Faith Alone that is Not Alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChrisCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. This might be a point of difference between the Catholic and Lutheran positions. What I understand the Lutheran to be saying is that one does not grow in sanctifying grace. It is either present or not.

Of course you are right, all these good works will cause one to grow in grace, and keep one from falling.
We don’t disagree. We don’t really have a category for sanctifying grace. However, it is understood that the grace received in justification, namely, the righteousness of Christ, will cause us to grow into His image, that being sanctification, until it is complete in heaven.

As to the latter, the Formula of Concord, section 3, has the following condemnations or rejections: “That faith is such a trust in the obedience of Christ as can exist and remain in a man even when he has no genuine repentance, in whom also no love follows, but who persists in sins against his conscience,” and section iv: “We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by wilful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein.”
 
As you know, there were no dogmatic pronouncements on the doctrine for the reformers to separate from.
This would seem to be a dandy time to differentiate between doctrine and dogma. Doctrine is the teaching of Jesus that has been handed down through the Apostles in the form of Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradtition. it is immutable and we understand that we are not at liberty to change it.

Dogmas are official pronouncements of the Church on matters of doctrine around which heresies and confusion have arisen. The Church will make a statement to prevent the faithful from falling into error, such as the pronouncements of Trent. Since these do not exist until heresy or apostasy occur, of course there were none that existed for the reformers to separate from. A dogma is not “new” in the sense that it represents a belief that did not exist before, but a clarification of the Apostolic faith. The dogmas of the councils did not originate the hypostatic union, only clarified it, nor did they invent the notion that Mary is the Mother of God. These beliefs were held from the beginning, if not articulated just that way. The canon of scripture is another example. No bible can be found before the Reformation that did not contain all the books in the Catholic canon, because these books were always considered canon. When the faith of the Church was called into question, a dogma was produced.

So, it makes sense, of course, that the Reformers had no dogma to object to, since the dogmas were created after the objections to the One Faith occurred.
I know that Catholics disagree with the evidence that the belief of the reformers has a tradition within the faith that stretches back to the patristics.
I am not one. 😉

One of the reasons that Jesus left people in charge of the Church instead of books is so that discernment could be applied. Books dont have the quality of discernment. It is the duty of the Church to interpret the Scripture and the writings of the Fathers in a manner that is consistent with the faith. However, I am fully aware that they can just as easily be interpreted in alternative ways.
But regardless, it was there enough for the reformers to present evidence of it. In short, without going into detail for sake of brevity, a multiplicity of ideas around justification were present before Luther. All of these existed without any need for the clergy to excommunicate its adherents.
Do you believe that people were excommunicated solely because of their notions of justification?
The tempestuousness of the Reformation period is what fueled this response to the reformers, I believe. Add to that the politics of the Holy Roman Empire, and it was just begging to all go wrong.
I could not agree more.
I firmly believe if the papacy were occupied by men such as Pope Benedict the XVI, methinks things would’ve turned out much differently.
The fracture of the Body might not have occurred at all, at least, I would like to think so.
Even the Council of Trent was not very harmonious in reflecting the opinions of the various bishops…only 34 out of several hundred attended the first session, most of them Italian and already predisposed toward the arguments of the See. Even by the closing third session, only 255 attended (out of roughly 700). Kangaroo court comes to mind.
One must also be mindful that these arguements never existed in Catholic communities outside of Europe, so a comparitive study of the Eastern, Egyptian, and Syrian beliefs are very informative.
The only statement our confessions make in regard to the matter is that the teachings of all men, councils, traditions, etc. are subject to agreement with Scripture.
Since the Sacred Tradition and the Holy Scripture both come from the same source, it is impossible for them to be in disagreement. However, the caveat that doctrine be “subject to agreement with scripture” carries inherint difficulties. Once the authority of the Church is rejected, each man is on his own to determine if a doctrine is in “agreement”. This is why we have so many denominations today. Whenever a group determines that their leadership is not acting in “agreement with scripture” they can take their bible down the street to the next empty storefront and open a new church that operates on what they believe (in all good conscience) agrees with scripture. This is the big problem with Sola Scriptura.
Of course, the disagreement is not that God cannot work through men in the church in the means of infallibility. But whether or not He actually did in the case of the post-apostolic church.
Indeed. All Protestants must reject that Jesus actually kept His promise. Protestantism is based upon the assumption that Jesus did not remain with the Church till the end of the age.
 
This would seem to be a dandy time to differentiate between doctrine and dogma. Doctrine is the teaching of Jesus that has been handed down through the Apostles in the form of Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradtition. it is immutable and we understand that we are not at liberty to change it.

Dogmas are official pronouncements of the Church on matters of doctrine around which heresies and confusion have arisen. The Church will make a statement to prevent the faithful from falling into error, such as the pronouncements of Trent. Since these do not exist until heresy or apostasy occur, of course there were none that existed for the reformers to separate from. A dogma is not “new” in the sense that it represents a belief that did not exist before, but a clarification of the Apostolic faith. The dogmas of the councils did not originate the hypostatic union, only clarified it, nor did they invent the notion that Mary is the Mother of God. These beliefs were held from the beginning, if not articulated just that way. The canon of scripture is another example. No bible can be found before the Reformation that did not contain all the books in the Catholic canon, because these books were always considered canon. When the faith of the Church was called into question, a dogma was produced.

So, it makes sense, of course, that the Reformers had no dogma to object to, since the dogmas were created after the objections to the One Faith occurred.
Yes. Mea culpa for not paying attention to the detail of verbiage there. There was, then, no dogma at the time which had previously condemned Luther’s view. But on the positive end of doctrine, to whit did the Roman See ever define what justification was? (To the extent that it could not be deviated from? It seems to me, if what Luther was objecting to what was clearly established teaching, evident from Scripture and Tradition, why were there divergent views on the doctrine?)
Do you believe that people were excommunicated solely because of their notions of justification?
No. Though the other issues that had arisen, such as indulgences, ultimately stem from their affirmation that justification cannot come about through them.
The fracture of the Body might not have occurred at all, at least, I would like to think so.
I am pretty confident it would not have.
One must also be mindful that these arguements never existed in Catholic communities outside of Europe, so a comparitive study of the Eastern, Egyptian, and Syrian beliefs are very informative.
True. But the Council was supposedly ecumenical. Ecumenical as in Milan and Tuscany!
Since the Sacred Tradition and the Holy Scripture both come from the same source, it is impossible for them to be in disagreement. However, the caveat that doctrine be “subject to agreement with scripture” carries inherint difficulties. Once the authority of the Church is rejected, each man is on his own to determine if a doctrine is in “agreement”. This is why we have so many denominations today. Whenever a group determines that their leadership is not acting in “agreement with scripture” they can take their bible down the street to the next empty storefront and open a new church that operates on what they believe (in all good conscience) agrees with scripture. This is the big problem with Sola Scriptura.
Agreed. But, I do not see how an infallible teaching authority really solves this problem. If the Church happens to be correct in its application of Scripture and Tradition, the one disagreeing can just as easily up and leave or be excommunicated.
Indeed. All Protestants must reject that Jesus actually kept His promise. Protestantism is based upon the assumption that Jesus did not remain with the Church till the end of the age.
Only if one operates under the presupposition that Lutheranism is incorrect. If it is correct, then in our perspective, we see Jesus remaining with His Church through the actions of the Reformation, and the confessions of the Lutheran expression that followed it.
 
As to the latter, the Formula of Concord, section 3, has the following condemnations or rejections: “That faith is such a trust in the obedience of Christ as can exist and remain in a man even when he has no genuine repentance, in whom also no love follows, but who persists in sins against his conscience,”
So, what is it saying exactly? It is a condemnation of this statement?

One cannot have true faith if one is unrepentant?
and section iv: “We also reject and condemn the dogma that faith and the indwelling of the Holy Ghost are not lost by wilful sin, but that the saints and elect retain the Holy Ghost even though they fall into adultery and other sins and persist therein.”
this seems to be in agreement with Trent, and a statement against Calvanism.
 
So, what is it saying exactly? It is a condemnation of this statement?

One cannot have true faith if one is unrepentant?
Yes. It would be a condemnation of those who are antinomian, as well as those who say “faith is a quality that says I can continue in sin and it doesn’t matter because I have been justified,” basically.
this seems to be in agreement with Trent, and a statement against Calvanism.
Correct. The statement in Trent as regards that was most definitely directed against the nascent Reformed bodies and not the Lutherans.

As for the Formula of Concord, this confession was written within the context of what is referred to as the crypto-Calvinist controversy. Various Lutherans had entered the churches in Germany who were sympathetic to Reformed doctrine and were teaching the once-saved-always-saved style of theology prevalent to Reformed ideas. The above statement was a rejection of the crypto-Calvinist movement.
 
Justification is the beginning of salvation. Although, one could use them interchangeably, it’s required, in some cases, to narrowly define the terms.

Salvation is a process. Justification is not. One is either guilty before God or not guilty before God. One cannot become not guilty over time. You either are or aren’t.
Your concept of Justification as to guilt works in the context of Justification being imagined as a courtroom being declared righteous on account of Christ…this view stems from the notion that it is a courtroom however this scenario does not exist within the Book of Romans as to courtroom images…there are no courtroom images in the Book of Romans however there are family images, covenant images, and process images…because Justification is a process once you remove it from the innocent or guilty paradigm otherwise you see it your way.🙂

Justification is divine sonship and sons grow and mature from childhood to adulthood…when I was a child, I spoke as a child…and when you see Paul speaking of himself you see a recognition of that understanding…

For I am the least of the Apostles…

For I am least of the Saints…

For I am the greatest of sinnners…

This is maturation in Justification…

Try it you’ll like it…🙂
 
Incidentally, for the sake of furthering the discussion, I came across a rather lengthy treatment of Luther’s views on justification in his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. It is long, but given the topic, I thought well worth it to post. Perhaps a Catholic (Gary, guanophore) could comment on where they see agreement/disagreement with Catholic teaching? (as well as whether Luther’s views here are novel?). I’ve added emphasis in bold to those areas where, I believe, Luther differs significantly from the modern (highly influenced by Reformed teaching) view of sola fide:
Code:
To begin with we must have knowledge of its language and know what St. Paul means by the words, law, sin, grace, faith, righteousness, flesh, spirit, etc., otherwise no reading of it has any value (xiii).

If the law were for the body, it could be satisfied with works; but since it is spiritual, no one can satisfy it, **unless** all that you do is done from the bottom of the heart.  But such a heart is given only by God’s Spirit, who makes man equal to the law, so that he acquires a desire for the law in his heart, and henceforth does nothing out of fear and compulsion, but everything out of a willing heart (xiv).

Accustom yourself, then, to this language, and you will find that doing the works of the law and fulfilling the law are two very different things.  The work of the law is everything that one does, or can do toward keeping the law of his own free will or by his own powers. … That is what St. Paul means in chapter 3, when he says, “By the works of the law no man becomes righteous before God” (xv).

To fulfill the law however, is to do its works with pleasure and love, and to live a godly and good life of one’s own accord without the compulsion of the law.  This pleasure and love for the law is put into the heart by the Holy Ghost, as he says in chapter 5.  But the Holy Ghost is not given except in, with and **by faith** in Jesus Christ, as he says in the introduction; and faith does not come, save only through God’s Word or Gospel, which preaches Christ, that He is God’s Son and a man, has died and risen again for our sakes, as he says in chapters 3, 4, and 10.

**Hence it comes that faith alone makes righteous and fulfils the law; for out of Christ’s merit, it brings the Spirit, and the Spirit makes the heart glad and free, as the law requires that it shall be** (xv).

And the scriptures look especially into the heart and have regard to the root and source of all sin, which is unbelief in the inmost heart.  As, therefore, **faith alone** makes righteous, and brings the Spirit, and produces pleasure in good, eternal works, so unbelief alone commits sin, and brings up the flesh, and produces in bad external works, as happened to Adam and Eve in Paradise (xvi). 

**Faith**, however, is a divine work in us.  It changes us and makes us to be born anew of God (John 1); it kills the old Adam and **makes altogether different men**, in heart and spirit and mind and powers, and it brings with it the Holy Ghost (xvii) … and this is the work of the Holy Ghost in faith.  Hence a man is ready and glad, without compulsion, to do good to everyone, to serve everyone, to suffer everything, in love and praise to God, who has shown him this grace; and thus it is impossible to separate works from faith, quite as impossible as to separate heat and light fires (xvii).

**Righteousness, then, is such a faith and is called “God’s righteousness,” or “the righteousness that avails before God,” because God gives it and counts it as righteousness for the sake of Christ, our Mediator, and makes a man give to every man what he owes him**” (xvii).

… moreover, the law works wrath rather than grace, because no one keeps it out of love for it and pleasure in it, so that what comes by the works of the law is disgrace rather than grace.  Therefore, **faith alone** must obtain the grace promised to Abraham … (xx). 

There is sin; but it is no longer counted for condemnation, because of the faith that strives against it (xxi).

… but we are under the law when, without grace, we occupy ourselves in the work of the law. …. Grace, however, makes the law dear to us, and then sin is no more there, and the law is no longer against us, but with us.  This is the true freedom from sin and the law, of which he writes, down to the end of the chapter, saying that it is liberty only to do good with pleasure and live a good life without the compulsion of the law.  Therefore this liberty is a spiritual liberty, which does not abolish the law, but presents what the law demands; namely, pleasure and love.  Thus the law is quieted and no longer drives men or makes demands of them. (xxii)

Therefore a man must have something else than the law, and more than the law, **to make him righteous and save him**.  But they who do not rightly understand the law are blind; they go ahead, in their presumption, and think to satisfy the law with their works, not knowing what the law demands, viz., a willing and happy heart. (xxiii).
 
Code:
Your concept of Justification as to guilt works in the context of Justification being imagined as a courtroom being declared righteous on account of Christ...this view stems from the notion that it is a courtroom however this scenario does not exist within the Book of Romans as to courtroom images...there are no courtroom images in the Book of Romans however there are family images, covenant images, and process images...because Justification is a process once you remove it from the innocent or guilty paradigm otherwise you see it your way.:)
While I agree that there are images of family, covenant, and growth in Romans, it cannot be doubted that there are legal references as well. one must also situate the book of Romans within the Judaic history, and other writings of the NT. There are legal references throughout.

Paul’s major premise, “the Law”, is both legal and moral in reference. While I will stipulate that no “courtroom” existed at the time the 10 commandments were originated, certainly from the beginning the Law of Moses was given into the judges for custody. Moses sat in judgement, and later appointed judges. All legal matters were brought to these judges.

From the first chapter, Paul lays out how God has revealed Himself through what has been made. Those who refuse to honor God receive the due “penalty” for their error. This is only the beginning of legal terminology.

judgement
condemnation
“what the law requires”
written code
justice
held accountable
justification
penalty
trespass
transgression

just to name a few not to mention this legal reference in Colossians:

Col 2:13-14
God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

There is no doubt that there are legal aspects to this or that Paul is using legal concepts and terminology to make his points about grace.

Your reference to accounting is actually a mixing of metaphors. When Paul claims that our since are accounted to Christ, and His righteousness is accounted to us, he is using bookeeping terminology. His righteousness is literally deposited into our ledger, and He takes our debts into His.
Justification is divine sonship and sons grow and mature from childhood to adulthood…when I was a child, I spoke as a child…and when you see Paul speaking of himself you see a recognition of that understanding…
The concept of adoption is most certainly legal. It has legal origins and legally defined outcomes.
 
The “separation” of justification, sanctification, and glorification is a protestant artifact that is not found prior to 1500.
Right I’m following you. I can’t remember who its was who stated, but to paraphrase. “It would be easier to live withoit oxygen, than to be good without Grace”

We reach a deeper understanding in Catholic theology where we extend to a few different aspects in Sanctifying Grace or Habitual Grace which is the permament disposition to live and act by keeping with Gods calling.

Then we also extent to Actual Grace which refers to Gods Intervention, be it at the begining of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

Also “Merit” comes to mind as does Free-Will.

But I agree, while I understand the thinking in the West and much clearer today in the East. I’m not well versed in the Lutheran theology which I agree Luther complied I assume by a combination of theological ideas proposed by St Augustine, Aquinas, Catholicism and the brain-stroming of the reformers.

However, thanks for stopping back to clarify, good to see ya back. When I think “Love Your Neighbor” yes there is a Grace always which preceeds, and I assume we would all conclude, but there is still very much a contingent, an act of Free-Will and a conscious rational choice/effort to live in a state of Grace, and follow the teachings of the Lord. Just as through the consolation and desolation of the mind we have to make daily choices and come to understand what is Gods Voice, and to not only choose to listen to it, but make this a perpetual habit. Thus this constant effort to seek Gods Kingdom first and always.

Well let me not get to far off in a spiritual retreat and on-going battle either. 😉

Peace
 
Various Protestant theologians have put forth this formula:
Code:
 ***"We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone."***
I do not understand. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
I’m honestly trying to understand what this means. Can anyone help?
Chris,

I searched this notion and found this…
“Faith alone, not a Faith that is alone”
I am a firm believer in seeing in the world what it is God wants you to know. I am a firm believer in gravity, laws of Physics and apply them to thought. Everyone knows that the Universe is expanding. If you did not know that, you can read about that here.

csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1004/Discovery-that-universe-is-expanding-faster-and-faster-earns-physics-Nobel

So what? Well, it applies to thoughts as well…In my opinion as I study thought I see that there are thoughts that transmit time and develop over time. I see thoughts that deviate from the norm and in time return to the norm. It is like a handful of rocks thrown in the air…in time they all return to the ground, the source.

The Universal Christian Church, the OHCAC, says

“we are saved by grace alone, by Faith alone, working in love”…in other words the product works come as a result of the former. This was stated at the Council of Orange and affirmed at the Council of Trent.

You are aware that in 1600 the notion that the OHCAC taught works righteousness has translated time to the point where you will encounter ignorant Protestants believing that the “Catholic Cult” is pelagian. Not true.

Here is an article on the subject.

harvardichthus.org/fishtank/2011/09/faith-alone-not-a-faith-that-is-alone/
Our faith cannot be alone because the very essence of the faith we receive compels us to respond in holiness and works of faith. This is not to say that we are saved by works, but rather that we are justified by a faith that obliges us to work.
You can see that the original “saved by Faith alone” has returned to the source so that those that deviated from the norm are conforming to the norm and echo Orange and Trent…it is comforting to see order come out of disorder.🙂
 
Iggy I don’t see much difference. Check this out for comparison.

We can all agree we are human is this human state, be it we call this state the plague, evil, sin etc. We are in it, and have it. Through the Grace of God salvation is possible.

Grace is given through the Lord in many ways as we see. First by Baptism and Conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus proclaimation “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand”

By this Grace man then turns toward God, accepting which is an act of free will, forgiveness. So then justification is not only the remission of sin, but also the santification and renewal of the interior soul/individual.

So justification detachs man from sin which contradicts Gods Love. Justification follows Gods mercy and initiative which offers forgiveness, It reconciles, frees and heals.

Justification establishes cooperation between Gods Grace and mans Freedom.

On mans part this is expressed by the assent of Faith to Gods Word. In cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who preceeds and preserves his assent.

In Daniel we read and hear the Lord tell Daniel to “Remain on this step”. Why? Because for one the Lord was willing to give His Grace to Daniel, so too Daniel had the Free-Will to participate with Sanctifying Grace or relapse further down the ladder. And we see the vertical ascent/descent process. The horizontal is time Gods Learning Experience given to man. We see the Horizontal with Mose’s in the Desert for 40-years. And the ascent/descent vertical, which Paul talks about below in the cooperation of either good or evil.

When God touchs mans heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, “man himself is Not inactive” while receiving that inspiration, he could and often does reject it through Free Will, thus desolation and consolation are constantly active within mans mind. A constant path of valleys and hills.

Yet without Gods Grace or thus the renewal of Faith through Gods Grace in the Sacraments, man by his own Free-Will cannot move himself toward justice in Gods sight. Here would reside a contradiction of light and dark which would occupy the same space.

Or Paul in Romans 6:19 explains this well…Just as you yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, Now… yield your members to righousness for sanctification, Now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return is sanctification and its end…eternal life.

Grace is the participation in the life of God. It introduces us to the intimacy of the Trinitarian Life, by Baptism first as an adopted child. The Souls recieves the life of the spirit who breaths charity into him/her.

So too then we need understand the State of Grace which does accompany the exercise of the responsibilites in the Christian life, and the elect within the Church.

St Augustine words it this way…In the end of your very good works, you rested on the seventh day it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed good, since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.

Everything here is either from Trent or the CCC. Be it a copy of a copy of my own notes.

However I’m not sure how this runs together with Luthers theology for the above seems somewhat similar. So you’ll have to excuse me there. I see Lutherans in the mainline/oldline church as good Christians anyway. On the contrary, I believe what has evolved today in different areas of Christianity is of much concern. And certainly for no good reason.

Nevertheless today when I hear “well I don’t need to do all that” or “thats too much and I’m not doing that” or “I don’t believe that”. I hear it, and I say Amen. but I can’t quantify that for the simple reason being I was raised in this. So to me it was learned behavior which I came to only question years later in a secular university thus read into, then regain my footing, so the test came before the lesson so to speak.
 
In other words, good works are necessary for salvation…
That’s right. Either way you cut it, the presence of fruits or works is necessary in salvation.
The absence of good works is evidence of the absence of salvation.
 
Various Protestant theologians have put forth this formula:
Code:
 ***"We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone."***
I do not understand. It seems to be a contradiction in terms.
I’m honestly trying to understand what this means. Can anyone help?
I think it means that the it is only the faith we have that justifies us (meaning God declares us righteous only because of our faith), but the faith that justifies us is always going to have hope and charity.

The only difference I can see that keeps Lutherans and Catholics from agreeing on the salvation process is: Is Justification separate from Sanctification or part of the same process? Lutherans would say justification is where God declares the sinner righteous from faith alone, while Catholics would say justification starts when God infuses faith hope and charity into a sinner’s soul and then declaring him righteous.

Of course, this is Lutherans and Catholics, not all Protestants. Lutherans are closer to Catholics on almost every theological topic than every other Protestant group.

Hope this helps. 🙂
 
That’s right. Either way you cut it, the presence of fruits or works is necessary in salvation.
The absence of good works is evidence of the absence of salvation.
Right. I’d say most of the posts on this thread take the long way to reach this conclusion: good works are necessary for salvation.
 
Code:
..."Merit" comes to mind as does Free-Will.
But I agree, while I understand the thinking in the West and much clearer today in the East. I’m not well versed in the Lutheran theology which I agree Luther complied I assume by a combination of theological ideas proposed by St Augustine, Aquinas, Catholicism and the brain-stroming of the reformers.
When you study the life of Luther, it is clear that he endured significant abuse at the hands of his father, and that he suffered most of his life not grasping the concept of grace as a free gift. He seemed to be always working to obtain the favor of God, possibly impelled by his projection of his experience of father onto God. He chose one of the most rigorous religious orders, and when in residence with the monks, outdid them all in penitential rituals. Yet, none of this self abasement made him feel better. Although he had been reading scripture for decades, it was not until he finally saw the concept in the book of Romans that he “got it” on an experiential level.

His emphasis on “faith alone” was to reinforce the idea that we can’t work ourselves into grace.
Code:
  When I think "Love Your Neighbor" yes there is a Grace always which preceeds, and I assume we would all conclude, but there is still very much a contingent, an act of Free-Will and a conscious rational choice/effort to live in a state of Grace, and follow the teachings of the Lord. Just as through the consolation and desolation of the mind we have to make daily choices and come to understand what is Gods Voice, and to not only choose to listen to it, but make this a perpetual habit. Thus this constant effort to seek Gods Kingdom first and always.
Yes, and your point is well made that walking in the deeds He has prepared for us does increase our ability to recieve His grace. This idea is anathema to many Protestants, who are taught that grace is not poured into us, and that grace does not come in amounts. The more we walk in obedience to His commandments, the more grace abounds in and through us. This does not mean that we “earned” the grace.

Gal 2:16-17
16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.

Titus 3:5
5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy,
 
Yes, and your point is well made that walking in the deeds He has prepared for us does increase our ability to recieve His grace. This idea is anathema to many Protestants, who are taught that grace is not poured into us, and that grace does not come in amounts. The more we walk in obedience to His commandments, the more grace abounds in and through us. This does not mean that we “earned” the grace.
Depends on the tradition you’re looking at, I suppose. For both Lutheran and Reformed Christians, gratia infusa is not denied, just not the basis or grounds for justification.
 
Depends on the tradition you’re looking at, I suppose. For both Lutheran and Reformed Christians, gratia infusa is not denied, just not the basis or grounds for justification.
Yes I see your point. In my discussions with my Reformed brethren here, it seems very clear that they do not consider baptism as a moment of justification, at which time God’s grace is instilled within us. Of course when it comes to the process of sanctification, we are all in agreement that God’s grace and character need to grow in us throughout this life, and that if we have a valid faith, then it will be demonstrated in our deeds.

Titus 3:4-8
5 he saved us …by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is sure.

Catholics see in this a reference to the regenerative waters of Baptism, which our Reformed brethren do not recognize. For them, “born again” cannot happen to an infant, because they have not professed belief. It seems that from their point of view, a person needs to be convicted of sin, then regenerated, after which they profess faith. Do you think I understand that correctly?
 
Yes I see your point. In my discussions with my Reformed brethren here, it seems very clear that they do not consider baptism as a moment of justification, at which time God’s grace is instilled within us. Of course when it comes to the process of sanctification, we are all in agreement that God’s grace and character need to grow in us throughout this life, and that if we have a valid faith, then it will be demonstrated in our deeds.

Titus 3:4-8
5 he saved us …by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is sure.

Catholics see in this a reference to the regenerative waters of Baptism, which our Reformed brethren do not recognize. For them, “born again” cannot happen to an infant, because they have not professed belief. It seems that from their point of view, a person needs to be convicted of sin, then regenerated, after which they profess faith. Do you think I understand that correctly?
I suppose it depends on which reformed tradition you are referring to. Capital “R” reformed Christians (Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed) do not affirm baptismal regeneration. However, they will usually say something along the lines of “we presume that God will be true to His promises in Baptism and so we consider the infant regenerate until and unless faith is denied.” They wouldn’t deny regeneration could happen at the time of baptism, but will be quick to say they don’t believe the sacrament “ties God’s hands.” It all comes down to their view of predestination and election. If the child is not elect, no regeneration, now or 50 years from now. For the elect, they will usually say it’s a means of grace.

Of course, Baptists don’t believe baptism has any effect whatsoever.
 
Of course, Baptists don’t believe baptism has any effect whatsoever.
I have always found this curious. I was baptized as an adult in a SBC congregation because they pursuaded me that my infant baptism wasn’t valid. I think they would say that the effect is a public declaration for Christ.

Matt 10:32-33
2 So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

The efficacy of joining oneself to Christ, however, for them is at the moment of faith, and baptism is just an outward sign.
 
I have always found this curious. I was baptized as an adult in a SBC congregation because they pursuaded me that my infant baptism wasn’t valid. I think they would say that the effect is a public declaration for Christ.

Matt 10:32-33
2 So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

The efficacy of joining oneself to Christ, however, for them is at the moment of faith, and baptism is just an outward sign.
As was I. Mine was in a Reformed Baptist SBC church and they said much the same thing. Unfortunately, they do make it sound logical and so it has a very common sense appeal. That is, it appeals to our own ego, because we are naturally curved inward and so what happens “inside” is always seen as more important than what happens (as Luther would say) extra nos.

For your listening pleasure, whenever you may get the time, here is a debate between a Reformed theologian and a Lutheran pastor on baptismal regeneration ruberad.wordpress.com/2010/05/17/hns-regen/. It was quite good…and very eye opening into the Reformed mindset on the sacraments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top