Faith alone or not?

[ncgolf]

Problem: You have totally ignored the nature of what a Christian is; this is a person who is in Christ and as such has a new nature from the “New Birth”,

You are correct … through Baptism we begin to share in the divine nature of God via the grace of Jesus Christ. The problem is not the nature it is what we do as Christians having been given the gift of sharing the life of God. The nature does not overshadow our free will, hence, we are still free to either make good or bad choices. How would you say this, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God have mercy on me a sinner”. This is a nonsensical prayer for you. You are no longer in need of mercy.

which means the Christian has the righteousness of Christ imputed to them.

So you agree one is a righteous fornicator and one is not.

If the righteous fornicator did not sin … what did they do?

As far as your comparison to MD & myself; it is always easy to compare apples t oranges and get it wrong, such is the case. We are both right. I like oranges better; so MD gets to be the orange.

You say with the new nature Christians would not do these things. Moon, says, while we should not … we can. The problem is you cannot reconcile these. I didn’t write these … you guys did. Man up and answer … can a “faith alone” believer sin? I will try to answer … a true believer can only commit forgiven sins, a non-believer commits unforgiven sins. Am I close?

My theology is not mine

Ok so it’s Calvin’s.

, but it is God’s; read and understand the Scipture and quit letting someone else do the work for you; it is work and it is enjoyable. If you put as much time and energy into just reading and studying the word of God that you spend here; you would probably have a whole new perspective on many things.

Wow …am I amazed on how much you know about me, my study habits and my time management.

Others have showed you scriptual passages supported by clear concise writing. I chose a tact of trying a practical application of your theology to a real world possibility. Why am I surprised that in trying to apply it … you get a little testy.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’ve been lurking and have read many of the posts in this thread. I just wanted to say that I am very impressed with the posters here who have explained the Catholic position, especially Cat Herder because of the large amount of Scripture he/she provided.

:tiphat: Thank you!

What is the way Jesus said you will recognize a Christian or a false prophet? Hint: fruits. Can Jesus recognize a believer and a non-believer without ever seeing a single fruit? Yep. Can man w/out seeing the fruit? No. Then what is James contexually talking about when he says Abraham was justified by works; was he speaking in the context of “before God or before men?” Think about the context of visable fruits; God des not justify on the basis of works and that is what Paul said explicitly, which is why you cannot reconcile the two when you use you reasoning of the context that the works of Abraham were proof before God in the context of James. Wannan play connect the dots

I have addressed this already. None of you have responded to these precious posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7243640&postcount=767

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7245610&postcount=780

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7247037&postcount=784

 

[Philthy]

Problem: You have totally ignored the nature of what a Christian is; this is a person who is in Christ and as such has a new nature from the “New Birth”, which means the Christian has the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. As for sin you overlook the simple matter that any sin forgiven was forgiven in the past since it was by His death, burial and resurrection whereby God was just in justifying the wicked. Bible 101.

Problem: the term "imputed"like the term “true believer” , is a tradition of men and
appears nowhere in Scripture. Bigger Problem: If you don’t forgive the sins of others, neither will your sins be forgive (Matt 7:14). Being a Christian, being united to Christ is an ONGOING process during our earthly, temporal lives and we must persevere in loving God and neighbor and repent when we fall short. Examples of falling short? See 1Cor 6, Eph 5, and Galatians 5…

My theology is not mine, but it is God’s; read and understand the Scipture and quit letting If you put as much time and energy into just reading and studying the word of God that you spend here; you would probably have a whole new perspective on many things.

On what basis do you conclude that you have read and studied Scripture any more than I, or anyone else has? I can tell you it is the same basis that allows your errors of interpreting Scripture to persist: you insert the prejudice into the issue and accept it as fact.

Blessings!

 

[Tomster]

(1) I don’t see any place where Jesus “I give you the POWER to forgive post-baptismal sins.” He said: "John 20:23 “If you forgive the sins of any, {their sins} have been forgiven them; if you retain the {sins} of any, they have been retained.” There’s no giving of POWER there, nor does it state ANYTHING about "post-baptismal"sins. At best this forgiveness of sins is connected with their ministry of proclaiming the forgiveness of sins through personal faith in Jesus Christ:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”(2) So, I’ll ask you, can you show me in the Scriptures where men lined up before the Apostles to confess their sins to hear them say (after some sort of “penance”), “I have absolved your sins?” Or, “Your sins are retained, I refuse to absolve them?”

Tomster, how many of your sins has your confessor retained?It doesn’t say that He breathed on them in order to have that power. It, in fact, states nothing about a transference of power.The ministry of the Holy Spirit during this church age is not to forgive sins:John 16:7-9 "But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you. And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me;"I do not deny either Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit. You bear false witness.

Moon,

Protestants like yourself get little or nothing out of John 20:21-23. Even if you should happen to see the passage, your fixed beliefs require you to repudiate its meaning. For example, a Fundamentalist commentary on John 20:21-23 refers us to Matthew 16:19. In telling what the one means, he manages to dispose of both:

“The Keys of the Kingdom,” [verse 19] The ordinary interpretation of this is that Peter opened the door of salvation, on the day of Pentecost, to the Jews, Acts 2, and later to the Gentiles, Acts 10. Not that he was given the power personally to forgive sins, but to proclaim the terms of forgiveness . . . And that, not in an absolute, but only a declarative sense. In Christ there is mercy and and pardon for all. Christ forgives. His Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to proclaim, and record in the NT, the terms of that forgiveness . . Neither Peter nor any of the Apostles, ever to profess to forgive anybody’s sins." - Henry H. Halley, “Pocket Bible Handbook”

None of the above is true. In the text the Fundamentalist commentator chose to ignore, Christ says: Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you retain, they are retained." Here, Christ gives them the power of really forgiving sins; it is not the mere power of declaring that the sinner has been forgiven by God. Christ did not say, “Whose sins you shall declare to have been forgiven by God, those sins God has forgiven.”

However Protestant/Fundamentalists strive to reduce the power to forgive the sins of men to the official function of merely assuring men that their repentance for sin has won God’s forgiveness, the words of Christ do not mean this. They mean what they say. The power of forgiving sins is granted, not the power of merely announcing that God has granted forgiveness.

The reality is that you have denied Him.

 

[Tomster]

Moon,

Read the following paragraph closely. After doing so, would you agree with it? A simple yes or no would be sufficient.

“Man can be saved by faith alone. Our faith in Christ makes His merits our possession, envelopes us in the garb of righteousness, which our guilt and sinfullness hide, and supplies in abundance every defect of human righteousness. Be a sinner and sin on bravely, but have a stronger faith and rejoice in Christ, who is the victor of sin, death, and the world. Do not for a moment imagine that this life is the abiding place of justice: sin must be committed. To you it ought to be sufficient that you acknowledge the Lamb that takes away the sins of the world, that sin cannot tear you away from Him, even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders.”

 

[paul_c]

MD; I’m out of here; let me know where you go next. God bless and good day to all.

Have you really left us?

 

[paul_c]

Problem: You have totally ignored the nature of what a Christian is; this is a person who is in Christ and as such has a new nature from the “New Birth”, which means the Christian has the righteousness of Christ imputed to them.

We call this new nature “being in the state of Grace.” If you are in the State of grace at death, you will surely go to heaven. You get in the state fo grace through baptism, when you are born again through water and spirit (John 3). To stay in the state of Grace, you must avoid sin and love God and Neighbor.

As for sin you overlook the simple matter that any sin forgiven was forgiven in the past since it was by His death, burial and resurrection whereby God was just in justifying the wicked. Bible 101.

Jesus actions to allow sins to be forgiven were in the past, this is true. But your personal sins are forgiven by actions you take to be baptized or reconciled sacramentally and these only effect the sins committed to the point of forgiveness.

.

My theology is not mine, but it is God’s; read and understand the Scipture and quit letting someone else do the work for you; it is work and it is enjoyable. If you put as much time and energy into just reading and studying the word of God that you spend here; you would probably have a whole new perspective on many things.

Your theology may not be yours but it certainly isn’t scriptural. Frankly, when you see the word " Faith" in the bible, you alwasy subconsciously add ALONE, . A word that follows Faith only in James, where it is vigorously refuted.

 

[paul_c]

Would you lke to dance the “side-step” with me some more. Your church makes an exclusive claim that it is the true Church that Christ founded contrary to what all of the NT teaches and especially since the church is yet to be revealed; yet you claim it has been revealed so do I believe you or God?

Why do you say that the Church has yet to be revealed. Do you know the purpose of the Church. It is to share the truth of salvation and to administer the sacraments by which we are saved. You benefit by these actions, despite your denials, because if the Church hadn’t produced the Bible, you would kow othiing at all of Christ. This could not be done by an invisible Church. Furthermore, if you read the epistles, the are addressed to " The church in Corinth, the Church in Galatia, etc. These were visible churches, not churches that have yet to be revealed.

the true chirch are those of Christ’s elect; are you telling me that the Catholic church is the elect of God or that they have the supernatural ability to know who the elect of God are? that is you implication here. You know that is not true.

First of all, is it not your position that you know who the elect are because they have faith. You were the one who a few dozen posts back, declared that you knew Moondweller was saved. The Church includes both Saints and sinners and only God is competent to judge one from the other.

Here is where we run out of ways to defend our faith in the APOLOGETICS forum and please go and read the rules of engagement; you are suppose to defend your faith and I am defending mine and that is the purpose of this particular section titled APLOGETICS. Like anyone could convert anyone even if they wanted to; that is the work of God, not of man. Bible 101.

The purpose of this forum is to provide Catholic Answers to your questions. Debate is welcome because it is necessary to learn. But I think its a bit disenguous to say that you aren’t here to convert others to your theology, because you certainly weren’t here to learn about ours…

 

[Tomster]

It seems to me that this discussion is going nowhere, just as it has for the last 500 years.

Calvin and Moondweller bring up every scriptural passage that mentions Faith in regards to salvation and extrapolate that to support two heresies:

1. That all you need to be saved is to have Faith in Jesus
2. That being saved is the equivalent of going to heaven.

Catholics dutifully bring up the dozens of passages that show that other things are also required to be saved (Baptism, the eucharist, grace, followign the commandments, doing works of mercy, loving God and neighbor, etc).

We also dutifully show that beingsaved means that your sins are forgiven and that you have new life, but you must STAY in the state of grace after this or you won’t go to heaven.

This is of course to no avail, because Calvin and Moondweller simply explain these scriptural passages away as not pertaining to them, since they have Faith.

It got me to thinking how exquisitely deceitful Satan can be. These men, who in their hearts love Christ, have been led to believe that they are serving him by pulling men away from the sacraments and good works that are actually required to save them. And think of the brilliance of the fundamental lie behind all this: " Believe that Christ will save you. Don’t worry about what he told you in terms of loving God and others, Don’t worry about the sacraments. All that matters is that you trust in the Lord to save you…Don’t worry about justice. Focus on God’s mercy. That’s all you need. Its that EASY, You are bad people . If not for God’s mercy, you couldn’t be saved anyway , so believe in that, Its your only chance."

Its brilliant because it makes disobedience seem like it is serving God and of course its appeal is that it takes away men’s responsiblity and need to work on their own holiness. Instead, it allows men to do what they want to do never understanding the consequences until it is too late.

Thanks Paul.

To sum up, Protestantism makes of the forgiveness of sin merely a concealment of it, so to speak, and of sanctification a declaration of justification, or an external imputation of the justice of Christ. The Church teaches that justification consists of an actual obliteration of sin and an interior sanctification: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity” (1 John 1:8).

The contrast between Protestant and Catholic doctrine, as well as between Protestant doctrine and Scripture, here becomes very striking. For according to the teaching of the Catholic Church the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers becomes an interior sanctifying quality in the soul itself, which makes it truly just and holy in the sight of God.

The Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrine on justification reaches its climax in the proclamation that “fiduciary faith” is the only requisite for justification (sola fides justificat). As long as the sinner firmly clings with the “arm of faith” to Christ, he is and will ever remain regenerated, pleasing to God, the child of God and heir to heaven. Faith, which alone can justify, is also the only requisite and means of obtaining salvation. Neither repentance nor penance, neither love of God nor good works, nor any other virtue is required, though in the just they may either attend or follow as a result of justification: “Indeed, neither contrition nor love, nor any other virtue, but faith alone is the means by which we can reach forth and obtain the grace of God, the merit of Christ and the remission of sin.”

Given that neither charity nor good works contribute anything towards justification - inasmuch as faith alone justifies - their abscence consequently cannot deprive the just man of anything whatever. THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY DIVEST HIM OF JUSTIFICATION, NAMELY, THE LOSS OF FIDUCIARY FAITH OR FAITH IN GENERAL in which case would explode the theory of OSAS.

Since our esteemed adversaries have denied the literal words of Jesus in so many passages of Scripture, John 20:21-23 as only one example, it is evident they have lost faith in Him.

 

[Philthy]

Mostly ad hominem attacks;

Excuse me? If you have a specific statements you are referring to, please quote them. I don’t believe a single “ad hominem” was leveled against you and I am prepared to defend that position as well. Are you prepared to defend your claim?

God likes to use an economy of words;

You just made this up out of thin air because you need to justify the valid claims I leveled against you.

why would He need to add alone when it is so oft and strongly implied in all of Scripture that one can scarcely overlook it?

Your question reveals the weakness of your position. We dont need to find excuses for what is NOT said in Scripture, we are asking you to address what IS said, and what is said is that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”" and it also says that “no one who is an idolater has any inheritance in the KOG”, and that it is possible to be “separated from Christ” and “fallen from Grace”. Excuses for why you are not clear in your presentations and excuses for why Scripture doesnt say what you interpret it to say do not carry any weight. If you have an argument of substance, present it.

If it is not through faith alone, then it must be through faith plus something a man does, which then is self defeating because if through faith alone in Christ needs something added to it, then Christ is not enough and we might as well chuck the Bible.

I know that you think your logic is valid here, but it is not. You continue to import this logical fallacy into everything that you read - repeatedly - insisting that if there is ANYTHING that we have to do then it is no longer by grace. The fact that Scripture clearly articulates that we must believe, confess, repent, persevere etc apparently goes right past you. Believing is something we do,and it requires effort. If it didnt you would be here exhorting us to believe as you do! You are hoping* through your actions *to alter our minds and hearts in order for us to be saved. How is it, then, that if we were to listen, engage you, study, consider etc etc (and eventually accept your version of the Gospel and be saved) that you would then say that we didn’t add anything? We added being open, listening, engaging, studying, considering, etc and we would do all of them by grace through faith. Your logic above is invalid and it is the platform upon which you interpret every piece of Scripture that you read and it leads you into error IMHO.

Blessings!

 

[Senecus]

This is one of my favorite threads in all of these forums. But, to keep Salvation through Grace simple enough for me to understand, here’s how I view this theologically:

We are made right with God via “Genuine” Faith . . . whereby one makes a genuine effort each day to live as Jesus described we should.

This is evidenced by:

A). Giving due Glory, Respect and Thanks to God each day . .

B). Performing one or more actions each day that is for the good of someone else . .

C). Avoidance of performing Sinful or hurtful actions each day . .

Now, do we know, that we’ve “done enough”, . . . . is there a magic number for works, or of avoiding Sin, etc. to fully earn Salvation? No, we can never do enough of A, B, and C above, but Trust in God, His Help (Grace), allows us to do “enough” for us, for our situation and capabilities.

By the way, I view trust as a component of Faith.

 

[paul_c]

Excuse me? If you have a specific statements you are referring to, please quote them. I don’t believe a single “ad hominem” was leveled against you and I am prepared to defend that position as well. Are you prepared to defend your claim?

You just made this up out of thin air because you need to justify the valid claims I leveled against you.

Your question reveals the weakness of your position. We dont need to find excuses for what is NOT said in Scripture, we are asking you to address what IS said, and what is said is that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”" and it also says that “no one who is an idolater has any inheritance in the KOG”, and that it is possible to be “separated from Christ” and “fallen from Grace”. Excuses for why you are not clear in your presentations and excuses for why Scripture doesnt say what you interpret it to say do not carry any weight. If you have an argument of substance, present it.

I know that you think your logic is valid here, but it is not. You continue to import this logical fallacy into everything that you read - repeatedly - insisting that if there is ANYTHING that we have to do then it is no longer by grace. The fact that Scripture clearly articulates that we must believe, confess, repent, persevere etc apparently goes right past you. Believing is something we do,and it requires effort. If it didnt you would be here exhorting us to believe as you do! You are hoping* through your actions *to alter our minds and hearts in order for us to be saved. How is it, then, that if we were to listen, engage you, study, consider etc etc (and eventually accept your version of the Gospel and be saved) that you would then say that we didn’t add anything? We added being open, listening, engaging, studying, considering, etc and we would do all of them by grace through faith. Your logic above is invalid and it is the platform upon which you interpret every piece of Scripture that you read and it leads you into error IMHO.

Blessings!

You know what amazes me. its how these distortions build on each other until you reach the point that good becomes evil and evil becomes good. You are of course aware of Luthers quote That Tomster posted an hour or two ago, where he seemily advocates sinning to prove that you really trust in God. This extends to the attacks on Catholics for trying to work their way to heaven, as if good works were something that is detrimental to salvation.

 

[Tomster]

Mostly ad hominem attacks; God likes to use an economy of words; why would He need to add alone when it is so oft and strongly implied in all of Scripture that one can scarcely overlook it? If it is not through faith alone, then it must be through faith plus something a man does, which then is self defeating because if through faith alone in Christ needs something added to it, then Christ is not enough and we might as well chuck the Bible.

Did the apostle Paul teach justification by faith alone? For those who propose that he did, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywher in his New Testament writings? A thorough study of his epistles reveals that Paul used the word faith and its cognates over two hundred times in the New Testament, but not once did he couple them with the adjectival qualifiers alone or only. Are we to believe that though he intended to teach justification by faith alone, he was never convinced that he should emply the attributes of the word alone to express explicitly what he invariably meant? What would have curtailed him from such an important qualification if indeed the solitude of faith in regard to justification was on the forefront of his mind?

A second reason that leads me to pose this critical question is that Paul used the word alone more frequently than did any other New Testament writer. Many of these instances appear right alongside the very contexts that contain teachings on faith and justification. Thus it is obvious that even while Paul was teaching about the nature of justification he was keenly aware of the word alone and its qualifying properties. This would lead us to expect that if Paul, who is usually very direct and candid in his epistles, wanted to teach umambiguously and unequivocally that man was justified by faith alone, he would be compelled to use the phrase if he thought it would help make his point indisputable. Moreover, since Paul’s writings were inspired, we must also acknowledge that the Holy Spirit likewise knew of the inherent qualifying properties of the word alone but had specific reasons for prohibiting Paul from using it in connection with faith.

Thirdly, although the Holy Spirit prohibited Paul from using the phrase faith alone, He intentionally allowed James to make a clear and forceful point to the contrary by inspiring him with the words "man is justified by works and NOT faith alone: (James 2:24). This unambiguous negation comes at the precise point in the epistle where James questions whether faith, by itself, is sufficient for justification. Comparing Paul and James leads us to believe that Paul avoids using the phrase faith alone becayse: (1) Paul’s use of the word faith is pregnant with theological meaning and implications that absolutely preclude it from being coupled with the word alone; and (2) it would have created an obvious and acute contradiction in holy writ for one author to say, “a man is justified by faith alone,” while another is saying the exact opposite, namely, "man is not justified by faith alone.

With these facts from Scripture in the background, we submit that the burden of proof rests upon those who insist that the doctrine of justification be taught by using language that Scripture itself does not use. Although Protestantism proposes that the qualifying language “justified by faith alone” is appropriate to use because of the specific nature of justification, it is painfully obvious that, irrespective of what the true understanding of justification should be, Scripture intentionally chooses not to use such language. Precedence should be given to this undeniable fact when attempts are made to resolve this controversy. Since Scripture deliberately uses the converse phrase (“not by faith alone”) when the issue of the solitude of faith is interrogated, it apparently realizes and concludes that the expression “justified by faith alone” is not the correct way to teach the masses how man is justified before God. We are forced to reflect on this issue more seriously when we realize Scripture’s own insistence that its words are chosen very carefully, and that it makes such choices precisely because it “foresees” the impact and implication of its teaching. Moreover, Scripture teaches that Paul " . . . wrote to you with the wisdom given to him . . ." (2 Peter 3:16). We propose that it was this God-given “wisdom” which prevented him from joining the word Alone with faith, wisdom that is as good for us as it was for him.

Suggested reading for you: The Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

 

[Tomster]

You know what amazes me. its how these distortions build on each other until you reach the point that good becomes evil and evil becomes good. You are of course aware of Luthers quote That Tomster posted an hour or two ago, where he seemily advocates sinning to prove that you really trust in God. This extends to the attacks on Catholics for trying to work their way to heaven, as if good works were something that is detrimental to salvation.

paul,

" . . . where he seemingly advocates sinning to prove . . . "

Regarding the word “he” used in the quote. Were you referring to Luther advocating sinning or me?

Please clarify.

Thank you!.

 

[paul_c]

paul,

" . . . where he seemingly advocates sinning to prove . . . "

Regarding the word “he” used in the quote. Were you referring to Luther advocating sinning or me?

Please clarify.

Thank you!.

Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Luther advocating sinning, not you.

 

[Tomster]

Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to Luther advocating sinning, not you.

Thanks for the clarification paul.

 

[Tomster]

Thanks Paul.

To sum up, Protestantism makes of the forgiveness of sin merely a concealment of it, so to speak, and of sanctification a declaration of justification, or an external imputation of the justice of Christ. The Church teaches that justification consists of an actual obliteration of sin and an interior sanctification: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity” (1 John 1:8).

The contrast between Protestant and Catholic doctrine, as well as between Protestant doctrine and Scripture, here becomes very striking. For according to the teaching of the Catholic Church the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers becomes an interior sanctifying quality in the soul itself, which makes it truly just and holy in the sight of God.

The Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrine on justification reaches its climax in the proclamation that “fiduciary faith” is the only requisite for justification (sola fides justificat). As long as the sinner firmly clings with the “arm of faith” to Christ, he is and will ever remain regenerated, pleasing to God, the child of God and heir to heaven. Faith, which alone can justify, is also the only requisite and means of obtaining salvation. Neither repentance nor penance, neither love of God nor good works, nor any other virtue is required, though in the just they may either attend or follow as a result of justification: “Indeed, neither contrition nor love, nor any other virtue, but faith alone is the means by which we can reach forth and obtain the grace of God, the merit of Christ and the remission of sin.”

Given that neither charity nor good works contribute anything towards justification - inasmuch as faith alone justifies - their abscence consequently cannot deprive the just man of anything whatever. THERE IS ONLY ONE THING THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY DIVEST HIM OF JUSTIFICATION, NAMELY, THE LOSS OF FIDUCIARY FAITH OR FAITH IN GENERAL in which case would explode the theory of OSAS.

Since our esteemed adversaries have denied the literal words of Jesus in so many passages of Scripture, John 20:21-23 as only one example, it is evident they have lost faith in Him.

Moon, Calvin,

Response? ? ?

 

[twb1621]

…

It’s a LIVING hope. A “living hope” is not a “hope so” kind of “hope.” It’s an optimism based on the fact of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, He being the “first fruits” of the bodily resurrection, unto glory, of all who have believed.

It’s expressed as a “living hope” because we have yet to experience the consummation of it. But for now we “walk by faith” in the revealed truth of it. But not with an uncertain faith.

To coin your wording consider the word you use here: “optimism” (according to Oxford English Dictionary) is having "hopefulness and confidence about the future or successful outcome of something; a tendency to take a favorable or hopeful view”, not certainties or guarantees.

Now continue further into the same passage you quoted and misinterpreted as a guarantee of salvation regardless of any conditions:

1 Peter CH1; 6 “In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, 7 so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
　
It is a living hope, yes. And yes, we walk by faith. But it is not faith that is uncertain but rather our future in grace due to our human weaknesses and the possibility of falling. Neither optimism nor hope promise the outcome. Only the proof of our faith overcoming our weaknesses unto mortal death and no one is free of sin or weaknesses.

*Again, this is referring to the consummation of the salvation every believer NOW possesses. ALL that is GIFTED with salvation, though faith in Jesus Christ, is yet to be revealed at His return for those who are His. As the Apostle John wrote:
1 John 3:2-3 “Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. And everyone who has this hope {fixed} on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.”

Again, now continue further into this same passage you quoted here and keep all in context:

*1 John CH3; 6 “No one who remains in him sins; no one who sins has seen him or known him.” *

“Remains” refers to those who have accepted Him and been recognized as in the body of the faithful, yet “remains” validates there is the possibility of separating oneself or falling away from Him.

Further in the same passage;
16 “…The way we came to know love was that he laid down his life for us; so we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17 If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in him? 18 Children, let us love not in word or speech but in deed and truth.

“Deed” and “Truth” are the “works” we refer to, the works of love for our brothers and sisters in charity and humility in love of God. This is unified and further explained with Matthew CH25 as I quoted previously. This is what you object to when you hear Catholics refer to the “works” that express and complete Faith in Christ.

 

[Tomster]

You know what amazes me. its how these distortions build on each other until you reach the point that good becomes evil and evil becomes good. You are of course aware of Luthers quote That Tomster posted an hour or two ago, where he seemily advocates sinning to prove that you really trust in God. This extends to the attacks on Catholics for trying to work their way to heaven, as if good works were something that is detrimental to salvation.

What amazes me is the fact that Moon and Calvin agree on some of their Protestant oral traditions and disagree on others.

I’d like to see them each post a list giving us what they believe to be the essentials and non-essentials of the Christian faith. Wanna bet there would be some differences? Did I say some? I would bet their would be a great many differences.

Another thread perhaps.

 

[twb1621]

…

*I have not attacked your Pope in any way. I merely pointed out that you believe that Peter was your first Pope and he (Peter) taught a “for certain” inheritance for all believers, which is imperishable, undefiled, and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for those who are protected by the power of God (1 Pet. 1:3-5).

The best way to “interpret” 1 Pet. 1:3-5 is not to “interpret” it at all. Just BELIEVE it.

Peter taught as has been explained by the Catholic Faith and without ignoring any part of Scripture and it is very interesting you acknowledge the validity of Peter and of course in the written Word of Scripture, although with an opposing understanding of SOME of these teachings.

There is much you overlook when it comes to your individual interpretations of scripture in opposition to the CC. Your references to Scripture are selective and out of context to the written contents of the compiled writings of the teachings of the Apostles which you acknowledge as the Inspired Word of God.
But these writings were not the only source of teachings in the Early Church and certainly not the source of teachings received by the Apostolic Fathers who were taught either as adults or children directly by the Apostles even before these written texts existed.

It is clear that the scribes or writers of the Apostolic texts were disciples, Christians within the Church, that is only logical. Additionally, these Apostolic Fathers (immediate successors to the Apostles and their continued successors) who knew and understood the Apostolic teachings first hand are the men who began the gathering of all texts after they had been produced, authenticated them, and selected those texts they knew to be valid according to the teachings they received from the Apostles. It was the ECFs over time who proceeded eliminating those considered not authentic for relative reasons, this also taking into consideration the contents of the Vetus Itala, and safeguarded those texts apparent for the subsequent compiling and translation of the first gathered Vulgate commissioned by pope Damasus to St. Jerome 384 AD. A compilation of texts we’ve known as the Holy Bible intended to be utilized in the Teachings of the Catholic Faith but which was taken from its element (CC) away from its correct interpretation and correct understanding which we refer to as Sacred Tradition of which it was taught in unison in the Catholic Faith. It is the writings of these Apostolic Fathers who in their common personal writings corroborate from that time over the 2000 years of teachings of the Catholic Faith from the Apostolic teachings forward and who introduced through the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Holy Bible as the Inspired Word of God as it has been recognized throughout the majority of Christianity except for the changing of interpretations subsequent to the “protestant reformation“. This is all based on recorded history by acknowledged both by Christian and non Catholic sources.
Do you honestly believe you know better and understand better the intended teachings and interpretations of Scripture over and above the Apostolic Fathers and the Catholic Church from which the Inspired Word of God was taken?