Faith alone or not?

[Tomster]

I don’t misrepresent the doctrinal stance of Catholicism in respect to works and salvation. I fully understand it.You’re presenting an emotional argument here. The issue on this thread is a theological one: “Faith alone or not.”

I don’t deny and certainly respect the works of Catholic organizations such as “Catholic Services,” and the sincerity of devout Catholics toward their religion. But the issue here is still a theological one: Are we saved through “Faith alone or not.” The answer must come from an objective source and therefore I appeal to the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures alone.

On this theological issue the Scriptures clearly state: “by grace through faith…a gift of God, not as a result of works” Since they reveal that all the requirements for God to save men “by grace” (unmerited favor) was met by Another: the Man Christ Jesus. And so what He requires from man for salvation is faith in Him alone. The One who met the requirements and completed the work.

Faith alone is a Biblical principle that goes all the way back to Abraham (Gen. 15:6). The object of faith, this side of the cross, being the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. Works, on man’s behalf, are important but they’re done by those who are now “created in Christ Jesus” for them. IOW, those whom God already saved “by grace through faith” alone (see Eph. 2:8-10).

But the core problem is that Catholicism has no concept of the word “saved” (a completed, Divine act) in its theological construct, since it sees salvation as a life time process which includes and requires works on the part of men for it to be achieved. Salvation, in Catholicism, being a “hope so,” future event based on one’s present performance.

Yo moon,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7213899#post7213899

The posts are brief. You should be able to understand them, but then again . . . .

 

[Tomster]

I don’t misrepresent the doctrinal stance of Catholicism in respect to works and salvation. I fully understand it.You’re presenting an emotional argument here. The issue on this thread is a theological one: “Faith alone or not.”

I don’t deny and certainly respect the works of Catholic organizations such as “Catholic Services,” and the sincerity of devout Catholics toward their religion. But the issue here is still a theological one: Are we saved through “Faith alone or not.” The answer must come from an objective source and therefore I appeal to the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures alone.

On this theological issue the Scriptures clearly state: “by grace through faith…a gift of God, not as a result of works” Since they reveal that all the requirements for God to save men “by grace” (unmerited favor) was met by Another: the Man Christ Jesus. And so what He requires from man for salvation is faith in Him alone. The One who met the requirements and completed the work.

Faith alone is a Biblical principle that goes all the way back to Abraham (Gen. 15:6). The object of faith, this side of the cross, being the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. Works, on man’s behalf, are important but they’re done by those who are now “created in Christ Jesus” for them. IOW, those whom God already saved “by grace through faith” alone (see Eph. 2:8-10).

But the core problem is that Catholicism has no concept of the word “saved” (a completed, Divine act) in its theological construct, since it sees salvation as a life time process which includes and requires works on the part of men for it to be achieved. Salvation, in Catholicism, being a “hope so,” future event based on one’s present performance.

Truth be known, you do misrepresent the doctrinal stance of Catholicism in respect to works and salvation. But then, and this is not a rhetorical question, what would you known of doctrine anyway. As a boc, as has been explained to you over and over again, you have your own individual set of beliefs which may or may not be in agreement with other non-Catholic Christians. Doctrine is nothing more than an ever changing sea of chaos between you and other non-Catholic Christians. Your speech has given all of you away. Sorry to break it to you this way moon. But the truth is the truth.

 

[paul_c]

I don’t misrepresent the doctrinal stance of Catholicism in respect to works and salvation. I fully understand it.

Do you really? It doesn’t seem like that to us…You’ll know you are there when you can get us to agree that you are representing Catholic Doctrine properly.

You’re presenting an emotional argument here. The issue on this thread is a theological one: “Faith alone or not.”

I admittedly diverged from the point of this thread to address your supposition that you understood Catholicism…

I don’t deny and certainly respect the works of Catholic organizations such as “Catholic Services,” and the sincerity of devout Catholics toward their religion. But the issue here is still a theological one: Are we saved through “Faith alone or not.” The answer must come from an objective source and therefore I appeal to the theopneustos (God-breathed) Scriptures alone.

We have no issue with discussing this topic based on Scripture alone. However, you must recognize that it really isn’t so. Both of our interpretations are based on something else. Yours on the teaching of John Calvin, ours on the Teaching of the Catholic Magesterium and Catholic Tradition.

On this theological issue the Scriptures clearly state: “by grace through faith…a gift of God, not as a result of works”

Yes, we readily agree that you get grace through faith and that works are not required to get Grace. But getting grace is not the same thing as going to heaven.

Since they reveal that all the requirements for God to save men “by grace” (unmerited favor) was met by Another: the Man Christ Jesus. And so what He requires from man for salvation is faith in Him alone. The One who met the requirements and completed the work.

No. Scripture does not say anything of the sort. In never says that all that man requires to go to heaven is faith alone. In fact it says you also need to follow the commandments (matthew 19 16-19). It says you must do works of mercy (Matthew 25 31-46), It says you must be baptized (Acts 2: 38), It says you must eat Jesus body and drink his blood (John 6). No where does it say that ALL you need is Faith.

Faith alone is a Biblical principle that goes all the way back to Abraham (Gen. 15:6).

No. its not a biblical principle. Its an innovation from the Reformation. And Abraham lived out his faith, transplanting from his home to go to the promised land, circumcizing his clan, and almost sacrificing Isaac. If he hadn’t done these things, he would have been just another dreamer…

The object of faith, this side of the cross, being the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. Works, on man’s behalf, are important but they’re done by those who are now “created in Christ Jesus” for them. IOW, those whom God already saved “by grace through faith” alone (see Eph. 2:8-10).

People do good works who have not been saved and who do not have faith. The issue is that those wors are ot of spiritual benefit unless they are done out of love.

But the core problem is that Catholicism has no concept of the word “saved” (a completed, Divine act) in its theological construct, since it sees salvation as a life time process which includes and requires works on the part of men for it to be achieved. Salvation, in Catholicism, being a “hope so,” future event based on one’s present performance.

No, see here is a perfect example of where you THINK you understand Catholicism, but really don’t.

In Catholicism, we believe that we actually must become holy to enter into heaven and that our lives are to be used in the pursuit of holiness. We see ourselves being saved every time we fall to sin and then are reconciled to God and returned to the state of Grace. This happens initially at Baptism and then again everytime we participate in the sacrament of reconciliation. These opportunities to “reset” our path and start again in the state of Grace are completely due to the mercy of God and the actions of Jesus Christ on the cross. They have nothing to do with our works and they are freely given. Where works come into play is in the pursuit of holiness. To become holy, you need to live lives of love, doing things for others without expecting anything in return. And you must avoid mortal sin. (Note, this does not mean you have to be perfect!)

Now, can you go to heaven without doing any good works? Yes, if you end your life with the sacrament of reconciliation, this would be possible. However, you wouldn’t enter heaven until you were actually holy- this purification would be done in Purgatory.

And let me say now in anicipation of your complaints, the fact that being saved isn’t permanent is not a reflection on Jesus’ sacrifice. That was pure and perfect and allows the continual salvation of all those that request it. Rather, the fact that salvation isn’t necessarily permanent is a reflection on the state of the person being saved and their readiness to live a holy life.

 

[paul_c]

Yo moon,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7213899#post7213899

The posts are brief. You should be able to understand them, but then again . . . .

No need to be condenscending…

 

[Cat_Herder]

On this theological issue the Scriptures clearly state: “by grace through faith…a gift of God, not as a result of works” Since they reveal that all the requirements for God to save men “by grace” (unmerited favor) was met by Another: the Man Christ Jesus.

And so what He requires from man for salvation is faith in Him alone. The One who met the requirements and completed the work.

If that is all He requires why didn’t He say so? What’s with all the parables about people who failed to love their neighbors and went to hell? What’s with Romans 2? James? Revelation? Are these books not theopneustos?

But the core problem is that Catholicism has no concept of the word “saved” (a completed, Divine act) in its theological construct, since it sees salvation as a life time process which includes and requires works on the part of men for it to be achieved. Salvation, in Catholicism, being a “hope so,” future event based on one’s present performance.

All non-Catholic Christians require some act on behalf of the sinner in order to be saved, whether baptism or some act of faith or reading the Bible or the Sinner’s Prayer. Please stop pretending that you know what the Church teaches and start answering the hard questions or you won’t convice anybody.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

You make a great claim here; now you must show it from Scripture the establishment of the Catholic priesthood.

Incorporate the versus in Hebrews previously laid out for you and you cannot establish the Catholic priesthood from the use of God’s word; it is impossible. With out a priesthood established by God, then how does this effect everything? In every way in my understanding of the biblical priesthood that exists under the New Covenant and God did not make this obscure did He? Why does the Bible say there is only one intercessor; divine intercessor, between man and God the MAN Christ Jesus? Is He not interceeding because of the ACCUSER? Yes.

Why does Jesus say this in John 14:6? Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. What doe sVicar mean? Substitute. Does Creator use a creature as a substitue? May it never be! The purpose and ministry of the Holy Spirit is to convict men of sin and point them to who? Christ. Add Colossians 2:4-12 to the mix as well and much more can be added.

I for you trust and put my faith fully & completely in the work of Christ and I am part of His only established priesthood and He is my High Priest who makes intercession on my behald and praise God it is not up to a man or group of men to whom I dare to put my trust; to each their own; for each will give an account and I will stand on the rockbed foundation of Jesus Christ; not on the precepts of men. Praise God for the clarity of His word and by His gift of faith in Christ by His gift of grace. I know most will disagree; to each their own understanding; i have laid mine out based on His Word alone.

My point, which I suppose was not clear enough on retrospect, is that many Catholics on this thread have already put the Scripture verses. This is the reason why I personally will not put verses: 1. They already have and 2. You will not believe me anyway because Scripture is the only thing you have even though it says in Scripture that it is not the only thing. It is funny… Protestants burned down Catholic Churches and schools, broke the stained glass windows of the Ever-Virgin Mary (1644) and ran the ordained priests out of their buildings, but took the Bible with care as if it were your own. Do not tell me “must” because I am just reaffirming what the Bible already says as shown from my Catholic brethren on this thread. Read Cat Herder’s post about 10 posts ago.

I guess you do not pray for anyone. That would be intercessing also. Christ is Intercessor. We are intercessors. He is Man. We are man. He is Son of God. We are sons of God. He is Mediator. We are mediators.

Thanks for misunderstanding “Vicar”. Soon you are going to tell me that Vicar of the Son of God in Latin has the number of 666, which is very true. But we do not call him that. He is NOT substitute. This PROVES your holy ignorance of the Holy Father. He is the visible head of Christ’s Mystical Body. Can you guess who is the invisible Head? My guess is no. The Invisible Head is Christ. This is why the Church teaches Truth. And I do not disagree with you on the Holy Spirit. I hate when people think they are right about us.

I too put my faith in Christ completely and believe Him when He said for us to do penance, for example. We do not stand on the precepts of man! What is with you and your negative assertions? We too have based our belief on His Word and His Word alone. Words are written and spoken.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I don’t misrepresent the doctrinal stance of Catholicism in respect to works and salvation. I fully understand it.

Apparently not if you have informed CATHOLICS defending the Church’s position. It would be different if none of us could do that.

Understand that perhaps you may know our doctrine, but you do not understand it fully. Have you looked into WHY we believe it? We have shown that it is based on Scriptures but life is not based on a collection of books. It is based on our search for Life, Truth and Love and the Beauty that comes with the fruits of that search. All of our doctrines contribute to the bigger picture of how our lives should be lived. It is more than just living morally or being a good person or just having faith. Certainly these are great effects of a conversion but we should all lead a life that looks Eternity in the face and says, “I want to be with my Creator forever.” or “I do not want to be with my Creator.” A hope in what we will be in the next life should cause us to love God, ourselves and others even more so that through faith with our love (works) we can lead others to desire what we desire. I bet that slipped by your rigorous studies of Catholic theology.

The beauty of our doctrine and their relevance to our lives is what is important. Not just the sheer letter of the belief. The Resurrection of Christ, Assumption of Mary, Queen of Heaven, Indulgences, Faith and Works, Sacrament of Confession, Anointing of the Sick, Liturgy of the Hours, Purgatory, Communion of Saints, Incarnation, The Fall, etc… They are all doctrine but they contribute to how we should live our lives. It is like a puzzle: Even the most remote pieces (corners or sides) contribute to the ultimate picture. If one piece is missing, the picture is not aesthetically pleasing anymore. We have to live these things and hence, WORK in the works of grace. They are not doctrine to be a set of rules as your superficial claims and misunderstandings have been.

We have showed our position in the Bible, therefore, I will not give verses because they are already there. And please believe me. You may be much more intelligent than I am. You may win a Bible-verse-slinging match against me (even though I would refuse to participate). But, we know more about Catholic doctrine and its relevance to our lives better than you do. Is that hubris? Nope. That is how it should be though. There are even those who could not care less about theology and only have an elementary grasp of it but trust in Christ SO MUCH that they trust His Church and would not have it any other way. These are the Catholics I admire. Perhaps, you should talk to one. You talk the Word of God. They live it without even knowing the theology behind it and are still Catholics. Saint Bernadette for example. She was known for being unintelligent in school but she is one of the greatest saints (to me anyway). As a matter of fact, the only prayer she knew for most of her life was the rosary; she prayed it all day every day while working for her family. If this is not a testament to the truth of recieving God’s graces through His Mother, I honestly do not know what is. But even after all this, she probably understood more fully Catholic doctrine and its place in our lives than you and I put together. Actually, I do not at all doubt that. She may not have been able to tell us the letter of it like you and me, but she would certainly tell us how to live it, which would certainly entails WORKS of grace.

 

[moondweller]

You certainly do understand little and you also misunderstand alot.

Salvation can be lost through unrepented serious sin. But, then, we’ve been through this before, haven’t we?

If one can lose salvation through sin, then Christ died needlessly. Such a doctrine denies the sacrificial work of God’s Lamb who took away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). Also a denial of the testimony of God concerning His sacrificial death, sin and Divine forgiveness based on it. As John writes in his Epistle:1 John 2:12 "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake."Why for “His name’s sake?” Because 2000 years ago they (our sins) were ALL imputed to Him (God’s sin-bearer) on the cross and He died TO them, once for all (Rom. 6:10), subsequently raised to new life. He being the first fruits of the resurrection from the dead of those who are now His (purchased with His blood), having believed in Him unto eternal life (1 Cor. 15:20; Jn. 3:14-18).

 

[moondweller]

I too put my faith in Christ completely and believe Him when He said for us to do penance

“Do penance?” Can you show me where Christ commanded this? Please don’t confuse the Biblical term “repent” with the Catholic term “penance.” Please show me where Christ actually said “do penance.”

 

[GreggAlvarez]

“Do penance?” Can you show me where Christ commanded this? Please don’t confuse the Biblical term “repent” with the Catholic term “penance.” Please show me where Christ actually said “do penance.”

Luke 15:7

0 confusion buddy. I understand it. Some Bibles use penance, some say repentance. See below. What you label a “Catholic term” is also a biblical term. But, Incarnation is a Catholic term which you fully believe but is not a biblical term.

Penance and repentance complimen each other by the way. One cannot have one without the other. If you are repentant and pray, guess what you are doing: penance. If you ask God for forgiveness (penance), guess what you are doing: repenting. There are many other forms but for simplicity, I will use prayer.

Judging by this being the only question you have, I think you are closer to believing us! You see? We are not so bad.

Gregg

 

[GreggAlvarez]

If one can lose salvation through sin, then Christ died needlessly.

False conclusion.

 

[paul_c]

If one can lose salvation through sin, then Christ died needlessly.

Why is this true? Provide proof.

Such a doctrine denies the sacrificial work of God’s Lamb who took away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29).

Why do you say this. Do you think Jesus sacrifice removes all sin? Or only that of believers? Or only that of believers that specifically ask or it through the sacraments? Where do you draw the line and on what basis?

Also a denial of the testimony of God concerning His sacrificial death, sin and Divine forgiveness based on it. As John writes in his Epistle:1 John 2:12 "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.

Again, what is the criteria or sin to be forgiven. Is everyone’s sins forgiven? Or only that of believers? Or only that of believers who ask for forgiveness sacramentally?
On what basis do you make your statement?

"Why for “His name’s sake?” Because 2000 years ago they (our sins) were ALL imputed to Him (God’s sin-bearer) on the cross and He died TO them, once for all (Rom. 6:10), subsequently raised to new life. He being the first fruits of the resurrection from the dead of those who are now His (purchased with His blood), having believed in Him unto eternal life (1 Cor. 15:20; Jn. 3:14-18).

Again, do you believe there is a group of people that Jesus died for ? All men? all men that believe? All men that are members of the Church sacramentally?

 

[Philthy]

If one can lose salvation through sin, then Christ died needlessly.

??? Really??? I don’t see that, and you certainly won’t demonstrate it conclusively.

Such a doctrine denies the sacrificial work of God’s Lamb who took away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29).

What do you mean by “the world” MD? It means the sin of the entirety of humanity, no? And yet you believe that some of “the world” end up in Hell, don’t you? Would it be fair to say then, that “If one can be condemned for sin (ie unbelief), then Christ died needlessly.”? And yet that is exactly what you do above. It’s silliness.

Blessings!

 

[Cat_Herder]

“Do penance?” Can you show me where Christ commanded this? Please don’t confuse the Biblical term “repent” with the Catholic term “penance.” Please show me where Christ actually said “do penance.”

MD is getting at what is called the [Poenitentiam agite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poenitentiam agite) dispute, in which the English Reformers disputed the translation of the Greek “μετανοεῖτε” as “to do penance” in the Vulgate and so in the Douay-Rheims. They believe it means “to repent.” So, the argument goes, there is no Sacrament of Confession.

If you are thinking that these English words are synonyms, and so the whole dispute is moot, you are correct.

repentance
noun
her lack of repentance angered them: remorse, contrition, contriteness, penitence, regret, ruefulness, remorsefulness, shame, guilt.

The leader of this anti-sacrament grade-school-English-flunking movement in 17th Century England was George Campbell. He also wanted to destroy marriage along with the other six Sacraments. See for yourself:
Campbell's The Four Gospels:

It is evident that by the Latin word sacramentum [and its Greek root] … that it often denoted no more than an allegorical or figurative meaning which may be assigned to any narrative or injunction a meaning more sublime than that which is at first suggested by the words … there can be no question that the misunderstanding of the passage quoted above from the Epistle to the Ephesians has given rise to the exaltation of matrimony into a sacrament. Such are the effects of the perversion of words through the gradual change of customs a perversion incident to every language but which no translator can foresee …

That’s the white elephant in the room for anti-sacramental Protestants. All of the Sacraments all but mere symbols in the eyes of these men. Not just Baptism and the Eucharist, but all of them–even Matrimony. That is why human judges in the English-speaking world can put asunder what God had joined together… because they inherited from the English Church which spawned Campbell that the joining is only symbolic.

And now you see the root cause for the plague of divorce and the crisis of the family in the modern world. The abandonment of the Sacraments.

Stop the madness.

 

[Calvin_95]

Actually, this is one of the elements of the Apostolic faith that was retained by Calvin. It is completely Catholic. However, it was Catholic before the NT was ever written, and 1500 years before Calvin was born.

Actually, there is no such descriptor in the NT as “true believer”. This is a modern innovation. It was created to abrogate that it is possible to fall from grace.

This is one of the main points where Calvin departed from the Apostolic teaching, and is the root of a plethora of heresies that emanate from it.

Basically, it makes God into a liar, or an idiot, pretending that righteousness exists where in fact, it does not.

Calvin invented the idea of basically doctoring the books to support the errant ideas in the TULIP. He rejected the Apostolic teaching that it is possible to fall from grace, or be “cut off” after one has been saved. But the Apostles taught that grace is infused, and that we are sanctified at the moment we are justified in baptism.

Such a notion about justification is a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

The idea that a person cannot dwell in a sanctified state before God is also a modern inovation. It makes the “body of sin” more powerful than the grace of God, and misleads the sheep into believing that holiness is unreachable.

Certainly this is how you interpret what is written. But, you have departed from the Apostolic path because you have removed the NT from it’s context, which is the Catholic faith.

No. Done already paused, done already considered. Know I know WHY these ideas are heresies, and why it will place my soul in danger to embrace them.

 

[Calvin_95]

Calvin 95, We’re not debating whether God’s grace allows us to do good works. It does. We are also not debating whether doing good works is what God calls us to do. We both agree that it is. We are also not debating that Christians should do good Works. They should. We are also not debating whether you are saved by the grace of God, we both agree that we are. We are also not debating whether you need to have faith in Jesus to go to heaven. We agree that you do.

Where we differ is that you believe that this is all that is required, while we see that doing good works and dying in the state of Grace is also required. I’ve already shown you the scripture verses that support this view. So in the end, you think the Catholics require to much of themselves, but how can you begrudge us form doing what we believe scripture requires of us. And how could doing more be harmful in any way

You believe that those works are irrelavent to

Are the Catholic sacraments needed for salvation according to Catholic dogman and/or tradition?

What in the world are you talking about? "Where we differ is that you believe that this is all that is required."

Above in RED is where you contradict Scripture.

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. – Romans 11:6

 

[Cat_Herder]

Are the Catholic sacraments needed for salvation according to Catholic dogman and/or tradition?

I don’t want to talk about Catholic dogma or Tradition right now. Let’s talk about the Bible.

Baptism is necessary (Jn 3:5; Mk 16:16), as is the Eucharist for those who can receive (John 6:53). Mortal sin prevents worthy reception of the Eucharist (1 Cor 11:27-32) and so Penance becomes necessary if one lapses into mortal sin (Jn 20:23; 1 Jn 5:16-17).

 

[Cat_Herder]

"paul c:

Where we differ is that you believe that this is all that is required, while we see that doing good works and dying in the state of Grace is also required. I’ve already shown you the scripture verses that support this view. So in the end, you think the Catholics require to much of themselves, but how can you begrudge us form doing what we believe scripture requires of us. And how could doing more be harmful in any way

Above in RED is where you contradict Scripture.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?pictureid=7718&albumid=1125&dl=1288324193&thumb=1

[BIBLEDRB]Romans 2:2-13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]James 2:20-24[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Calvin_95]

My point wasn’t to challenge your right to be on this website. We love people like yourself on this site because our exchanges clearly highlight key theological issues and lay out the differences for all to see. My point was that you would actually achieve the goals you set out in the note above: to provoke thought , if you would actually listen to what we have to say about Catholicism instead of telling us what you think we believe. We KNOW what we believe. Let us tell you, because you obviously have many, many misconceptions of the Catholic Faith. I would also suggest to you that the goal should be to find the truth, rather than to defend what you have been taught to believe. I understand what its like to be a true believer, but you do have the power of reason. And I agree that God has a purpose for you to be on this site. It just might not be what you think it is… Let me clue you in on something. All those people whose profiles say " swam the Tiber in XX" are converts to Catholicism, many after entering this site as antagonists. The truth will set you free.

My salvation is secure because the work of another.

Show me a statement in its entire & proper context where 1) I told you what you believe and 2) was incorrect since you made the charge.

Also, 3) show me where I made a statement(s) that are “misconceptions” of the Catholic faith; in complete context.

If you can show this, then I will be more than obligated to apologize to you or anyone else.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Also, 3) show me where I made a statement(s) that are “misconceptions” of the Catholic faith; in complete context.

Okay
Calvin 95:

Why does Jesus say this in John 14:6? Jesus *said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. What doe sVicar mean? Substitute. Does Creator use a creature as a substitue? May it never be!

Nope. It means “representative.”