Faith and works

  • Thread starter Thread starter avenger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

avenger

Guest
I want to share this, a writing by Dr. Joseph Mizzi:

Pope Benedict said that Martin Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone is correct if ‘faith is not opposed to charity.’ The Pope said this during a general audience in a speech on St Paul’s teaching on justification. (November 2008 link)

I am glad that the Pope corrected the false idea popularized by some irresponsible apologists that ‘sola fide’ (faith alone) implies freedom from doing good and license to sin (‘antinomianism’). The Reformers vehemently resisted and opposed the antinomian heresy. The Protestant concept of justification by faith alone never excluded good works in the life of the believer. On the character of genuine faith, Luther wrote: ‘Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever.’

Moreover the Pope also said that faith means to trust in Christ. ‘Faith is to look at Christ, to entrust oneself to Christ…’. In traditional Catholic theology, faith is defined as the assent of the intellect to divine truth. Protestants emphasized trust (‘fiducia’), in addition to knowledge and assent, as the essential element of saving faith. It is not enough to know God’s Word, or even to be convinced that it is factually true – to be saved, one must entrust himself to Christ, resting on him alone for salvation.

The Pope noted that the apostle Paul ‘places at the center of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between two alternative paths to justice: one based on the works of the law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ.’ In other words, one cannot be saved by faith in Christ if he also attempts to be saved by ‘works of the law’. This is exactly what Protestants mean when we speak of ‘sola fide’ – we are justified by trusting in Christ and not on account of our works.

By Faith and Works

Does this mean that Catholics and Protestants are now in agreement on the doctrine of justification? Unfortunately this is not the case. The Pope’s speech highlights the sad reality that the modern Catholic Church is still insisting on the Council of Trent’s doctrine on justification by faith and works. The divide between the two religions remains as wide today as it was in the 16th century.

On one hand the Pope endorses Paul’s teaching of justification by faith, apart from works of the law; on the other, he insists that we can really be just in the eyes of God on account of our love for God and neighbor. That is justification by love, or, justification by human works, for how can we express love apart from doing good works?

The Pope argues that faith unites us with Christ, enabling us to love God and others, and in so doing, we fulfill the law and become really righteous. He said that ‘the double love of God and neighbor the whole law is fulfilled. Thus the whole law is observed in communion with Christ, in faith that creates charity.’ He concluded his speech by saying that ‘transformed by his love, by love of God and neighbor, we can really be just in the eyes of God.’

To be sure such works of love are not done by our natural abilities; we must have faith, we must be united with Christ to really love. But ultimately, it is on account of these personal works that we are justified by God, according to Catholicism.

Works of the Law

How does the Pope resolve the contradiction between Paul’s teaching and Catholic doctrine? Didn’t Paul clearly state that ‘we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law’? (Romans 3:28).

In effect the Pope says that Paul was only referring to the Torah, the first five books of Moses. The Torah included rituals and cultural observances, in addition to ethical and moral principles, which distinguished and guarded Israel from the false religions of the pagans. But since the coming of Christ, those observances are no longer necessary. Thus when Paul says that we are not justified by the works of the Law, he was really saying that we are not justified by the Law of Moses, but he does not exclude that we are justified by the works of love. That’s the Pope’s argument in a nutshell.

The Pope rightly points out that in his epistles Paul discusses the division between Jews and Gentiles, and that now all believers are united in Christ irrespective of the ethnic background. But that was not his only concern. Paul also addresses the universal human tendency to self-righteousness, that is, our attempts to gain favour with God on account of personal works and merits.

We agree that when Paul spoke about the Law, he was thinking particularly of the Torah, the Law of Moses, and not of the law in general. But that does not mean that we can dismiss his argument as irrelevant since we are no longer required to obey to Jewish ceremonies and rituals. The Torah did indeed include ceremonial and civil precepts, but it also included moral laws. Jesus summarized the Law of Moses as the supreme love for God and love for our neighbor, and said that ‘on these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets’ (Matthew 22:37-40).

What then, if the Mosaic Law - with its ceremonial, civil and moral laws – could not justify, how can we now become just in God’s eyes if we take away the ceremonial and focus on the law’s moral teaching, namely love? Can we obey the law perfectly?
 
The problem is not with the Law of Moses; Paul declares that ‘the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good’ (Romans 7:12). The problem is with us, sinners by nature, and even after regeneration, the remaining corruption prevents the most mature Christians from reaching moral perfection on this side of eternity. If the Jew could not be justified by the works of the perfect Law, no-one could be justified by the works of any law. After all did not the Gentiles, though ignorant of Moses, also have ‘the law written in their hearts’ (Romans 2:14)? Yet they too were unable to be justified by works.

The Law of Moses served the purpose of keeping God’s covenant people, Israel, distinct from pagan idolatry, as the Pope said. But the moral aspects of the law, whether written on tablets of stone or on the human conscience, also served to expose our depravity, guilt and helplessness. ‘Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin’ (Romans 3:20).

Moreover Paul could not have limited the concept of ‘works of the Law’ to the Torah. He presented the Patriarch Abraham as the primary witness to his doctrine. He wrote:

‘What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness’ (Romans 4:1-5).

In this context ‘works’ could not refer exclusively to obedience of the Torah, for Abraham lived many centuries before Moses. It is therefore wrong to force Paul’s concept of ‘works of the Law’ exclusively to the Law of Moses. Clearly Paul applies the same principle to works in general. Abraham could not boast before God because he was justified faith and not by works. The same applies to us all.

Paul then gives an example from ordinary life – when a worker receives his payment at the end of the month, could it be considered as grace, a free gift, a favour? Certainly not! The worker has every right for the money he earned by his labour.

But justification is not based on the principle of merit. The very opposite is true. Justification is by grace, pure and underserved grace. Only he is counted as righteous by the divine Judge who ‘does not work’ but ‘believes’ God. That is grace!

Faith Working Through Love

Once more it must pointed out that the question is not about the propriety and necessity of good works in the life of believers. On this point, Paul, Luther and the Pope are in agreement. The question, though, has to do with the purpose of the works.

In Catholicism, the faithful are urged to do works in the hope that they will eventually become ‘really’ just in the eyes of God on account of their ‘love to God and neighbour’. In Paul’s teaching, we are not justified on account of any personal works, but by faith; good works follow after faith and justification. In Catholicism faith is insufficient; it must be supplemented by works to really justify. In biblical Christianity, faith is sufficient, faith truly justifies the beliver on account of Christ’s blood and righteousness, and having justified the sinner, faith then works by love (Galatians 5:6) to the glory of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. In Catholicism justification is by faith and works – therefore it cannot be of grace (Romans 11:6); in biblical Christianity justification is by faith, that it might be of grace (Romans 4:16).

Here then is the dividing line between Trent and Luther, Catholicism and Protestantism, the true gospel and its counterfeit. May God give us the grace to believe in Jesus his Son, and being justified by faith alone, to give ourselves to love God and our neighbour from our hearts.
 
while I can’t claim doctoral status I can see a common issue with the good doctor’s article. It is the same scriptural cherry picking that often befalls protestants when arguing this subject. the gospels don’t begin nor end with Romans yet the article heavily relies on this on letter to support its supposition. Even the single Galatians reference was taken out of context. (It is a part of an exhortation to debunk members of the church that were insisting that men needed to be circumsized not a condemnation of the idea of works in justification) We are called to an active faith that requires us to more that altar calls and testimony. When we look at the source, Christ himself, we find Mathew 25. Christ calls us to good works himself. He has given us each talents and gifts we are to share. works without faith are just works, faith without works is dead. (James 2, read the whole chapter. Luther wanted James removed from the bible because it didn’t agree with his justification by faith alone argument)
 
Hey Avenger,

I’m not entirely sure that your post should be in the Traditional Catholicism forum. Shouldn’t it be in the Non–Catholic Religions forum, given that Dr Joseph Mizzi’s comments (that you’ve evidently lifted from his website) constitute a typical non–Catholic view? Although Dr. Mizzi has named his website Just For Catholics, he is, according to his own words, a former Catholic who now finds solace in the well–know Protestant maxim, “Me, Jesus, and the Bible.” That’s hardly a traditional Catholic view is it, Avenger? I think you should have explained this in your post because an objective observer might get the impression that you are being duplicitous and are subtly attempting to undermine the Catholic faith and you surely wouldn’t want anybody to think such a thing, now, would you? Here is the link to Dr. Mizzi’s website that you omitted, which will enable anybody who is interested to verify Dr. Mizzi’s starting point and consequential worldview.

justforcatholics.org/about.htm

Grace and peace and I hope you had a pleasant Thanksgiving,
Mick
👍
 
Lutherans and the Catholic Church reach an accord on justification years ago.

However the Catholic Church has never changed it’s doctrines and will never do either. Protestants do all the time, so eventually they’ll all change back to the truth, God willing.😉
 
Hey Avenger,

I’m not entirely sure that your post should be in the Traditional Catholicism forum. Shouldn’t it be in the Non–Catholic Religions forum, given that Dr Joseph Mizzi’s comments (that you’ve evidently lifted from his website) constitute a typical non–Catholic view? Although Dr. Mizzi has named his website Just For Catholics, he is, according to his own words, a former Catholic who now finds solace in the well–know Protestant maxim, “Me, Jesus, and the Bible.” That’s hardly a traditional Catholic view is it, Avenger? I think you should have explained this in your post because an objective observer might get the impression that you are being duplicitous and are subtly attempting to undermine the Catholic faith and you surely wouldn’t want anybody to think such a thing, now, would you? Here is the link to Dr. Mizzi’s website that you omitted, which will enable anybody who is interested to verify Dr. Mizzi’s starting point and consequential worldview.

justforcatholics.org/about.htm

Grace and peace and I hope you had a pleasant Thanksgiving,
Mick
👍
Lifted? I gave the man the proper credit, as I received what I posted in an email update. Why do you want to make it sound like I am trying to claim the work for myself, if I gave the man his credit?
 
Lutherans and the Catholic Church reach an accord on justification years ago.

However the Catholic Church has never changed it’s doctrines and will never do either. Protestants do all the time, so eventually they’ll all change back to the truth, God willing.😉
Protestants do all the time? I rely on the Truth of Scripture, so what truth are you referring to? Man-made?
 
while I can’t claim doctoral status I can see a common issue with the good doctor’s article. It is the same scriptural cherry picking that often befalls protestants when arguing this subject. the gospels don’t begin nor end with Romans yet the article heavily relies on this on letter to support its supposition. Even the single Galatians reference was taken out of context. (It is a part of an exhortation to debunk members of the church that were insisting that men needed to be circumsized not a condemnation of the idea of works in justification) We are called to an active faith that requires us to more that altar calls and testimony. When we look at the source, Christ himself, we find Mathew 25. Christ calls us to good works himself. He has given us each talents and gifts we are to share. works without faith are just works, faith without works is dead. (James 2, read the whole chapter. Luther wanted James removed from the bible because it didn’t agree with his justification by faith alone argument)
cherry picking? like staking the entire Papacy on one or two verses? Hmmm…
 
Protestants do all the time? I rely on the Truth of Scripture, so what truth are you referring to? Man-made?
The revealed truth of God, the word of God, contained in sacred scripture and holy tradition.
Authentically interpreted by the magisterium.

I think there are 30000 Protestant sects, all interpreting the bible in their own way and seldom agreeing on what thruths they think it contains.
 
Lifted? I gave the man the proper credit, as I received what I posted in an email update. Why do you want to make it sound like I am trying to claim the work for myself, if I gave the man his credit?
Avenger,

I apologize if the word “lifted” seemed as if I was accusing you of plagiarism. No such thought ever crossed my mind. I should perhaps have used the term “copied and pasted” or “quoted.” My point is, that although you gave Dr. Mizzi proper credit for his comments you failed to mention his non-Catholic stance and posted his comments without explanation in the Traditional Catholicism forum. Do you understand what I’m getting at, now?

Mick
👍
 
The revealed truth of God, the word of God, contained in sacred scripture and holy tradition.
Authentically interpreted by the magisterium.

I think there are 30000 Protestant sects, all interpreting the bible in their own way and seldom agreeing on what thruths they think it contains.
That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.
 
Avenger,

I apologize if the word “lifted” seemed as if I was accusing you of plagiarism. No such thought ever crossed my mind. I should perhaps have used the term “copied and pasted” or “quoted.” My point is, that although you gave Dr. Mizzi proper credit for his comments you failed to mention his non-Catholic stance and posted his comments without explanation in the Traditional Catholicism forum. Do you understand what I’m getting at, now?

Mick
👍
I will gladly move it (if I can). I dont want to place it in the wrong place. It does, however, deal with Catholic doctrine, so I thought it would be appropriate here.
 
I will gladly move it (if I can). I dont want to place it in the wrong place. It does, however, deal with Catholic doctrine, so I thought it would be appropriate here.
Avenger,

I think once it’s up, it’s up, until a moderator expunges it. And yes, you’re right, it does deal with Catholic doctrine so perhaps it is in the right place after all.

As to the topic, it’s certainly keeping me from moving from Evangelical Protestantism into Catholicism. I guess it’s the Catholic doctrine of purgatory that presents the biggest challenge for me. It suggests that salvation as taught by the Catholic Church is at least in part by works. My understanding of salvation is that if God saves me, He’ll save me without qualification. The fact that I don’t measure up (who does?) now or even as I progress in my Christian walk won’t result in me having to spend time suffering in a place called purgatory. That would mean God hadn’t completely saved me from my sins requiring me to compensate for that insufficiency of grace by my suffering in the afterlife.

Question: Why do people have to spend time in purgatory?

Catholic Answer (presumably): Because of the bad that they did or the good that they failed to do while they were on earth.

If my hypothetical answer is correct, then ultimately, it’s the performance of the person rather than the grace of God that is the deciding factor apropos one’s salvation. I don’t see any way out of the conundrum. Catholic teaching that salvation is by grace seems to me to be negated by the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Any thoughts?

Mick
👍
 
Avenger,

I think once it’s up, it’s up, until a moderator expunges it. And yes, you’re right, it does deal with Catholic doctrine so perhaps it is in the right place after all.

As to the topic, it’s certainly keeping me from moving from Evangelical Protestantism into Catholicism. I guess it’s the Catholic doctrine of purgatory that presents the biggest challenge for me. It suggests that salvation as taught by the Catholic Church is at least in part by works. My understanding of salvation is that if God saves me, He’ll save me without qualification. The fact that I don’t measure up (who does?) now or even as I progress in my Christian walk won’t result in me having to spend time suffering in a place called purgatory. That would mean God hadn’t completely saved me from my sins requiring me to compensate for that insufficiency of grace by my suffering in the afterlife.

Question: Why do people have to spend time in purgatory?

Catholic Answer (presumably): Because of the bad that they did or the good that they failed to do while they were on earth.

If my hypothetical answer is correct, then ultimately, it’s the performance of the person rather than the grace of God that is the deciding factor apropos one’s salvation. I don’t see any way out of the conundrum. Catholic teaching that salvation is by grace seems to me to be negated by the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Any thoughts?

Mick
👍
I agree with you in this.
 
Avenger,

I think once it’s up, it’s up, until a moderator expunges it. And yes, you’re right, it does deal with Catholic doctrine so perhaps it is in the right place after all.

As to the topic, it’s certainly keeping me from moving from Evangelical Protestantism into Catholicism. I guess it’s the Catholic doctrine of purgatory that presents the biggest challenge for me. It suggests that salvation as taught by the Catholic Church is at least in part by works. My understanding of salvation is that if God saves me, He’ll save me without qualification. The fact that I don’t measure up (who does?) now or even as I progress in my Christian walk won’t result in me having to spend time suffering in a place called purgatory. That would mean God hadn’t completely saved me from my sins requiring me to compensate for that insufficiency of grace by my suffering in the afterlife.

Question: Why do people have to spend time in purgatory?

Catholic Answer (presumably): Because of the bad that they did or the good that they failed to do while they were on earth.

If my hypothetical answer is correct, then ultimately, it’s the performance of the person rather than the grace of God that is the deciding factor apropos one’s salvation. I don’t see any way out of the conundrum. Catholic teaching that salvation is by grace seems to me to be negated by the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Any thoughts?

Mick
👍
Because to be forgiven does not mean that you will not have to face the consequences of your actions.

A murderer who is forgiven by the victim’s husband still has to go to jail. And even if he’s got God’s forgiveness he will still have to do his time.
 
Because to be forgiven does not mean that you will not have to face the consequences of your actions.

A murderer who is forgiven by the victim’s husband still has to go to jail. And even if he’s got God’s forgiveness he will still have to do his time.
eelpis,

That’s not at all an unreasonable response from a human perspective. As I understand it, back in the days of early Christianity in Merrie England, penances were hefty. Instead of three Hail Marys, penitents were commanded to walk to Canterbury or Glastonbury or challenged to undergo some similar major inconvenience. I guess if the penitent did it, it would certainly make him or her reflect upon the gravity of sin. And, in addition, it would show that he or she was serious. But the penance wasn’t necessarily a consequence of the sin itself – that was a consequence of confessing the sin.

Isn’t the purpose of confession supposed to be a “healing” – like a patient going to the doctor and following the doctor’s instructions in order to get well? “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed” (James 5:16).

So in the modern Catholic Church, then, the penances are not as hefty but the idea behind the penance i.e. that the penitent should become more aware of his or her sin problem and make a firm resolve in prayer not to sin any more is unchanged, right?

So, whence comes this idea that God still wants His pound of flesh? Surely, even from a human perspective, people who forgive don’t insist on hurting the person who has offended them if they can avoid it. Such is the nature of forgiveness. Shouldn’t that be the modus operandi of a Christian of any stripe who takes the idea of mercy to heart and strives to be merciful? I’m not suggesting that an embezzler should be patted on the head and given a bar of chocolate by the judge or that a jury should recommend a vacation in Hawaii for a murderer. Clearly, there have to be consequences flowing from our activities and dealings with each other otherwise society breaks down.

But God is God. And how amazing God is. He died on the cross for our sins (I guess most Christians would agree on that - with apologies to Bishop Spong, of course). Would such a God then stoop to conquer by insisting on “consequences” especially as – if I understand Catholic teaching correctly – those “consequences” can be avoided quite easily by the acquisition of a plenary indulgence. I seriously don’t get it. I just wish I did.

Grace and peace,
Mick
👍
 
eelpis,

That’s not at all an unreasonable response from a human perspective. As I understand it, back in the days of early Christianity in Merrie England, penances were hefty. Instead of three Hail Marys, penitents were commanded to walk to Canterbury or Glastonbury or challenged to undergo some similar major inconvenience. I guess if the penitent did it, it would certainly make him or her reflect upon the gravity of sin. And, in addition, it would show that he or she was serious. But the penance wasn’t necessarily a consequence of the sin itself – that was a consequence of confessing the sin.

Isn’t the purpose of confession supposed to be a “healing” – like a patient going to the doctor and following the doctor’s instructions in order to get well? “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed” (James 5:16).

So in the modern Catholic Church, then, the penances are not as hefty but the idea behind the penance i.e. that the penitent should become more aware of his or her sin problem and make a firm resolve in prayer not to sin any more is unchanged, right?

So, whence comes this idea that God still wants His pound of flesh? Surely, even from a human perspective, people who forgive don’t insist on hurting the person who has offended them if they can avoid it. Such is the nature of forgiveness. Shouldn’t that be the modus operandi of a Christian of any stripe who takes the idea of mercy to heart and strives to be merciful? I’m not suggesting that an embezzler should be patted on the head and given a bar of chocolate by the judge or that a jury should recommend a vacation in Hawaii for a murderer. Clearly, there have to be consequences flowing from our activities and dealings with each other otherwise society breaks down.

But God is God. And how amazing God is. He died on the cross for our sins (I guess most Christians would agree on that - with apologies to Bishop Spong, of course). Would such a God then stoop to conquer by insisting on “consequences” especially as – if I understand Catholic teaching correctly – those “consequences” can be avoided quite easily by the acquisition of a plenary indulgence. I seriously don’t get it. I just wish I did.

Grace and peace,
Mick
👍
By the infinite merits of Christ’s passion the penitent are delivered from everlasting punishment.
Objectively, Christ by his passion redeemed the whole world.
Sujectively, these merits won for us by Christ must be applied to our souls by faith, hope and charity. Graces recieved through the sacraments.

God is infinite mercy but he is also infinite justice and he punishes the least sin.

God always forgives. You have to be sorry for your sins for God to forgive them, a penitent.

Mercy is for the penitent.
God will not be mocked.
 
By the infinite merits of Christ’s passion the penitent are delivered from everlasting punishment.
Objectively, Christ by his passion redeemed the whole world.
Sujectively, these merits won for us by Christ must be applied to our souls by faith, hope and charity. Graces recieved through the sacraments.

God is infinite mercy but he is also infinite justice and he punishes the least sin.

God always forgives. You have to be sorry for your sins for God to forgive them, a penitent.

Mercy is for the penitent.
God will not be mocked.
eelpis,

You’re making a speech in order to evade the question. I guess Catholic apologetics ain’t your subject, huh? Can you put me on to somebody who’s going to take me seriously? I’d appreciate it.

Grace and peace,
Mick
👍
 
Trent and Luther, Catholicism and Protestantism, the true gospel and its counterfeit.
Glad he finally admits that the protestant gospel is counterfeit
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top