Faith Alone

[SyCarl]

Origen

It remains for us who are trying to affirm everything the apostle says, and to do so in the proper order, to inquire who is justified by faith alone, apart from works. If an example is required, I think it must suffice to mention the thief on the cross, who asked Christ to save him and was told: “Truly. This day you will be with me in paradise…A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God.-Origen (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 100)

Ambrosiaster

“God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of sins.”-Ambrosiaster (Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VII: 1-2 Corinthians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 6.)

“They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God. Paul testifies that the grace of God is in Christ, because we have been redeemed by Christ according to the will of God so that once set free we may be justified, as he says to the Galatians: “Christ redeemed us by offering himself for us.” For he achieved this despite the fierce attacks of the devil, who was outwitted. For the devil received Christ (in hell) thinking that he could hold him there, but because he could not withstand his power he lost not only Christ but all those whom he held at the same time.”-Ambrosiaster ((Commentary on Paul’s Epistles Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 97.))

“This refers to somebody who is bound by sin and who therefore does not do what the law commands. Paul says this because to an ungodly person, that is to a Gentile, who believes in Christ without doing the works of the law, his faith is reckoned for righteousness just as Abraham’s was. How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone.”-Ambrosiaster (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 108.))

“Paul backs this up by the example of the prophet David, who says that those are blessed of whom God has decreed that, without work or any keeping of the law, they are justified before God by faith alone. Therefore he foretells the blessedness of the time when Christ was born, just as the Lord himself said: “Many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see and to hear what you hear and did not hear it””-Ambrosiaster (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 109.))

The Jews maintain two opposing tenets. For in no way and by no argument can they be persuaded that the promise to Abraham was rendered void by the law, and they are right. But in their short-sighted vanity they maintain another contrary principle, thinking that justification could not come without the practice of the law. They know that Abraham, who is the type [of justification], was justified by faith alone without the practice of the law…The heirs to the promise of Abraham are therefore those who are his successors in the adoption of the faith by which Abraham was blessed and justified. The testimony of the promise to Abraham is therefore called a covenant [to signify] that after his death there would be heirs in the promise, made sons of Abraham through faith.-Ambrosiaster (Epistle to the Galatians,Thomas Oden ed. ., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VIII: Galatians, Ephesians Philippians, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), p. 43.))

 

[SyCarl]

Marinus Victorinus

Every mystery which is enacted by our Lord Jesus Christ asks only for faith. The mystery was enacted at that time for our sake and aimed at our resurrection and liberation, should we have faith in the mystery of Christ and in Christ. For the patriarchs prefigured and foretold that man would be justified from faith. Therefore, just as it was reckoned as righteousness to Abraham that he had faith, so we too, if we have faith in Christ and every mystery of his, will be sons of Abraham. Our whole life will be accounted as righteous.-Marius Victorinus (Epistle to the Galatians, 1.3.7. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 39.

Oecumenius

“Abraham is the image of someone who is justified by faith alone, since what he believed was credited to him as righteousness. But he is also approved because of his works, since he offered up his son Isaac on the altar. Of course he did not do this work by itself; in doing it, he remained firmly anchored in his faith, believing that through Isaac his seed would be multiplied until it was as numerous as the stars.”-Oecumenius (Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 33.)

Basil of Caeseria

“Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ.-Basil of Caesaria (Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, Part 1, p. 505)

Bede

And so that the favors of heavenly condescension might not be lacking to any period of this transitory world, those who lived from the inception of the world up to the time of the giving of circumcision, and those from other countries who lived after the giving of circumcision, also pleased God. [They did so] either by the offering of sacrificial offerings or alternatively by virtue of faith alone, since they committed their souls and those of their own to the Creator, and so [they] took care to free themselves from the bonds of the original guilt. For “without faith it is impossible to please God.” And as it is written in another place, “The just person lives by faith.”-Bede (Homilies on the Gospels 1.11. Erik M. Heen & Philip D. W. Krey ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X Hebrews, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 179.)

Theodore of Mopsuestia

He has made use of many proofs, since he knew the Jews especially questioned faith by means of a certain line of argument. For the Jews were setting forth the law and righteousness by their works, but Christians set forth faith, saying that even if someone should be guilty of ten thousand evils, by only believing in Christ he receives immediately deliverance from all of them, being deemed worthy of justification from him. Therefore, having determined this, then partly to appropriate the things that had been said before and partly to be able to show that faith appeared among all the virtuous men of old, he adds, “by faith the men of old received divine approval.”-Theodore of Mopsuestia (Fragments on the Epistle to the Hebrews 11.1-2 Erik M. Heen & Philip D. W. Krey ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X Hebrews, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 173.)

 

[Marangelica]

Sycarl:

Thank you so much for sharing these quotes from our Church Fathers. Truly I believe- we are justified ONLY by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Only HE is our Lord and Savior. The quotes you shared bring me great comfort as they remind me that it is because of his death that the gates of Heaven were open. I am so thankful that it is not up to me to “merit” salvation- because truly I would never be able to merit anything. Truly, had our works been enough, our Lord Jesus Christ died in vain. Amen I believe.

I’m just not sure how that answers my question. My question is- if Faith alone is enough- why didn’t Jesus say that? These are two very specific passages about salvation and eternal life- and the words of our Savior. Why didn’t Jesus reassure this young man that he didn’t need to worry! He clearly had Faith, why wasn’t that enough? He was specifically asked what he needed to do to gain eternal life- to be saved- and Jesus, did not say- have faith in me alone. He instructed him to follow the commandments. Why? Why did Jesus- our only Lord and Savior- describe the Final Judgement as a seperatoin of those that were righteous and those that were not?

I completely agree that we cannot be saved by works alone. Had that been enough, then surely our Saviour died in vain. Our Church teaches "justification has been merited FOR US BY THE PASSION OF CHRIST who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to GOd, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men (CC 1992). We so believe this that we when we celebrate the Eucharist we do everything as he commanded- in memory of Him!

Our Church teaches that "moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the GRACES NEEDED FOR OUR SANCTIFICATION, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. (CC 2010)

Jesus alone is my Lord and Saviour. I worship only him. But if I am to believe in his words, in HIS words- not the Church Fathers- not even his Apostle’s words- but HIS words- than I need to believe that Faith alone is not enough. What else do I need to do to gain eternal life?

I will read Matt 19:16-21 every single day and hear his words to
“Follow the commandments.” I believe!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

SyCarl, I glanced over those quotes and I didnt see anything teaching imputed righteousness.

The issue isnt so much about “faith” (which Catholics have no problem with) the issue between Protestants and Catholics is what is going on during justification (is the stain in the rug removed or covered over). Further, the ECFs did not drive a wedge between faith and obedience or faith and the sacraments.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl, I glanced over those quotes and I didnt see anything teaching imputed righteousness.

The issue isnt so much about “faith” (which Catholics have no problem with) the issue between Protestants and Catholics is what is going on during justification (is the stain in the rug removed or covered over). Further, the ECFs did not drive a wedge between faith and obedience or faith and the sacraments.

Origen

Paul says that the promise given to Abraham that he should inherit the world did not come from the law but by faith, which was reckoned to him as righteousness. It doubtless follows that everyone who hopes that God’s righteousness will be imputed to him hopes by faith and not by the law.-Origen (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles (Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 114.))

 

[Pax]

SyCarl,

Somewhere earlier in this thread, Sandusky attempted to do the same thing that you are doing with the quotes you have posted. Please be advised that I answered his quotes by showing how they were cherry picked. I chose his quotations of John Chrysostom and then quoted other things he had to say concerning faith and works and the necessity of works. I can do the same thing with all of the rest of Sandusky’s quotes and I can do the same to those that you have posted.

The absurdity of taking the words of a Catholic saint and attempting to make them say something against church teaching is laughable. Cherry picking quotes from these people is easily refuted. You might want to go back and find my post to Sandusky and read the additional quotes from Chrysostom to see my point.

 

[fbl9]

kkkkk

 

[fbl9]

Well then, with what you’ve stated, the “those” who are raised first, and the “we” who are caught up are believers.

So “them” who are left on the earth are “they” who are condemned.

That is, if my extension of your sequence is correct.

found what i trying to piont out. that yes even those who are to be in heaven are to be judged,as worthy of heaven or hell…St.Luke20:35 But those who shall be accountedworthy of that world and of reserrection from the dead…

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl,

Somewhere earlier in this thread, Sandusky attempted to do the same thing that you are doing with the quotes you have posted. Please be advised that I answered his quotes by showing how they were cherry picked. I chose his quotations of John Chrysostom and then quoted other things he had to say concerning faith and works and the necessity of works. I can do the same thing with all of the rest of Sandusky’s quotes and I can do the same to those that you have posted.

The absurdity of taking the words of a Catholic saint and attempting to make them say something against church teaching is laughable. Cherry picking quotes from these people is easily refuted. You might want to go back and find my post to Sandusky and read the additional quotes from Chrysostom to see my point.

I have read your quotes and what are they really but cherry picking from the other side? It is not laughable to quote from church fathers. That the Catholic Church has named them saints does not change what they wrote. What is wrong is to say that they were Catholic saints and therefore cannot have disagreed with what the Church teaches today. Given that both sides can find quotes in the fathers, maybe we should say we don’t know exactly what they believed. However emphasizing the doing of good works does not prejudice faith alone as Protestants agree works follow faith and are evidence of them. The fathers had difficulty reconciling Paul and James. Many took the view James was talking about proof of faith.

** Faith is shown by deeds** like the features of the face in a mirror.-Symeon the New Theologian (Discourses 29.4, Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI: James, 1-2Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 30.)

If someone does not show by his deeds that he believes in God, his profession of faith is worthless. For it is not the one who just says that he is the Lord’s who is a believer, but the one who loves the Lord so much that he is prepared to risk even death because of his faith in Him.-Andreas (Catena, Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI: James, 1-2Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 28.)

Good works are witnesses to the Christian faith, otherwise a Christian cannot prove that he has that faith. If he cannot prove it, it must be considered completely nonexistent.-Salvian the Presbyter (On the Goverance of God 4.2 Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI: James, 1-2Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 30.)

Abraham had such a vibrant faith in God that he was ready to do whatever God wanted him to. This is why his faith was reckoned to him as righteousness, and it was in order that we might know the full meaning of this that God ordered Abraham to sacrifice his son. It was by his perfect accomplishment of God’s command that the faith which he had in his heart was shown to be perfect. .-Bede (Concerning the Epistle of James) (Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI: James, 1-2Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 32.)

 

[Marangelica]

Sycarl:

I’m sorry but you have yet to answer my question.

The next quote you gave us from our Church Fathers, simply continued the same exact line of thought as the previous quotes.

By claiming to be a Christian, you claim to accept our Lord Jesus Christ as your Saviour. As such, it would appear that the words of our Lord would be critical to the question of how we are saved.
I’ve asked you to explain to me, how you would explain away Matt 25:31-46 and how you would explain away Matt 19-16-21- at the same time claiming that Faith Alone is necessary for our salvation. That’s not what Jesus said!

If you are to claim you believe that the Bible is the sole source of truth, then let’s use the Bible to justify your beliefs as a Protestant.

Explain why when Jesus Christ - our Saviour and Lord was asked-how to gain eternal life/salvation- why he did not tell this young man not to worry? Clearly he had faith in him- as he was asking Jesus himself. He would not ask him if he did not have Faith that he was the Lord. Yet Jesus never told him- "worry not- you are saved by “faith alone”- he told him in fact- to “Follow the Commandments”. He then says “I’ve done that”- well then “If you wish to be perfect, leave everything and follow me”. All of these are actions- they are all works. At NO point did Jesus Christ say- “you are assured of your salvation because you have faith in me as your personal Lord and Saviour”. Clearly- it wasn’t enough- he still had more to do.

I firmly believe in all of the Church’s teachings and believe they are all biblically defensible- but if this one issue- salvation by faith alone or salvation by faith +works - is so easily (it appears to me anyway) refuted by the Bible you claim to follow… well then doesn’t that lead you to conclude that perhaps the RC Church has it right on other issues as well? That just opens up the floodgates… All the quotes you have provided- merely repeat over and over what we already agree on- that we are justified only by the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ- and that truly we can never merit our salvation- (had that been the case and works or the law been enough- then clearly Jesus died in vain). But that is not the question. I have faith that Jesus Christ alone is my Saviour. But the quesiton is - is Faith enough to be saved? How can you believe in a doctrine (sola fide) that seems to be so against Christ’s own teaching?

Christ never said you are saved “by having a personal relationship with me”. He was crystal clear in Matt 25:31-46 and said “and thee will go off to eternal punishment- but the RIGHTEOUS to eternal life.”

These two passages appear to be very clear - at least they are to me. Our Lord was clear. Faith alone is not enough for salvation. Had that been the case, the rich young man would not have gone away sad, and the final judgement would not have been described as a seperation of the those were righteous and those that were not…

Again, if sola fide can be questioned- than that opens the floodgates…

 

[Pax]

SyCarl,

I will be as charitable as I can. What you are attempting to do is ridiculous. These saints did not disagree with the Church’s teachings then or now. They would not be Catholic saints if they did so. Moreover, you misunderstand what they are saying because you fail to include the balance of all their statements.

I did not cherry pick the other side. I pointed out those things which you folks like to conveniently ignore in your cherry picking. Suffice it to say, that the Catholic Church knows her saints and her saints know her, the bride of Christ. There is absolutely no spin that you can put on this nonsense you’re attempting to perpetrate by quoting them in the way you think supports your errant case. Anyone that reads the entirety of their writings knows what you’re trying to do.

I for one have read them and I know better.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl,

I will be as charitable as I can. What you are attempting to do is ridiculous. These saints did not disagree with the Church’s teachings then or now. They would not be Catholic saints if they did so. Moreover, you misunderstand what they are saying because you fail to include the balance of all their statements.

I did not cherry pick the other side. I pointed out those things which you folks like to conveniently ignore in your cherry picking. Suffice it to say, that the Catholic Church knows her saints and her saints know her, the bride of Christ. There is absolutely no spin that you can put on this nonsense you’re attempting perpetrate by quoting them in the way you think supports your errant case. Anyone that reads the entirety of their writings knows what you’re trying to do.

I for one have read them and I know better.

Most of these people were named saints well before the Reformation and the present controversy arose. I too am reading as much as I can of them and know what I read. For example, Augustine’s writings on John 6 in his Tractates, is hardly an endorsement of Catholic interpretation of the chapter.

 

[Pax]

Keep reading.

 

[Pax]

I would also say that the Reformation did not alter or change Catholic teaching which has remained constant before and after the Reformation. The reformers introduced a new and controversial set of teachings. These were declared heretical by the Church and Trent gave the appropriate clarifications to remove any and all doubts.

 

[Philthy]

SyCarl:

I have read your quotes and what are they really but cherry picking from the other side?

What they are, really, is a more complete, balanced picture of what the particular individual believed.

Given that both sides can find quotes in the fathers, maybe we should say we don’t know exactly what they believed.

We know what they believed - they believed in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. They identified themselves as Catholic, and we know that their contemporaries considered their lives to exemplify heroic Catholic faith.

However emphasizing the doing of good works does not prejudice faith alone as Protestants agree works follow faith and are evidence of them.

You mean evidence of it(faith), correct? Catholics also believe that good works follow faith and are evidence of it. What Catholic’s dont believe is that there is a entity called “faith” which can exist appart from the good works which God has prepared in advance. You seem to believe that such an entity exists yet at least one of the ECFs below refutes such a notion.

The fathers had difficulty reconciling Paul and James. Many took the view James was talking about proof of faith./quote]
James did talk about proof of faith, but that doesnt mean the relationship between faith and works is merely about proof. That is the mistake you continue to make. Because they were Catholic, however, they never contradicted known Church teaching. When they didnt understand, they would never contradict something revealed through the Church. That’s different than the position you preach from. I havent read 1/1000 of what Pax has on this topic, but I can comment on the very passages you present as somehow validating your “faith alone” position and refute it easily.

Faith is shown by deeds

like the features of the face in a mirror.-Symeon the New Theologian (Discourses 29.4, Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI: James, 1-2Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 30.)
Faith is shown by deeds. So what? How does this further faith alone? You seem to **assume **that since faith is shown by deeds that deeds merely REVEAL faith and do nothing else. That is simply an erroneous conclusion. The fact that deeds reveal faith does not mean they accomplish nothing else.
**

If someone does not show by his deeds that he believes in God, his profession of faith is worthless

**

. For it is not the one who just says that he is the Lord’s who is a believer, but the one who loves the Lord so much that he is prepared to risk even death because of his faith in Him.-Andreas (Catena, Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI: James, 1-2Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 28.)

As a sola fide adherent, Im baffled that you would even quote this. He says that a profession of faith which does not bear fruit is a dead faith. Does that sound like he believes that its possible to “accept Jesus as Lord and Savior” and be saved apart from works? It doesnt to me. It sounds like he is saying that apart from your faith bearing fruit that you yourself have no way of knowing that you have faith. That obliterates that “blessed assurance” of salvation that “faith alone” protagonists continuously peddle.
And lets not overlood the rest: “it is not the one who just says that he is the Lord’s who is a believer, but the one who… is prepared to risk death.” So much for “confessing with your mouth” and merely "believing with your heart alone(cf rom 10:9-10) In your zeal to establish a rationale for claiming that deeds MERELY REVEAL the faith one has, you miss the essence of what this Father is saying: separating faith and works is dilusional.

Good works are witnesses to the Christian faith, otherwise a Christian cannot prove that he has that faith.

If he cannot prove it, it must be considered completely nonexistent.-Salvian the Presbyter (On the Goverance of God 4.2 Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament XI: James, 1-2Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 30.)

Ibid. Apart from a careful examination of the **works **in your life, your knowledge of your faith is unreliable: apart from works, your own assessment of your faith should be considered “completely nonexistent” - ouch!:bigyikes: It is not enough to claim “I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and Saviour” and to simply believe that you have. It is only later, when confronted with the potential you have to impact the world for God’s glory that you can learn -through what you do - how much you love God.

 

[Pax]

…
…
For example, Augustine’s writings on John 6 in his Tractates, is hardly an endorsement of Catholic interpretation of the chapter.

This is simply not true. There is nothing in Augustine’s commentary on John 6 that disagrees with Catholic teaching. If you were expecting an apologetics article against the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist then you would be looking for it about 1200 years too early. Most of the doubters/dissenters came with the Reformation.

Another thing that is kind of upside down in your choice of Augustine’s Tractates on John 6 is that you are on a thread on “faith alone”. Augustine makes some interesting comments on “faith and works” in the Tractates.

He says:

Tractate 25 (John 6:15-44)

“Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law: Romans 3:28 there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:4 For that reason, He wills not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that works by love. [Galatians 5:6] Nor did He say, This is your work; but, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent; so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord.”

The content of this is exactly what we have been preaching on this thread.

 

[SyCarl]

This is simply not true. There is nothing in Augustine’s commentary on John 6 that disagrees with Catholic teaching. If you were expecting an apologetics article against the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist then you would be looking for it about 1200 years too early. Most of the doubters/dissenters came with the Reformation.

Another thing that is kind of upside down in your choice of Augustine’s Tractates on John 6 is that you are on a thread on “faith alone”. Augustine makes some interesting comments on “faith and works” in the Tractates.

He says:

Tractate 25 (John 6:15-44)

“Faith is indeed distinguished from works, even as the apostle says, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law: Romans 3:28 there are works which appear good, without faith in Christ; but they are not good, because they are not referred to that end in which works are good; for Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:4 For that reason, He wills not to distinguish faith from work, but declared faith itself to be work. For it is that same faith that works by love. [Galatians 5:6] Nor did He say, This is your work; but, This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent; so that he who glories, may glory in the Lord.”

The content of this is exactly what we have been preaching on this thread.

It also fits in quite well with the Protestant view of faith alone but not faith that is alone. Jesus calls faith the work of God and of course faith then is a work in itself. However, whether you call faith itself a work, does not change faith alone because since, even if it can be called a work, it is still faith. Paul seems to use faith in a different sense, at least in Ephesians 2 where he says that faith itself is a gift and he distinctly separates works. Now the gift is given so that works can be done. I would agree with that but it is not through those works that we are saved. The works themselves are given to us by God. Augustine is quite clear about this in his Predestination of the Saints. He continual stresses that we have nothing that we were not given. He is quite clear there on how he fells predestination works. He indicates that God does not foreknow that we will believe; he foreknows what He will do to cause us to believe. He recognizes that he goes farhter in this direction than in earlier works. Augustine seems to have some difficulty in maintaining freewill in light of this. Both in Predestination and in On Free Will he almost come of with the Calvinst idea of second causes. I believe that, even if we cannot understand it the can be both real predestination and true freewill. We might not understand how but, as Jesus says, with God all things are possible.

As I have said earlier, I don’t think that God expects us to fully understand the mechanics of how He saves us. I think that if we believe and try to live properly, we will be saved even if we don’t fully understand how the faith and works might interact. A major problem I have is that if we are doing good works because we want to go to Heaven or because we don’t want to be damned, we are doing them for the wrong purpose. Both of those purposes are based on** I want **or I don’t want. The reason we should be doing works has nothing with “I”. We should be doing works, not beacuse we want some result but simply because we love God and He wants and tells us to do them.

 

[guanophore]

It also fits in quite well with the Protestant view of faith alone but not faith that is alone. Jesus calls faith the work of God and of course faith then is a work in itself. However, whether you call faith itself a work, does not change faith alone because since, even if it can be called a work, it is still faith. Paul seems to use faith in a different sense, at least in Ephesians 2 where he says that faith itself is a gift and he distinctly separates works. Now the gift is given so that works can be done. I would agree with that but it is not through those works that we are saved. The works themselves are given to us by God. Augustine is quite clear about this in his Predestination of the Saints. He continual stresses that we have nothing that we were not given. He is quite clear there on how he fells predestination works. He indicates that God does not foreknow that we will believe; he foreknows what He will do to cause us to believe. He recognizes that he goes farhter in this direction than in earlier works. Augustine seems to have some difficulty in maintaining freewill in light of this. Both in Predestination and in On Free Will he almost come of with the Calvinst idea of second causes. I believe that, even if we cannot understand it the can be both real predestination and true freewill. We might not understand how but, as Jesus says, with God all things are possible.

As I have said earlier, I don’t think that God expects us to fully understand the mechanics of how He saves us. I think that if we believe and try to live properly, we will be saved even if we don’t fully understand how the faith and works might interact. A major problem I have is that if we are doing good works because we want to go to Heaven or because we don’t want to be damned, we are doing them for the wrong purpose. Both of those purposes are based on** I want **or I don’t want. The reason we should be doing works has nothing with “I”. We should be doing works, not beacuse we want some result but simply because we love God and He wants and tells us to do them.

You know, Sy, for someone so anti-catholic, sometimes you say the most Catholic things!

 

[Marangelica]

Sycarl:

I agree with the previous poster that your last paragraph sounds incredibly Catholic to me.

It appears to me that you are starting to question sola fide. When you assert that “As I have said earlier, I don’t think that God expects us to fully understand the mechanics of how He saves us. I think that if we believe and try to live properly, we will be saved even if we don’t fully understand how the faith and works might interact”- so we can’t be assured of salvation by merely saying we have faith? Well we agree on something! And this certainly agrees with the passages I asked you about earlier! We don’t know!

Your assertion that “doing good works to merit heaven” is not a good thing- is an assertion I totally agree with. As Catholics, we are never taught- “now do good and be good so you can get points and go to Heaven!”

We believe we are called by our faith - to live a Faith working through love. We believe the Bible is very clear about our need to live our Faith in every aspect of our life. So now my question to you is this- if sola fide is indeed questionable, what else could Luther and the Reformers been wrong on? Doesn’t that open the floodgates to quesiton everything? What else do you mistakingly believe to be our Catholic beliefs that in fact are not what we actually believe?

Good read: Rome Sweet Home by Scott Hahn…

 

[SyCarl]

You know, Sy, for someone so anti-catholic, sometimes you say the most Catholic things!

I am not ant-Catholic just because I am not Catholic and support a Protestant position. I have no difficulty going to Mass when visiting my in-laws. I consider that whatever differences we may have that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. Many of our differences are a matter of semantics. I certainly hope that I do not come across as being anti-Catholic as to my mind there is a real difference between disagreeing on somethings and being anti something.