Faith Alone?

[Apolonio]

Pax,

I gave my exegesis on Romans ch. 1-4 here:

planetenvoy.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=780

I’ll give a brief summary on the “doers of the law” here. Basically, in Romans 2, he is speaking about the Gentiles who have the law in their hearts. This is essentially the same as doing the New Law. We are no longer required to follow the Torah, but the New Law. Now what about the commandments? We still have to follow the commandments. Not because the Torah says so, but Christ says so. Christ’s interpretation of the Torah is perfect and therefore we have to follow His interpretation. For example, thou shall not commit adultery would include looking at a woman lustfully. In Aquinas words, the New Law contains the Old Law in the sense that a seed contains the tree. Romans (and Galatians) was basically an epistle against Judaizers, those who believe that one must be Jewish in order to be Christian. But Jesus is not the new Abraham. He is the New Adam. It is a new creation. Therefore Christ is beyond Abraham and the Gentiles doesn’t have to be Jewish, doesn’t have to be circumcised.

We can be justified by “doing” the law in the sense that we have faith in Christ and have “true circumcision”, which is a circumcision of the heart.

I believe that the New Perspective of Paul is a great tool for ecumenism. I have used it when dealing with Protestants. I recommend any work by James Dunn, N.T. Wright, and John G. Gager.

 

[Kevan]

Peter Kreeft is, no doubt, well known to nearly all of the Catholics who post here, and it is my impression that he is considered to be a reliable spokesman within orthodox Catholic circles. (Forgive me if I’m wrong, for it is not my intention to be confrontational.) I am pasting here a few sentences from his conversion story “Hauled Aboard the Ark.” I think that it might help some of us to understand better where our differences may lie.

++++++++++

At Heaven’s gate our entrance ticket, according to Scripture and Church dogma, is not our good works or our sincerity, but our faith, which glues us to Jesus. He saves us; we do not save ourselves. But I find, incredibly, that 9 out of 10 Catholics do not know this, the absolutely central, core, essential dogma of Christianity. Protestants are right: most Catholics do in fact believe a whole other religion. Well over 90% of students I have polled who have had 12 years of catechism classes, even Catholic high schools, say they expect to go to Heaven because they tried, or did their best, or had compassionate feelings to everyone, or were sincere. They hardly ever mention Jesus. Asked why they hope to be saved, they mention almost anything except the Savior. Who taught them? Who wrote their textbooks? These teachers have stolen from our precious children the most valuable thing in the world, the "pearl of great price;’ their faith. Jesus had some rather terrifying warnings about such things something about millstones.

 

[pnewton]

Anecdotal evidence is problematic in that it is composed of anecdotes. Poll percentages can be affected by many problems with the polls themselves. As to what Catholics believe, that is why we have the Catachism and that is the source for what we believ.

Obviously many Catholics here have a solid understanding of salvation. Post a poll here and see what kind of results you get. Of course it will be anecdotal.

 

[tommyboy]

newby:

Ryan, as you can tell from the responses to your post, there are passages that answer your question. However a major point that you need to understand and be ready to defend is that everything does not have to be proven by the Bible. The great part of being Catholic is the 3 legged stool, Bible, aka Scripture, Tradition and the Magerstirum (sp?) which is the teaching office of the Church. The three all together is what defines the full Catholic truth. I don’t believe that we need to go to the Protestants level to try to put everything in light of the Bible because “Bible alone” is not biblical. God bless you!

Newby

Do I trust your ‘tradition’, Mr ‘N’ or Paul telling Timmy that All scripture is God breathed(inspired)?

 

[pnewton]

tommyboy:

Do I trust your ‘tradition’, Mr ‘N’ or Paul telling Timmy that All scripture is God breathed(inspired)?

At the very least you ought to consider the New Testament as inspired, even though Paul was refering to the scripture that Timmy learned from his grandmother, i.e, the New Testament.

As far as the tradition passed on by the apostles, trust both.

 

[reen12]

“store up treasures in heaven…”

These would be the personal “fruits” of the obedience in faith,
but they would not effect our salvation…Jesus effected our
salvation.
What I object to is the indivduals who are so concentrated
on storing up “treasures” in heaven that they seem to
forget about the Treasurer. So busy looking at their
“bankbook” that they stop looking at the Banker.
I believe it is a matter of misemphasis.

When I listen to members of the Evangelical community,
they keep saying “Jesus.” When I listen to my
co-religionists, they keep saying “Church.”
Yes, yes, I know the Church is the body of Christ and
to speak of one is to speak of the Other. But how come
the Evangelical faces are smiling with joy and so
obviously in love with Jesus, while so many Catholics
are looking weary and strained from doing their “accounts.”
I’m not backing away from my original point. It is based
on nearly 60 years of observation. I will stay with Holy
Mother Church because of the Real Presence, but my
heart is with the Evangelicals.
reen12

 

[Kevan]

pnewton:

Obviously many Catholics here have a solid understanding of salvation. Post a poll here and see what kind of results you get. Of course it will be anecdotal.

I’ll pose an even more unscientific question: if you ranked American Catholics from 1 to 10 regarding knowledge of real Catholic teaching and a rejection traditional misconceptions, what percentage of the crowd here at the forums would be 8 or above?

I’d bet that it’s 95% or above, from what I’ve read here.

Posting a poll here wouldn’t be nearly so helpful as polling Kreeft’s students. Sure it’s anecdotal, but most of our lives are lived on evidence that has about the same degree of dependability. I think that Kreeft’s standing as a philosopher should enable him to know whether or not he’s drawing unwarranted conclusions.

Any readers here who have taught Catholic kids in college and think that Kreeft’s impressions are incorrect?

 

[Pax]

Apolonio:

Pax,

I gave my exegesis on Romans ch. 1-4 here:

planetenvoy.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=780

I’ll give a brief summary on the “doers of the law” here. Basically, in Romans 2, he is speaking about the Gentiles who have the law in their hearts. This is essentially the same as doing the New Law. We are no longer required to follow the Torah, but the New Law. Now what about the commandments? We still have to follow the commandments. Not because the Torah says so, but Christ says so. Christ’s interpretation of the Torah is perfect and therefore we have to follow His interpretation. For example, thou shall not commit adultery would include looking at a woman lustfully. In Aquinas words, the New Law contains the Old Law in the sense that a seed contains the tree. Romans (and Galatians) was basically an epistle against Judaizers, those who believe that one must be Jewish in order to be Christian. But Jesus is not the new Abraham. He is the New Adam. It is a new creation. Therefore Christ is beyond Abraham and the Gentiles doesn’t have to be Jewish, doesn’t have to be circumcised.

We can be justified by “doing” the law in the sense that we have faith in Christ and have “true circumcision”, which is a circumcision of the heart.

I believe that the New Perspective of Paul is a great tool for ecumenism. I have used it when dealing with Protestants. I recommend any work by James Dunn, N.T. Wright, and John G. Gager.

I agree and can see where my post needed that clarification.

Thanks,

Pax

 

[reen12]

Oh, forget my two posts. I’m just in a crabby mood

which makes me take an oppositional postition.

I can’t leave Catholicism…"…where would we go, Lord?"

And I’m crabby because I can’t. *

Even if I “went over” to the Evangelicals, I’d start
criticizing them for what they would lack in my
estimation…that is, what’s not Catholic about them.

I’m enjoying reading the posts, and I thank the poster
who called the “treasures in heaven” to my attention.
A soft answer turns away wrath!
You know the picture of Jesus holding onto a lamb?
Picture the lamb with a crabby expression and that’s
me!
Best regards,
reen12*

 

[pnewton]

Kevan,

I have been thinking today about your past few posts. I believe you have hit on something that all of need to be aware of. Catholics often are given very poor faith development. In the past especially the influence of modern theologians has undermined the faith of many in our church, as well as other denominations.

We need to remember, however, that truth is not a matter of consensus. Nor should we subject truth to the democratic process. That is why we have our catachism. Should the majority of American Catholics disagree it does not affect reality.

Thank you for your participation in this forum.

 

[RedGolum]

It depends on what you mean.

If a person is “saved”, gets bapitised, but then gets hits by a bus before being able to feed the poor, care for the sick, or do anything else, is that person saved? Basically in Lutheran theology, yes. The fact that they have not had the opprotunity to do anything doesn’t mean that they will be condemend.

However works don’t add to salvation.

Jusitification and sactification is a classic case of both sides talking past each other. Each is thinking the other is saying something they are not, and get bent out of shape.

 

[pnewton]

RedGolum:

Jusitification and sactification is a classic case of both sides talking past each other. Each is thinking the other is saying something they are not, and get bent out of shape.

Hence the need for interfaith dialogue. Thank you.