Faith Alone

[Ted_in_Charlott]

All my Evangelical eyes read is working to attain the attainable.

Maybe that’s the problem. Hard to overcome the brainwash.

When you grow up listening to Southern Baptist ministers like I did, you get this notion that the Bible says things it doesn’t. Even as an adult you get these notions in your head about what is black and white, true and not true.

I can tell you that you might need a life changing event to open your eyes to the Catholic Church. I pray you don’t. God bless you in your search for truth.

 

[sandusky]

Sean Boyle:

If steppenwolf1218 is predestined to be saved, then he has no choice in the matter of what to believe.

Everybody has a choice, Sean.

Those who believe the gospel, freely choose to do so; those who reject the gospel, freely choose to do so.

Read my present sig.
Sean Boyle:

So you admit that “faith alone” is not scriptural. Well your starting to grow. Good job!

This is for Sean and steppinwolf1218:

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

 

[sandusky]

Ted in Charlott:

When you grow up listening to Southern Baptist ministers like I did, you get this notion that the Bible says things it doesn’t.

Such as?

 

[sandusky]

Sodak:

Oh no! We have a contradiction in the Bible!!! James and Paul disagree!!! What are we to do???

There’s no contradiction between Paul and James.

Paul describes how one is made right before God—faith alone.

James describes the life of the one who has been made right before God—faith at work.

 

[sandusky]

D M:

Sola fide is a similar concept. Protestants take verses in scripture which tell them that if they faith they will be saved and ignore the obvious remainder of the instruction that they need to actually imitate the life of Jesus, be freed from sin and do good works. That is to say, despite the literal interpretation of the video, you need to actually get out of the plane as well.

That’s not true; Protestants work quite hard in their Christian life; the difference between them and you, is that Trent says your your works merit eternal life, the protestant knows that his works do not.

 

[D_M]

That’s not true; Protestants work quite hard in their Christian life; the difference between them and you, is that Trent says your your works merit eternal life, the protestant knows that his works do not.

Could you perhaps show me where in the proceedings of Trent it is claimed, as you say, that ‘works merit eternal life’?

I was catechized to believe that there is nothing man can do to merit salvation. Works are necessary for eternal life, but no, they cannot earn it.

Faith alone is not enough for salvation. We are justified by faith apart from works, but at the same time we need works in order to inherit life; we are not earning or meriting that life, but we are discounted from it if we only have faith.

 

[sandusky]

Could you perhaps show me where in the proceedings of Trent it is claimed, as you say, that ‘works merit eternal life’?

I was catechized to believe that there is nothing man can do to merit salvation. Works are necessary for eternal life, but no, they cannot earn it.

From the Sixth Session:CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
D M:

Faith alone is not enough for salvation. We are justified by faith apart from works, but at the same time we need works in order to inherit life; we are not earning or meriting that life, but we are discounted from it if we only have faith.

IMO, you’re contradicting yourself.

 

[sodak]

There’s no contradiction between Paul and James.

Paul describes how one is made right before God—faith alone.

James describes the life of the one who has been made right before God—faith at work.

James clearly states that Abraham and Rahab were justified by their works, does he not?

 

[guanophore]

:yup:

[SIGN]
**Two choices:

The religion of Divine accomplishment: God has done it all.

or,

The religion of Human Achievement: God has done some, and I must do some.

[/SIGN]**

Well, sandy, in your small world, maybe this is all you can see. However, neither of these represents Apostolic Teaching. Jesus taught that we are saved by grace, through faith, for the purpose of engaging in the works that God prepared for us from the foundation of the world. It is not correct to separate the faith (something over which humans have control) from the grace (something that only God can provide) from the works (what is produced when saving faith mixes with God’s grace.)

They are all part of one package referred to in the NT as “The Way”.

God has ordained that humans should participate in relationship with Him. He did not want passive creatures, but active ones.

Heb 4:2
For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers.

It is the responsibility of humans to bring their own faith forward to meet with God’s grace, so that we can obtain the benefit of salvation. This is why Jesus said often “you faith has saved you”. Those who put their faith in themselves, or elsewhere, cannot benefit from the message of salvation, and the grace it brings, because the mechanism through which we obtain life is not functioning as God intended.

 

[guanophore]

That’s not true; Protestants work quite hard in their Christian life; the difference between them and you, is that Trent says your your works merit eternal life, the protestant knows that his works do not.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Teachings of Trent, sandy. Only the blood of Jesus, shed on the cross, can merit salvation for men. We are joined with Christ’s death in baptism, and thereby His merit is applied to us. At that point we are obligated to bear fruit that befits repentance, and demonstrate in our lives that we have recieved saving grace.

The holy works that are completed by Christians proceed from the saving faith by which we are justified. They are not the works of “men” but the works of God. He is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure.

Such good works do have merit, but only because they are joined to the merits of Christ.

From the Sixth Session:

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
​

Do you deny that good works increase ones justification before God? Perhaps this is a semantics problem.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

I guess I am missing your point here. It is clear that the canon is speaking only of the good works of the justified person. Persons who are not justified cannot merit anything in the Kingdom.

Heb 10:22-24
23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful; 24 and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,

Would you not agree that stirring up one another in faith is meritorious? Would you not agree that this would have no benefit at all without the confession of hope?​

 

[sandusky]

sodak:

James clearly states that Abraham and Rahab were justified by their works, does he not?

You seem to be the lone Catholic here who is willing to fight for what you’ve been taught—justification is by works. Good for you!

For several reasons, James cannot mean that Abraham was constituted righteous before God because of his own good works:

1) James already stressed that salvation is a gracious gift of God (1:17,18);

2) in the middle of this passage (v. 23), James quotes Gen. 15:6, which clearly claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith (cf Rom. 1:17; 3:24; 4:1–25).

3) the work that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Isaac (Gen. 22:9,12), an event that occurred many years after he first exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Gen. 12:1–7; 15:6).

Abraham’s offering of Isaac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. James is emphasizing the vindication before others of a man’s claim to salvation. James’ teaching perfectly complements Paul’s writings; salvation is determined by faith alone (Eph. 2:8,9) and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God’s will alone (Eph. 2:10).

The same is true of Rahab. She did what she did because she believed in God, and what He had done for Israel (cf Josh 2:9ff).

 

[sandusky]

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Teachings of Trent, sandy. Only the blood of Jesus, shed on the cross, can merit salvation for men. We are joined with Christ’s death in baptism, and thereby His merit is applied to us. At that point we are obligated to bear fruit that befits repentance, and demonstrate in our lives that we have recieved saving grace.

The holy works that are completed by Christians proceed from the saving faith by which we are justified. They are not the works of “men” but the works of God. He is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure.

Such good works do have merit, but only because they are joined to the merits of Christ.

Not so, I understand what’s being said very well.

IMO, Trent’s statements put you in a bit of bind that require a lot of working around what they’re saying; but Trent never anticipated the ecumenism of VII, and the strength of the influence of former protestants who have, IMO, taken over the teaching of the laity; nevertheless, the meriting is said to be found in the works, and the works are more than evidence of fruit no matter the nods to Christ.

Read Luther on Galatians, and his table-talk discussions on faith and works.

Here we have a Catholic educated, Augustinian monk denouncing the system of works of the church. Surely he’d recognize a work when he saw one, and even admitted that he, himself, had been working for salvation “through all kinds of monkery,” at the time he was finally saved.

 

[sodak]

Actually, I’m trying to get to the point that Paul and James complement each other perfectly, and round out each others’ teachings.

But I first need to point out what appears to be a contradiction on the surface. This either 1) discredits the Bible as inspired or 2) means that we need to study it more because we don’t understand it as written.

Faith without works is dead. Abraham and Rahab were justified by their works only when the relationship between faith and works is correctly understood. The works discussed here are a result of faith. If someone professes to believe in God, but doesn’t live a life of faith, they are a liar and a hypocrite. Or incredibly weak. Either way, simply professing that they believe in God will not win them salvation.

The works that were performed flowing out of faith in God, not just a desire “to be a nice person”. They are absolutely required, and we will be judged by them. They are an indicator of our faith, and they did indeed justify Abraham and Rahab. The faith had to be there in the first place, but it does not minimize the importance of works.

The same is true of Rahab. She did what she did because she believed in God, and what He had done for Israel (cf Josh 2:9ff).

You are correct. She was justified, however, by what she did. Action based out of faith is required. Had she not helped, she would have been killed also.

You can not earn heaven with works, but you can certainly earn hell, whether you profess to believe or not.

Note that God’s grace is flowing through out all of this as well. We access his grace normally through faith, but God himself is not constrained by our faith. It is a requirement upon us, but not on God.

He can bestow his grace upon anyone that he chooses - hence perhaps saving infants, people who have never heard of him, etc.

 

[guanophore]

You seem to be the lone Catholic here who is willing to fight for what you’ve been taught—justification is by works. Good for you!

There may be a lone Catholic that was poorly catechized. But that does not change the fact that the Catholic Church does not teach that justification is by works. Especially so in the sense that you use the term, since you don’t appear to distinguish between sacred works, and works of the flesh.

Not so, I understand what’s being said very well.

If that is the case, then you will understand that the canon was created to refute the heretical doctrine that emerged at the time, which indicated that saving faith is somehow separated from the fruit which it produces in a person.

IMO, Trent’s statements put you in a bit of bind that require a lot of working around what they’re saying; but Trent never anticipated the ecumenism of VII, and the strength of the influence of former protestants who have, IMO, taken over the teaching of the laity; nevertheless, the meriting is said to be found in the works, and the works are more than evidence of fruit no matter the nods to Christ.

I am glad that we are in agreement that that human effort is not able to make a man just before God. I think we are also in agreement that saving faith will produce good works in the life of the believer. Catholic Teaching is neither “faith alone” or “grace alone” but faith, working through love. Faith that works. Such faith is evidence that one is attached to the vine of Grace.

Here we have a Catholic educated, Augustinian monk denouncing the system of works of the church. Surely he’d recognize a work when he saw one, and even admitted that he, himself, had been working for salvation “through all kinds of monkery,” at the time he was finally saved.

Yes, I agree that Luther’s whole theology was based on his personal misunderstanding of the church’s teaching on grace. He was working from his flesh, because he had not yet grasped the concept of salvation by grace. When he finally did so, experienced an explosive freedom. So much so, sadly, that he was led into sinful thinking and behavior. However, the truth of salvation by grace remains intact, in spite of the sinful behavior of persons teaching it, whether they err in personal morals, pride, arrogance, power, or any other area. None of the falling short of mankind takes away from God’s divine revelation.

 

[sodak]

There may be a lone Catholic that was poorly catechized.

Actually, I was trying to take him through it one step at a time, first pointing out “contradictions” and other errors that result from personal interpretation. Hopefully my above post has made the full point for me.

 

[kaycee]

A most convincing argument.

"Which view of justification best satisfies the flow of Paul’s argument, especially in Romans where Paul gives the most systematic presentation of the doctrine of justification that we have in the Bible? And my conclusion is that the Roman Catholic teaching does not faithfully reproduce Paul’s argument about justification. Only the Lutheran/Reformed or Protestant doctrine does.

Now, it is a complex and lengthy presentation of justification that we have in Romans 1-5 and so I want to reduce the issue to but one point, the point I think that is easiest to make and, in my judgment, most devastating for the Roman Catholic idea that the believer’s works of righteousness contribute to, even merit his justification even if, as Catholic apologists insist, those works of righteousness are made possible by grace, performed by faith, and offered to God through Christ.

Here is the problem. Paul, when he has completed his exposition of justification, anticipates in the opening verse of chapter 6, an objection that he is sure people will have to his teaching. The objection is that people will say that his doctrine – his teaching about the way sinners are made right with God – undermines moral living. “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?” That is, if I am made right with God by what Christ did for me and not by what I do; if I am justified by faith in Christ and not by my own good works; if my standing with God rests not on my moral accomplishments to any degree but solely on Christ’s for me and in my place; if the good works I do before or after I become a Christian have nothing to do with my being a child of God and do not make me a child of God, then what is to keep me from kicking up my heels and enjoying my sins. In a way, the more I sin I only make Christ’s righteousness and God’s grace seem the greater, for there is more sin for Christ to cover, more guilt for him to remove. Paul says, you will think that my view of justification cuts the legs out from under the demand to live a holy life, because you have just heard me say that how you live has nothing to do with your acceptance with God. You will think that I am left with no motive for a life of holiness and love.

Now, Paul has an answer for that. He is going to say that sanctification and justification are inseparable in the salvation God gives to man. God works not only to justify but to renew and restore, not only to change a person’s status before God (justification) but to transform his heart and life (sanctification). But that is not my point. My point is that Paul thought that folk would naturally object to his doctrine of justification because it seems to undermine moral living. And here is the point: No one objects to the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification for that reason. And the reason is that the Roman Catholic teaching is not subject to that objection. Precisely the reverse.

faithtacoma.org/sermons/Romancath/RC04.html

 

[D_M]

From the Sixth Session:CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

IMO, you’re contradicting yourself.

Thank you for providing the sections.

I think you may be playing on semantics.

When I say we can do nothing to earn eternal life, I imply that we by ourselves can do nothing to earn eternal life.

We merit eternal life, as you indeed have quoted: ‘through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ’ and that we need works with that grace in order to become holy.

I don’t think the use of the word ‘merit’ here implies anything different than what catholicism has always taught that salvation is a free gift that cannot be earned by us alone (but was earned by Jesus’ blood shed for us, to which we must be joined through our faith and works), and we cannot inherit this ‘merit’ that comes through Jesus it if we do not do the Father’s will.

Works cannot merit eternal life, but with works (and faith) we are joined and inherit the merit won by Jesus which brings us to eternal life.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

If simply having faith in Jesus was enough, than why does Jesus tell us that we cannot inherit his kingdom if we do not do the Father’s will?

 

[sandusky]

sodak:

Faith without works is dead. Abraham and Rahab were justified by their works only when the relationship between faith and works is correctly understood. The works discussed here are a result of faith.

Correct, and that is the point that I initially made.

Paul describes how a man is made right before God—faith alone.

James describes the life of the one who has been made right before God—faith at work.

sodak:

Actually, I was trying to take him through it one step at a time, first pointing out “contradictions” and other errors that result from personal interpretation. Hopefully my above post has made the full point for me.

Actually what you’ve done, sodak, is validate my initial response to you in my post #364 re-post above in this post. :tiphat:

 

[jofa]

I’m just stopping by…but after reading these numerous posts, from both Catholics and Evangelicals, including the multitude of scripture verses quoted, it seems as if the Catholic position is the only one that harmonizes with both the Catholic and Evangelical scripture proof texts…In fact not one scripture verse contradicts the Catholic faith but several weaken the Evangelical position. James: “for we are not saved by faith alone…”
My two cents.

 

[sodak]

Actually what you’ve done, sodak, is validate my initial response to you in my post #364 re-post above in this post. :tiphat:

Not at all. You won’t accept the role of works, and that’s critical. This argument also invalidates both OSAS and the “personal lord and savior” positions.