Faith Alone, Equivalent to Nothing?

[Third_Day]

Certainly the beginnings of it. Regeneration through baptism, the entering of the Holy Spirit, the beginning of justifying faith.

Jon

So why aren’t you Catholic? What exactly do you object to in Catholic teaching?

 

[Third_Day]

Better than I could, the Formula of Concord provides an indepth statement regarding the importance and, yes, necessity of good works here:

bookofconcord.org/sd-goodworks.php

Jon

The Formula of Concord says that saying works are necessary for salvation: " conflict with the words by which St. Paul has entirely excluded our works and merits from the article of justification and salvation."

Nowhere does Paul exclude works for justification. What Paul excludes are works of the Mosaic Law. Paul excludes works when they were used by the Jews to obligate God to give them salvation.

What do you do with Romans 2:6-7: "For God will render to every man according to his works…he will give eternal life. "

 

[Third_Day]

With respect to judgement, he says, “For all those who appear in judgement, entrance into, or exclusion from, heaven, will depend on the question, whether they are clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. But there will be different degrees, both of the bliss of heaven and of the punishment of hell. And these degrees will be determined by what is done in the flesh.” Systematic Theology, pages 733-734

Where is “clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ.” found in scripture?.

 

[JonNC]

The Formula of Concord says that saying works are necessary for salvation: " conflict with the words by which St. Paul has entirely excluded our works and merits from the article of justification and salvation."

Nowhere does Paul exclude works for justification. What Paul excludes are works of the Mosaic Law. Paul excludes works when they were used by the Jews to obligate God to give them salvation.

What do you do with Romans 2:6-7: "For God will render to every man according to his works…he will give eternal life. "

And the Athanasian Creed concludes by saying: *At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. *

In both instances there is an understanding that no good works (good in the sight of God) can be done outside of saving faith.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So why aren’t you Catholic? What exactly do you object to in Catholic teaching?

Universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome (outside they say-so of an ecumenical council that all the patriarchates, east and west, agree on.

Jon

 

[jrtrent]

Where is “clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ.” found in scripture?

Well, here’s a couple, but why do I get the feeling that I’m waiting for the other shoe to fall?

Romans 13:14 - Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Galations 3:27 - for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

 

[joe370]

The hour has grown late for me, but Alister McGrath has a good article entitled “The State of the Church Before the Reformation.” It might answer your questions, or remind you of things you had been taught when you were a Protestant.

modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=750&var3=main

As a former protestant I had often asked myself: why the need for reformed theology? Perhaps you could explain i.e. sum up what Alister McGrath had to say, regarding the following?

Did Jesus fail, in terms of guiding His one church and safeguarding truth thereby necessitating the need for some person outside His church to come along and introduce reformed theology to the wayward Christians leaders belonging to the CC? If that is the case then who, and when, and were they, too, guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth, as per John 16:13? This is indirectly related to the OP. Please be specific. Thanks brother.

---

 

[jrtrent]

As a former protestant I had often asked myself: why the need for reformed theology? Perhaps you could explain i.e. sum up what Alister McGrath had to say, regarding the following?

Did Jesus fail, in terms of guiding His one church and safeguarding truth thereby necessitating the need for some person outside His church to come along and introduce reformed theology to the wayward Christians leaders belonging to the CC? If that is the case then who, and when, and were they, too, guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth, as per John 16:13? This is indirectly related to the OP. Please be specific. Thanks brother.

---

If you’ve read the article, you know that McGrath doesn’t mention Jesus failing in any regard, nor does he address whether or not the CC was or ever had been “His one church.” Neither does he suggest that any of the reformers were outside His church.

Apparently I’ve misunderstood your question, and thought you were curious about why there was a need for reformation. If you want a summary of what McGrath had to say, it is, “Why was there a Reformation? First, there was a Reformation because there was a Gospel that had to be rediscovered in all its fullness. When it was rediscovered, all kinds of reorientation had to take place. Second, there was a Reformation because the church had run into all kinds of problems, and someone had to sort them out. . . also on our agenda, I’m afraid, is the simple fact that we are looking at a church today that very often has many of the same problems we find in the late Middle Ages. There is a need for us to think through what we can do about those problems. The Reformation gives us some bearings, some landmarks, some ideas about how to address today’s issues, using the resources, the methods, and above all, the inspiration that comes from the past.”

 

[joe370]

jrtrent;10430518]If you’ve read the article, you know that McGrath doesn’t mention Jesus failing in any regard

Agreed; God did not fail!

…nor does he address whether or not the CC was or ever had been “His one church.” Neither does he suggest that any of the reformers were outside His church.

We both agree that Jesus founded just one church (I will build my church…"). We know that all non-Catholic churches are excluded for obvious reasons. We know that men spanning the first 5 centuries from the latter part of the first to the 5th century e.g. Ignatius (student of saint John) Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Augustine etc., were all Christians belonging to the CC to which I noe belong, therefore it is safe to say that the CC was founded by Jesus. Reformers within Jesus’ church makes perfect sense. Is that how you see it? People leaving Jesus’ church and starting anew is more of a revolution as opposed to a reformation. Reformation takes place from within e.g. Francis of Assisi.

Apparently I’ve misunderstood your question, and thought you were curious about why there was a need for reformation.

Actually, I was hoping you would shed some light as to why you believe the protestant reformation, (which gave way to newly formed autonomous churches as well as reformed theology, founded by mere men as opposed to Jesus) - was needed.

If you want a summary of what McGrath had to say, it is, "Why was there a Reformation? First, there was a Reformation because there was a Gospel that had to be rediscovered in all its fullness.

So the Catholic Church at the time had lost Jesus’ gospel in all its fullness? Which parts? Of all the PCs which one (and when) actually rediscovered the gospel in all its fullness?

 

[joe370]

Universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome (outside they say-so of an ecumenical council that all the patriarchates, east and west, agree on.

Jon

Why am I just now hearing of this Jon…LOL…LOL…

 

[JustaServant]

Lol, only on a Catholic/Christian forums website can there be an eleven-page argument over the value of faith in relation to salvation

Quite true.
I can honestly say, as an ex-Baptist myself, I have never seen a Catholic in their right mind trying to “work their way to Heaven”. By the same token, I rarely met a devout Protestant who felt that faith was all they need and they can live like they want.
Sometimes people don’t realize they are saying the same things, it’s just the vocab they are using makes it confusing.
True faith is exhibited by works. I really don’t know of any truly spiritual Christian who would disagree with that. Except a few wide-eyed fundamentalists.

 

[JonNC]

Why am I just now hearing of this Jon…LOL…LOL…

I wanted to spring it on you, Joe.

Jon

 

[Azygos]

Often, the solas are strung together in a phrase that include two or more of them, such as, “Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. This is the article by which the church stands or falls.” This shows that the originators of the terms never intended that any one of them was complete in itself, even though each is described with the word alone.

Why not just string it together like this,
Justification by grace through Faith because of Christ…
(Ephesians 2:8 doesn’t even use the words ‘Alone’…

Why do Protestants keep adding ‘Alone’ when they are not ‘Alone’…?

To be frank with you, this is just another way to say that good works are not necessary without having to say that good works are necessary. Which is in direct contradiction to scripture therefore proving you theology (justified without good works) false.

James 2:24
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Why would you regret such a question, Jose?

Because I needed to ask the question but didn’t want to offend any of you.

What I was trying to explain, poorly perhaps , is that the sola is specific for the term to which it modifies.

For a number of years I officiated high school football. In football rules there are lots of “alone’s” or “only’s”. For example, only 4 offensive players can be off the line of scrimmage at the snap. Only 11 players can be on the field for the offense. The only in the first doesn’t impact the only in the second, because the only in each does not apply to the other.

Well, the difference is that football will doesn’t deal with matters of the soul. However, I might find some opposition for that here in North Texas, lol.

The sola in by grace alone isn’t an exclusion of faith, since faith is a gift of grace. The sola in faith does not exclude grace, because faith comes via grace. Neither exclude Christ, because His actions and righteousness are the grace from with faith received.

Jon

I have no problem with Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria. I believe that none of those 3 are in conflict with Catholic Theology, but I welcome correction.

Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, I naturally don’t agree with.

Even in Scriptures we find Faith as something that is plural in nature:

[bibledrb]Hebrews 11:1[/bibledrb]

So for me, it is just illogical and unreasonable to attempt to make it singular. It’s one of those thing that I used to empathize with and to some degree understand its origin.

Thanks for the respectful exchange Jon and may our Lord shower you with blessings brother.

Jose

 

[Doxiemom]

It is not reasonable or Scriptual to think that , even if you have faith in Jesus Christ, and then you can drink like a drunk, or shoot drugs into your arms everyday, or gamble away all your money, beat you wife and kids and dog, rape and murder,
or
gossip
cheat
bully
steal

and not repent

to think you are going to heaven because you said the sinner’s prayer.

Once saved, always saved is a lie of the devil.

Yes, faith is what it takes, not money, or crawling through glass to the altar, or burning candles, or making altar calls .

Faith alone makes you aware of the necessity to confess sin and repent. It draws you to your God. It drives away Satan and his minions who want to wiggle into you soul. It drops you to your knees or lifts your hands up in prayer.

Faith is all it takes.

Faith is not a “nothing”. it is a mighty something…

 

[ltwin]

You seem to be agreeing that our works are also from God’s grace.I don’t see why you can’t say we are justified by works and by faith when they are both gifts of grace.

Seems to me you are just playing word games. If repentance is necessary for faith to be a saving faith then faith cannot be alone. Why not just join Catholics and say we are justified by faith and works since true saving faith must have works?

It certainly isn’t word games.

I don’t see how the Catholic Church teaches anything contrary to that. Without faith it is impossible to please God but why insist on saying faith “alone?” Why not say with Paul that we are justified by faith which includes repentance, obedience, love of God.

Because those are necessary consequences of having faith.

But you weren’t yet justified. God’s grace was simply moving you towards justification. According to scripture you were sanctified and justified in baptism.

No. You were not yet justified. You were being moved by God’s grace to be justified. Your soul was still infected with original sin.

If that’s the case then there was about a 10 year period where I was some-sort of psuedo Christian because I wasn’t baptized until my freshman year of college!

IF you continue. So you don’t believe in eternal security?

No, I believe that the security of the believer is conditional and can be lost through lost faith, continued sin, and rejection of Christ.

Sanctification is a process but justification is also a process.

This is where we disagree. Sanctification is a process, but there are no degrees in justification. The babe in Christ stands as justified before God as the lifelong believer.

Agree and that faith could have been a true saving faith but you lost it by rejecting God’s grace.

Yes, it is possible to lose saving faith by refusing to abide in Christ.

Why not say faith and works? They are both gifts of grace.

But faith is not just a gift of grace, it is the means by which both justifying and sanctifying grace is received.

James says we are NOT justified by faith alone. Our works also justify us. Again I don’t see why you cannot come to the Catholic side and say we are justified by faith and works. Is James saying we are justified by works before men?

James is talking about how faith is manifested outwardly. Therefore people who claim to have faith but do not manifest that by righteous living do not have faith.

 

[ericc]

I believe this lengthy discussion has clarified the positions of Protestants and Catholics somewhat. To sum it up salvation = grace + faith + love + repentance + baptism etc. Protestants can choose to add in “Sola” here and there if they so chooses but at the end, we all want to be saved and the journey is long and hard and we must end the journey as friends/children of God. I don’t think anyone wants to genuinely wants semantics to be a divider between us. So with this understanding, do you think Protestants are ready to join the Lutherans in signing the Joint Declaration of the Doctrine of Justification?

Of course we still have the OSAS hurdle. And I still don’t understand how Protestant’s Imputation of Christ Righteousness works. How can declaring someone righteous make it so if that person isn’t so? Doesn’t that make Christ a liar?

 

[jrtrent]

. . . Is that how you see it?

No, I’m afraid we’re far apart on how we view the history of the Catholic Church.

Actually, I was hoping you would shed some light as to why you believe the protestant reformation, (which gave way to newly formed autonomous churches as well as reformed theology, founded by mere men as opposed to Jesus) - was needed.

Probably best to go into this on another thread, but, in addition to McGrath, I can refer you to the chapter entitled “The Call for Reformation” in the book The History of Christianity by Justo L. Gonzalez or to the page linked to below, which is Philip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, volume VII, chapter I. Scroll down to section 3, “Necessity of a Reformation.”
ccel.org/s/schaff/history/7_ch01.htm

 

[jrtrent]

And I still don’t understand how Protestant’s Imputation of Christ Righteousness works. How can declaring someone righteous make it so if that person isn’t so? Doesn’t that make Christ a liar?

It is odd, isn’t it. John Bunyon wrote an article about it, and said:

“And indeed this is one of the greatest mysteries in the world, namely, that a righteousness that resides with a person in heaven should justify me, a sinner, on earth.” - John Bunyon
truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Bunyan/text/Justification.Imputed.Right/Entire.Book.html

Yet that seems to be what scripture says:

Philippians 3:9
and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,

Romans 4:1-6
What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works

Romans 5:18-19
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

One of the reasons the reformers were so adamant about keeping separate the doctrines of justification and sanctification is that we are justified by a righteousness that is not our own, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t to repent of and forsake sin, and to increase in holiness:

Justification speaks of a legal declaration that gives one a right standing before God. It is a one time event. It involves an imputed righteousness of Christ in which we, although we are sinners, are pronounced “not guilty” of sin as in a court of law. We are cleared of any charges against us. Christ’s sacrifice means he was punished in our place, satisfying the demands of the law, and God’s justice upon sin.

Sanctification begins with justification - it means to separate one unto Christ’s service.We are both sanctified and justified when we exercise faith in the gospel for salvation. Sanctification is a continual work of the Holy Spirit in the believer to conform us to the image of God’s Son. It is the holy Spirits work to bring practical holiness and the fruit of the Spirit in ones live. This is continual process until one is taken to be with the Lord. letusreason.org/occ1.htm

Another article on the subject:

The Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Without Works Asserted And Proved
by John Gill
pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_38.htm

 

[JonNC]

=Isaiah45_9;10431723]Because I needed to ask the question but didn’t want to offend any of you.

My experience with you is that you are charitable while solid in your faith. So, my expectation from you is never anything by sincere questions.

Well, the difference is that football will doesn’t deal with matters of the soul. However, I might find some opposition for that here in North Texas, lol.

I lived for quite a long time in Texas, so I know what you mean. I hope you didn’t miss my point, even though it probably wasn’y a great analogy.

I have no problem with Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria. I believe that none of those 3 are in conflict with Catholic Theology, but I welcome correction.

Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, I naturally don’t agree with.

Even in Scriptures we find Faith as something that is plural in nature:

[bibledrb]Hebrews 11:1[/bibledrb]

The sola deo gloria isn’t really part of the Lutheran tradition - not that there’s anything in particular wrong with it.

So for me, it is just illogical and unreasonable to attempt to make it singular. It’s one of those thing that I used to empathize with and to some degree understand its origin.

I understand. It isn’t much different than my POV regarding the Catholic view. When I Catholic says we are justified by faith working through love, I say Amen. When a Catholic says we are justified by faith and works, not so much.

Thanks for the respectful exchange Jon and may our Lord shower you with blessings brother.

Thanks, Jose, and also with you.

Jon