completed before death, it is competed in purgatory, ensuring our worthiness to enter heaven.
If the sinner shows no desire to be reconciled with God, God does not force him to do so. In this case, he will go to Hell.
God is merciful and just and he respects us humans enough to give us free will and responsibility.

So, I ask you a few questions:
Can someone who has been “saved” ever commit a serious sin?
If so, does everyone of them want to be reconciled with God?
If not, would God, in your view, be justified in forcing them to go to Heaven ? Sure its in their best interest, but is it their choice?

In your mind, which God would be more just?
one that forces all men to do what he wants and makes all the decisions for them or one that gives men the freedom to choose their own path and holds them responsible for their decisions?

Keep in mind, that we really don’t get to choose our own God. He is “I am who am”

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic and Orthodox understanding of salvation seem to be very similar in that salvation is understood to be a gradual process that unfolds over the course of a lifetime. In Orthodoxy, it has a name: theosis.

Well, yes and no. The Apostles taught that one is fully and completely saved at the moment of baptism. If an infant were to die after baptism, one is received into heaven. This is also the case with adults who are baptised. Theosis comes into play when life goes on after baptism. The Apostles taught that it is incumbent upon those who are born again to live a life a live worthy of the calling which had been received. The process is not initial justification, which happens at baptism, but sanctification, which is the conforming of the heart, soul, mind and strength into the image and likeness of the Creator. The completion of salvation is glorification, which occurs when we arrive.

All of these, justification, sanctificaton, and glorfication are parts of “salvation”.

However, in Evangelical Protestantism, salvation is understood to be an ***event ***that involves a spiritual experience of some sort – as happened with Saint Paul. The result of that experience is that the individual turns to God and away from sin: signifying that the individual has repented.

Those of Apostolic faith would consider this a point of initial justification. However, St. Paul is clear that this “event” is a beginning for himself as well, and it is he who makes it clear that we must work our our salvation, and be conformed to the image of God, and not presume that we have “attained”, but to press, strive, and hope.

Then comes the hard bit: actually living the Christian life – taking up your daily cross and following Christ.  However, this is done with the knowledge that one is a child of God and assured of salvation.

For those of Apostolic faiths, it is indeed done with the knowledge that one is a child of God, but as we were taught in the faith that has been passed down to us, it is hope that sustains us.

Protestants on the Reform side believe that once they are saved, God’s will is done and can’t be undone.

This we would consider a “new gospel”, having sprung up some 1500 years after the the Lord delivered the faith once and for all to the saints.

We believe that it is possible to have one’s name blotted out of the book of life.

There are numerous verses in Scripture that can and are used to support the belief.  For example, Saint Paul wrote in Romans: For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Indeed, scripture can be used to support the most bizarrre of heresies. However, God does not stop loving us just because we choose to reject Him. It was His love that gave us free will, and allows us to choose not to have fellowship with him if we so desire. He loved the whole world enough to give up his only son, but not all respond to His love.

My stumbling block with the Catholic doctrine of mortal sins is that it seems to portray God not as a reliable Father one can trust but as someone who is prone to fits of pique.

I think this is probably due to a misunderstanding of the doctrine. It is God’s love that has freed us from slavery, and given us the ability to choose. He respects our choice to separate ourselves from His plan for our salvation. He never stops loving us, even while we dance merrily into the fires of hell.

Mortal sins make Him get so mad that He will immediately damn you to hell for all eternity if you commit one and leave you hanging with that terrible threat weighing heavily upon you until you take the appropriate action to get back into the right relationship with Him by going to confession.

I think you have it backwards. Mortal sin is us spurning the blood of Christ, and deliberately rejecting the only source of our salvation. By it, we crucify the Son of God afresh.

But perhaps I’m not fully grasping the Catholic understanding.

It is very generous of you to say this.

 

[guanophore]

At any rate, it seems to me that God is portrayed differently in Protestantism. Or perhaps it would more helpful to say that a different aspect of His nature is emphasized. In Evangelical Protestantism, God is a tender, loving Father, who has saved you. There’s no question that He will discipline you – pity the child whose parent doesn’t enforce discipline - but He won’t damn you to Hell.

We damn ourselves to hell. God gives us a choice.

Deut 30:15-20

15 See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, death and adversity. 16 If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I am commanding you today, by loving the LORD your God, walking in his ways, and observing his commandments, decrees, and ordinances, then you shall live and become numerous, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to possess. 17 But if your heart turns away and you do not hear, but are led astray to bow down to other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you shall perish; you shall not live long in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess. 19** I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life **so that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the LORD your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the LORD swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob."

God’s plan of salvation has not changed. He offers us life, and urges us to choose life.

Gen 4:5-7
6 The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

We can only “master” sin by grace, through faith. If we choose not to master it, then we do no do well. It has not to do with any “pique” on God’s part. He has created parameters within which human beings function. We can choose to walk within these, or not.

In Orthodoxy and in Catholicism, I guess the emphasis is on God’s justice? And so what in Protestantism is seen as trusting in God that He has saved you (something good), is seen in Orthodoxy and Catholicism as presumption (something bad).

Cordially,
Mick

We do not emphasize one over the other. God has become our father when we are born from above through water and spirit. We have been made into sons and daughters of the most high. This does not negate His justice. We are born under a death sentence, this is why Jesus says:

John 3:18-21
18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."

Grace, through faith, delivers us from judgement. When we sin mortally, we separate ourselves from that grace that saves.

 

[Contarini]

My stumbling block with the Catholic doctrine of mortal sins is that it seems to portray God not as a reliable Father one can trust but as someone who is prone to fits of pique. Mortal sins make Him get so mad that He will immediately damn you to hell for all eternity if you commit one and leave you hanging with that terrible threat weighing heavily upon you until you take the appropriate action to get back into the right relationship with Him by going to confession. But perhaps I’m not fully grasping the Catholic understanding.

A mortal sin is by definition a deliberate choice to go against God. There is no “pique” in the fact that God cannot have eternal fellowship with someone who deliberately chooses to sin and refuses to repent. The only way your criticism makes sense is if you are a universalist. Surely the arguments any non-universalist would use to support the damnation of those who refuse to believe in Christ would apply even more to those who say they believe in Christ (and thus have no excuse) but deliberately choose to act in ways incompatible with the love of God and neighbor. Scripture seems to teach pretty clearly to me that those who have experienced the grace of God are worthy of *greater *judgment if they sin, not let off the hook. That doesn’t look like pique to me, just justice.

At any rate, it seems to me that God is portrayed differently in Protestantism. Or perhaps it would more helpful to say that a different aspect of His nature is emphasized. In Evangelical Protestantism, God is a tender, loving Father, who has saved you. There’s no question that He will discipline you – pity the child whose parent doesn’t enforce discipline - but He won’t damn you to Hell.

Again, this works as an argument for universalism. I can’t see how it works otherwise. If God is the loving Father only of those who have “accepted Jesus,” then how is that not “pique”? How is that not blatant favoritism? God judges everyone else for their sins, but those who have signed on the dotted line get off scot free?

Conservative evangelicals think this is a picture of a loving God. Everyone else–more liberal Protestants (whether or not, like me, they still consider themselves evangelical), Catholics and Orthodox, non-Christians–looks on and shakes their head. To the rest of us this doesn’t look like a loving Father at all.

I hate calling people inconsistent, but it seems to me that on this issue (and some others) most evangelicals are inconsistent Calvinists. After all, most evangelical Protestantism derives from Calvinism in some way. By Calvinist standards it makes sense to say that only the elect are God’s children, God only cares for them, and so they can be confident that God loves them and will ensure their final salvation. The rest of the human race can just go to hell, as far as God is concerned.

If you aren’t willing to say this, and you aren’t a universalist, then I don’t see how your position makes sense.

Please forgive me if I have spoken too heatedly. You responded very graciously to my last (rather intemperate) post, and I don’t want to try your patience. But this is an issue on which I feel very strongly. I’m a Wesleyan with strong Catholic leanings who grew up among Baptists; I’m a historian of the Reformation who finds it frustrating that so many Protestants don’t understand where their theological assumptions come from; and I’m a professor at an evangelical college. All of these things make this a very important issue for me.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Does Trent say that “faith” is lost? I have trouble with this because of my understanding of faith. Faith is a capacity that is part of our human makeup.

But we’re talking about the supernatural gift of faith, not just “belief” as a human action.

My contention is that the supernatural gift of faith is always accompanied by charity, and is lost whenever charity is lost. (Which implies either that faith is lost by every mortal sin, or that not every serious sin results in the loss of charity–this would be the “fundamental option” view. I hold to the former view, but with heavy qualifications both concerning the matter of mortal sin and the degree of deliberation necessary to commit a true mortal sin.) The “faith” possessed by a person who lacks charity is simply a human opinion like any other. It is a good thing for people to have correct opinions about theology, but it’s not of much spiritual importance. In other words, from my perspective as a Wesleyan it’s the Catholics who put too much weight on “faith alone”!

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

But we’re talking about the supernatural gift of faith, not just “belief” as a human action.

My contention is that the supernatural gift of faith is always accompanied by charity, and is lost whenever charity is lost. (Which implies either that faith is lost by every mortal sin, or that not every serious sin results in the loss of charity–this would be the “fundamental option” view. I hold to the former view, but with heavy qualifications both concerning the matter of mortal sin and the degree of deliberation necessary to commit a true mortal sin.) The “faith” possessed by a person who lacks charity is simply a human opinion like any other. It is a good thing for people to have correct opinions about theology, but it’s not of much spiritual importance. In other words, from my perspective as a Wesleyan it’s the Catholics who put too much weight on “faith alone”!

Edwin

Yes, I agree that a mortal sin is a failure of charity. I believe that the capacity of the person to return to Christ remains (ability to repent) but I can also see your point about the supernatural connection to grace through faith being lost.

 

[SSTeacher]

In 1 Corinthians 1:18 Paul says “For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are **being saved **it is the power of God.”

Yes, that’s a fair point. I’ve found the idea of being saved in several places in the New Testament. I’m thinking about it, rest assured.

Salvation is not a one time event, for why would St. Paul ask us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling?

Well, one explanation that has seemed to me to be reasonable is that in this verse the word “salvation” is being used in a general sense. As you know, Paul was confined in prison when he wrote this letter so he is telling the Christians at Philippi that they will have to work out their salvation i.e. solve their problems by themselves. The KJV includes the word “own” before the word “salvation” so the verse reads:

“…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”

But if the word “salvation“ is used in the sense in which we’ve been using it in this forum then a relevant question one commentator poses is: Can you work out salvation if it has not first been worked in?

So that question is answered in the next verse (Philippians 2:13): "…for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.”

In other words, God works out what He has worked in. I think some Calvinist presuppositions are hovering in there somewhere and in a way the view almost seems to rest on semantics but up to now I haven’t seriously questioned it.

In the verse that you mentioned, it is true that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. But did you notice that the verse that you sighted in Romans, there is no mention of your own culpability, your own wrongdoing which may separate you from the love of God.

Yes, you’re quite right. To a certain extent I guess I’m guilty of selective quoting but once you point to any part of Scripture to endorse a stance or a position it’s almost impossible to be able to claim objectivity and get away with it. That, of course, is where I’m sensing weakness in the Protestant position – the Bible as the final arbiter. That’s really what I’m questioning i.e. whether my fallible understanding of the Bible is enough. In effect, I suppose I’m attempting to work out what God has worked in.

As I said before, cooperation takes both parties’ effort for it to work. God will not let anything separate you from Him, but you can break that bond yourself. Two words… Free Will.

Yes, again, it’s my pleasure to agree with you. I don’t endorse the idea of “Once Saved, Always Saved.” I see a difference between having an “assurance of salvation” i.e. trusting that God will save me and suggesting that the recitation, You can’t lose your salvation, is a doctrine that commands universal acceptance. Indeed, when I’ve heard that particular phrase it has sometimes made me wonder whether my understanding of salvation is commensurate with mainstream Protestant thought. Calvinists declare, “You can’t lose your salvation!” Arminians retort, “You can lose your salvation!” Both sides seem to view salvation as a concrete thing. I’m not sure I see it quite like that. It seems to me to be like reducing God and His will and purpose to the level of one of your possessions like, say, your car keys:

First Arminian: “Hey, I’ve lost my car keys!”

Second Arminian: “Don’t worry, they’ll turn up eventually.”

Helpful Calvinist (passing by and overhearing): “No they won’t because you were totally deluded about having a car in the first place."

Can you honestly say that since you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior then you can go on killing people and still be saved? I think you yourself will even have a problem with that.

Yes, I agree I would indeed have a huge problem if I said that or anything like it. If my life shows no Fruit of the Spirit then my faith is dead.

Then why did Jesus say …not everybody that calls Him Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven? Why did he say that if you don’t bear much fruit you will be cut off from the vine?

In my view, it’s a warning that one can drift and mess up. The continuing assurance of salvation is evidenced by the fact that one’s life continues to show that Christ is at work therein. When this isn’t seen it’s either referred to as “backsliding” or – in the view of those who believe in Eternal Security – it is seen as the behavior of a person who wasn’t saved in the first place.

You seem to be lacking in the understanding of Salvation in the Catholic view. Salvation is a process. We are saved, we are being saved, we will be saved. But you can always choose to refuse that salvation… and I tell you… God will not save you if you yourself don’t want to. I know you want to…but you need to be obedient to Him and His Church. Think of it.

Yes, I’m prepared to concede that I seem to be lacking in understanding in this area and until my understanding is complete I can only raise objections as they present themselves. Perhaps inside the Catholic Church the fullness of truth may indeed be found. I never ever thought the Catholic Church was completely in the wrong. It has, after all, produced all sorts of amazing people. So I’m proceeding with that in mind.

Thanks for your helpful commentary.

Respectfully,
Mick

 

[jfallaw]

A lot of people ask that kind of question nowadays. The fact is, Catholics believe everything they have always believed. Nothing that has been believed by the Church can ever change. No council or group of people or even Pope can change what the Church has always believed. They can simply further clarify the beliefs.

 

[Coder]

Do Catholics no longer believe in salvation by works?

We must define our terminology.

If “faith” means a person says they believe but then they steal, lie, murder, and engage in sexual immorality then that is not the faith that saves.

If “works” mean you think you can earn a place in Heaven as though you were owed it then that is not the proper understanding of works.

In the Catholic Church faith means belief that results in responding to the message of Christ. For example, because of faith we believe Jesus when He tells us about or duty to help the hungry and others in need.

The various pasages in the Bible that discuss faith are readily understandable in regards to the concept of dead faith and living faith. I don’t see that the will of Jesus is for people to spend time debating about it but rather to get the idea of what faith consists of and act accordingly. St. Paul warns about foolish debates. This debate about faith for centuries seems like an example of what St. Paul warns about. We are supposed to work to help our family and others. We do this in faith that we can hope to be in Heaven because Jesus has made it possible for us.

Only Jesus has paved the road to Heaven and not our works. By our faith we get on the road and stay on it and by our works we travel down the road.

 

[jfallaw]

We must define our terminology.

If “faith” means a person says they believe but then they steal, lie, murder, and engage in sexual immorality then that is not the faith that saves.

If “works” mean you think you can earn a place in Heaven as though you were owed it then that is not the proper understanding of works.

In the Catholic Church faith means belief that results in responding to the message of Christ. For example, because of faith we believe Jesus when He tells us about or duty to help the hungry and others in need.

The various pasages in the Bible that discuss faith are readily understandable in regards to the concept of dead faith and living faith. I don’t see that the will of Jesus is for people to spend time debating about it but rather to get the idea of what faith consists of and act accordingly. St. Paul warns about foolish debates. This debate about faith for centuries seems like an example of what St. Paul warns about. We are supposed to work to help our family and others. We do this in faith that we can hope to be in Heaven because Jesus has made it possible for us.

Only Jesus has paved the road to Heaven and not our works. By our faith we get on the road and stay on it and by our works we travel down the road.

Very well said! To Catholics, Faith and Works are inseperable. As St. James said,

18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? James 2, NIV

 

[SSTeacher]

Is this not what Jesus meant when He said “fear the one who can cast both body and soul into hell”? Is it not healthy to have some fears? children should fear playing in traffic, and we should all fear putting our hands on a hot stove.

Yes, I have to concede that it is healthy to have some fears. I have now revisited some of the places in the Bible where fear of God is mentioned. It is in both the Old and New Testaments. As a matter of fact, one of the two criminals crucified with Jesus rebuked the other (who was hurling insults at Jesus) for not fearing God. Following that, he asked Jesus to remember him when Jesus came into His kingdom whereupon Jesus affirmed that he would be with Him in paradise.

I appreciate your thoughtful comments. My own comments were perhaps less than thoughtful.

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[Fisher]

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.

The writings of Ignatius have always been controversial and have been widely disputed. There are fifteen epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. The first three exist only in Latin and the rest are extant also in Greek:

I beleive the Gods Word not mans. Let God be true but every man a liar. Where is you Faith in man or God.