Faith and Works

[Seekerjn316]

What. do you say about the atheist that does the right thing? An atheist that gives to the poor, visits the sick, etc.

The same thing I’d say to anyone…look to Jesus, because it is the same grace from the same Source…the atheist like me is in God’s hands.

 

[steido01]

It’s Definitely not just an academic distinction , justification ( sola gratia and sola fide ) is what the church stands or falls on

That is the ‘battle cry’ that’s usually given from our side, but for the sake of mental exercise – why?

 

[fhansen]

It isn’t a matter of squeezing. Faith alone justifies, but faith is never alone.

If we agree, then better yet.

Jon

Do you think Luther would agree with Augustine here, "Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing.”?

 

[steido01]

Do you think Luther would agree with Augustine here, "Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing.”?

Here’s a sermon Luther gave on the topic:

**How is it, then, Paul speaks as if faith without love were possible? **We reply, this one text cannot be understood as subverting and militating against all those texts which ascribe justification to faith alone. Even the sophists have not attributed justification to love, nor is this possible, for love is an effect, or fruit, of the Spirit, who is received through faith.

…

A third answer is: Paul in his effort to present the necessity of love, supposes an impossible condition. For instance, I might express myself in this way: “Though you were a god, if you lacked patience you would be nothing.” That is, patience is so essential to divinity that divinity itself could not exist without it, a proposition necessarily true. So Paul’s meaning is, not that faith could exist without love, but on the contrary, so much is love an essential of faith that even mountain-moving faith would be nothing without love, could we separate the two even in theory.

The third answer pleases me by far the best, though I do not reject the others, particularly the first. For Paul’s very first premise is impossible—“if I speak with the tongues of angels.” To speak with an angelic tongue is impossible for a human being, and he clearly emphasizes this impossibility by making a distinction between the tongues of men and those of angels. There is no angelic tongue; while angels may speak to us in a human tongue men can never speak in those of angels.

As we are to understand the first clause—“If I speak with the tongues of angels”—as meaning, Were it as possible as it is impossible for me to speak with the tongues of angels; so are we to understand the second clause—“If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains”—to mean, Were it as possible as it is impossible to have such faith. Equally impossible is the proposition of understanding all mysteries, and we must take it to mean, Were it possible for one to understand all mysteries, which, however, it is not. John, in the last chapter of his Gospel, asserts that the world could not contain all the books which might be written concerning the things of the kingdom. For no man can ever fathom the depths of these mysteries. Paul’s manner of expressing himself is but a very common one, such as: “Even if I were a Christian, if I believed not in Christ I would be nothing”; or, "Were you even a prince, if you neither ruled men nor possessed property you would be nothing."

In other words, “Were I to perform all the good works on earth and yet had not charity—having sought therein only my own honor and profit and not my neighbor’s—I would nevertheless be lost.” In the performance of external works so great as the surrender of property and life, Paul includes all works possible of performance, for he who would at all do these, would do any work. Just so, when he has reference to tongues he includes all good words and doctrines; and in prophecy, understanding and faith he comprises all wisdom and knowledge. Some may risk body and property for the sake of temporal glory. So Romans and pagans have done; but as love was lacking and they sought only their own interests, they practically gave nothing. It being generally impossible for men to give away all their property, and their bodies to be burned, the meaning must be: “Were it possible for me to give all my goods to the poor, and my body to be burned.”

The false reasoning of the sophists will not stand when they maliciously deduct from this text the theory that the Christian faith is not effectual to blot out sin and to justify. They say that before faith can justify it must be garnished with love; but justification and its distinctive qualities as well are beyond their ken. Justification of necessity precedes love. One does not love until he has become godly and righteous.** Love does not make us godly, but when one has become godly love is the result. Faith, the Spirit and justification have love as effect and fruitage, and not as mere ornament and supplement. We maintain that faith alone justifies and saves. But that we may not deceive ourselves and put our trust in a false faith, God requires love from us as the evidence of our faith, so that we may be sure of our faith being real faith.**

Note the startling similarity to Pope Benedict XVI’s words in a 2008 audience:

[It] is [Christ] who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).

 

[fhansen]

Here’s a sermon Luther gave on the topic:

Note the startling similarity to Pope Benedict XVI’s words in a 2008 audience:

Yes, by this it would appear that Pope Benedict agrees with Augustine, but agrees with Luther only if the term “faith” is qualified as including love, not the traditional teaching, as he knew. For myself I believe it best to keep the concepts separated-so that we know that love is the ultimate goal, the ultimate justice, the perfection of which is the purpose of faith.

I truly believe that Luther didn’t yet get this fact, that he presumed love to be automatically tied to faith, because he so wanted sola fide to be true. He didn’t go far enough, though, I believe. If I’m not mistaken, Luther also suggested that good works were done in gratitude for salvation. If so, this is an error IMO, both due to a misunderstanding of how one is saved and as a result of conflating love with faith. The proper motivation for righteousness is *everything *under the New Covenant. Maybe he understood-it just doesn’t quite come off that way though.

 

[rcwitness]

Michael,
What evidence is there that this is referring to those who believed that Paul meant one is justified by faith, and not by works?

Jon

Hi Jon, sorry for the delay.

I do not have evidence for proof. I am sorry if that came across as a cheap shot. However, I believe there is much truth that Peter was warning against things which included a “faith alone” belief.

Paul’s letters came first, right? Then Peter, writing in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave warning about Paul’s writings containing things which are hard to understand (properly). And that some “twist” what Paul is actually meaning.

Now we had the Church united for centuries and never proclaimed a “faith alone” doctrine until Luther. We can agree with many things Luther stated, and go even as far as Benedict XVI has in agreeing with him. However, there stands a division which “Sola Fide” believers must rely on interpreting Paul’s Teaching primarily in order to justify.

So after Peter also came James to add, from the Holy Spirit, another warning more specific than Peter’s. That Faith alone does NOT justify.

So, I stand with the Catholic faith that would confirm what I asserted. That Peter was in fact giving warning to those who interpret Paul’s Teachings as “Sola Fide” as taught by Luther.

In the end, we can not separate faith from works and still have salvation. It’s not faith alone, it’s not works, it’s works done in faith. The first of these is conversion.

Peace to you my friend

 

[fhansen]

An excerpt from Luther’s sermon as cited below:

Here’s a sermon Luther gave on the topic:

"Justification of necessity precedes love. One does not love until he has become godly and righteous. Love does not make us godly, but when one has become godly love is the result."

This is the essence of Luther’s error. Love does make us godly, love *does *make us just. And this is why the greatest commandment does not say, “You shall believe in God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength.”

Justification is more than merely washing us clean and imputing righteousness to us. Justice is, well,* justice*. It means to be made authentically just. Jer 31:34 is not simply about removing and forgetting sin. It also includes God’s placing His law in our hearts and writing it on our minds. We are to be transformed into His image, an image most aptly described by St John as “love”, and we know that ‘love fulfills the law’ as Rom 13:8 et al tell us. We need to understand this: faith, as our response to grace, makes this possible because it places man squarely back into God’s presence and grace. But it simply constitutes a relationship with Him. It does not guarantee that we will love as we must, any more than a marriage guarantees that one will love their spouse-and will not leave them.

Justice is both a one-time gift and a realized state as it’s tested, refined, and increased, during which we work out our salvation. To the extent that justice is not directly equated with faith, we keep free from the error that one can sin, even sin gravely, while effectively remaining in a state of justice before God, another error that arises in Protestantism-and one that causes confusion and in some cases a laxity of one’s vigilance in pursuing holiness and refraining from sin. We need to keep in mind that while humans may struggle with sin we were not* created* to sin; we are not “sin machines”; sinfulness is an anomaly in God’s universe.

 

[fhansen]

To say that we’re justified by faith is different from *equating *justification with faith. When faith and love are not considered as separate, we’re ignorant of what justice actually consists of, and we can become sloppier in achieving and retaining it. The wicked and lazy servant in the Parable of the Talents lost his place in the Kingdom -for not doing his part.

 

[catholictiger]

Easy paul talks about the initial moment of justification, James talks about how to stay sanctified, and reach our final end.

 

[catholictiger]

In these discussions people need to quote the sixth session of trent, there is no better dogmatic handling of justfication than this.

Chapter 8 sixth session

But whereas the Apostle saith, that man is justified by faith, and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consent of the Catholic Church hath held and expressed; to wit, that we be therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons; but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, then is it no more by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle saith, grace is no more grace.

Chapter 10

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and of the household of God, advancing from strength to strength, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by yielding them as instruments of righteousness unto holiness, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in the justice received through the grace of Christ, and are still more justified, as is written,—He that is righteous, let him be made righteous still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification, the Holy Church begs, when she prays, “Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity.”

 

[steido01]

This is the essence of Luther’s error. Love does make us godly, love *does *make us just. And this is why the greatest commandment does not say, “You shall believe in God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength.”

You’re forgetting that human beings, on their own, are capable of fulfilling neither the first command nor the second. That’s why we required a Savior to do it for us. The only way we can do anything is when God does it for us.

Justification is more than merely washing us clean and imputing righteousness to us. Justice is, well,* justice*. It means to be made authentically just. Jer 31:34 is not simply about removing and forgetting sin. It also includes God’s placing His law in our hearts and writing it on our minds.

Sure. And the Law is already written in our hearts. We know that part well. We feel the effects and consequences of the Law every time we are hurt by others or hurt others.

We are to be transformed into His image, an image most aptly described by St John as “love”, and we know that ‘love fulfills the law’ as Rom 13:8 et al tell us. We need to understand this: faith, as our response to grace, makes this possible because it places man squarely back into God’s presence and grace. But it simply constitutes a relationship with Him. It does not guarantee that we will love as we must, any more than a marriage guarantees that one will love their spouse-and will not leave them.

Right. Lutherans would agree that we can choose to reject Grace, and try to hide from God’s presence.

Justice is both a one-time gift and a realized state as it’s tested, refined, and increased, during which we work out our salvation. To the extent that justice is not directly equated with faith, we keep free from the error that one can sin, even sin gravely, while effectively remaining in a state of justice before God, another error that arises in Protestantism-and one that causes confusion and in some cases a laxity of one’s vigilance in pursuing holiness and refraining from sin. We need to keep in mind that while humans may struggle with sin we were not* created* to sin; we are not “sin machines”; sinfulness is an anomaly in God’s universe.

I don’t think Luther or Lutherans ever have taught this error. Sin requires repentance. In fact, it could be said that Lutherans take an even more vigilant stance against sin, since we acknowledge that even venial sins can become mortal if repeated and not repented, whereas a poorly-catechized Roman Catholic might think, “Well, it’s just a venial sin. It doesn’t really count.”

 

[catholictiger]

You’re forgetting that human beings, on their own, are capable of fulfilling neither the first command nor the second. That’s why we required a Savior to do it for us. The only way we can do anything is when God does it for us

Hmm what do you mean by Christ has to do us for us? I can love God and neighbor, but it is only sanctifying by grace. Atheist can love their neighbor.

 

[steido01]

Hmm what do you mean by Christ has to do us for us? I can love God and neighbor, but it is only sanctifying by grace.

I mean that Christ, alone, has kept the Law in its entirety. Christ, alone, did not need a Savior. Christ, alone, was perfect in His love for God and man. And it was because of this that His death on the cross perfectly atoned for our sin. We, without Christ, are dead. Even when we do good, “it is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”

Atheist can love their neighbor.

No. True love (and its fruit, good works) can only be done by those who know Christ - those who are part of His church, because outside the church there is no salvation. All salvation comes from Christ the Head through the church which is His Body. An atheist cannot truly love his neighbor, because the atheists ‘love’ is not a good work. It is an imitation of love, a shadow, a genuine mimicry.

 

[fhansen]

You’re forgetting that human beings, on their own, are capable of fulfilling neither the first command nor the second. That’s why we required a Savior to do it for us. The only way we can do anything is when God does it for us.

It’s more like, ‘we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us’. The New Covenant is based on man’s need for union with God, apart from Whom we can do nothing-but with Whom all things are possible. This partnership is the very basis of our justice, which is why the chief injustice of Original Sin is said to be separation from God, a state initiated for humankind by Adam. Faith is the first step in restoring this relationship, as a response to God’s calling. And from there salvation is worked out.

Sure. And the Law is already written in our hearts. We know that part well. We feel the effects and consequences of the Law every time we are hurt by others or hurt others.

Well, yes, so we don’t necessarily fulfill it-and ignorance plays a role as well in this with fallen man. In any case Augustine put it this way: “God wrote on tables of stone what man failed to read in his heart.”

Right. Lutherans would agree that we can choose to reject Grace, and try to hide from God’s presence.

That’s great. And this is a very important point which some other theologies fail to grasp.

I don’t think Luther or Lutherans ever have taught this error. Sin requires repentance. In fact, it could be said that Lutherans take an even more vigilant stance against sin, since we acknowledge that even venial sins can become mortal if repeated and not repented, whereas a poorly-catechized Roman Catholic might think, “Well, it’s just a venial sin. It doesn’t really count.”

Yes, he would have to be poorly catechized-a common enough problem unfortunately that’s compounded, as I see it, by a popular misconception of the Church’s teaching on sin-that can lead to a rather wooden either/or mentality.

Either way, I really think it’s critical in this matter that we don’t *mistake *faith for justice-as if 1) faith is all that God wants of us, or that 2) faith, by itself, constitutes justice for man, or that 3) faith stands in place of justice for man. God wants both more from us-and *for *us-and our theology can greatly influence how that all plays out in our lives.

Justice/holiness is most accurately defined by love. I’m a “sophist”, apparently, who believes that we’re actually* justified by love alone*, which encompasses both faith and hope. This is why the Church teaches that one can have faith and even hope, but lack love. It’s very crucial to emphasize-and re-emphasize-the essential role that love plays in our understanding of the gospel and justification. Love, of the quantity and quality that God desires for us, is not so easy to comprehend-or to attain-but it’s worth whatever it takes to achieve it.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

What Luther is stating is this , grace alone through faith alone saves , and works are the necessary fruits of conversion , let me put it like this , we are saved without doing works , but now that we are saved we are bound to do works .

OK. What do you mean “bound” to do works?
Or else, what?
Can you lose your salvation by refusing to do them?

God has prepared good works for each of us to do:
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

My contention is that if you obstinately refuse to do those works that God places before you, this constitutes a sin of omission, and possibly a grave sin. Your salvation could be at risk.
See, for instance, Matthew 25:31 and following.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

OK. What do you mean “bound” to do works?
Or else, what?
Can you lose your salvation by refusing to do them?

God has prepared good works for each of us to do:
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

My contention is that if you obstinately refuse to do those works that God places before you, this constitutes a sin of omission, and possibly a grave sin. Your salvation could be at risk.
See, for instance, Matthew 25:31 and following.

Christians are mandated to obey the moral law , that’s what I mean by bound , you can lose your salvation by apostasy or consistently living a lifestyle of sin

 

[steido01]

It’s more like, ‘we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us’. The New Covenant is based on man’s need for union with God, apart from Whom we can do nothing-but with Whom all things are possible. This partnership is the very basis of our justice, which is why the chief injustice of Original Sin is said to be separation from God, a state initiated for humankind by Adam. Faith is the first step in restoring this relationship, as a response to God’s calling. And from there salvation is worked out.

It’s amazing how the more we talk, the more I find us holding more in common with different emphases. Even words like “partnership” and “cooperation,” which generally make Lutherans recoil out of fear of over-emphasizing sanctification, make sense to a Lutheran when explained by a learned Catholic like you. It makes me wonder if we’ve been expressing the same concept all along. And that’s terrifying. Thank you.

Well, yes, so we don’t necessarily fulfill it-and ignorance plays a role as well in this with fallen man. In any case Augustine put it this way: “God wrote on tables of stone what man failed to read in his heart.”

So we agree on the importance of truly becoming just in Christ. And since we can agree here to the importance of the Law in teaching, can we also agree that an equal emphasis needs to be placed on instilling the Christian with the knowledge that his sins were forgiven? The Roman Catholic view often seems to favor piety and Law for the sake of becoming more pious and Law-ful, over the more important message of freedom and Gospel. I hope you can see that I’m not meaning to draw a caricature here; the emphasis on ‘becoming just’ intrinsically requires the Christian to focus on doing just that. Then it becomes less about what God has done to reclaim us, and more about ‘being a better me’ so I can reach God – and if that’s the case, who needs God or His Laws? Without the reason we’ve been freed from the bondage of sin (Galatians 5), there’s no point in keeping the Law. My Law/Gospel Lutheran self is showing…

That’s great. And this is a very important point which some other theologies fail to grasp.

Indeed.

…Either way, I really think it’s critical in this matter that we don’t *mistake *faith for justice-as if 1) faith is all that God wants of us, or that 2) faith, by itself, constitutes justice for man, or that 3) faith stands in place of justice for man. God wants both more from us-and *for *us-and our theology can greatly influence how that all plays out in our lives.

Agreed, to all points.

Justice/holiness is most accurately defined by love. I’m a “sophist”, apparently, who believes that we’re actually* justified by love alone*, which encompasses both faith and hope. This is why the Church teaches that one can have faith and even hope, but lack love. It’s very crucial to emphasize-and re-emphasize-the essential role that love plays in our understanding of the gospel and justification. Love, of the quantity and quality that God desires for us, is not so easy to comprehend-or to attain-but it’s worth whatever it takes to achieve it.

While it’s necessary to distinguish between faith and love to understand how God has saved us to do His work, I prefer to think about it as a wise old German monk explained; that separating faith from works is like separating heat and light from fire. I’m thinking more and more that the division is less about substance and more about emphasis. When Lutherans talk about the ‘fire’ they say the word for ‘heat,’ because that is the element which initially warms our frozen bodies so we can open our eyes and see by its light. The Catholics says ‘heat and light’ in place of ‘fire,’ which ticks off the Lutheran because without careful attention to context, someone listening to the Catholic might think any ol’ light-bearer is capable of eventually making heat if he simply keeps at it long enough. It is the fire that is needed.

 

[catholictiger]

I mean that Christ, alone, has kept the Law in its entirety. Christ, alone, did not need a Savior. Christ, alone, was perfect in His love for God and man. And it was because of this that His death on the cross perfectly atoned for our sin. We, without Christ, are dead. Even when we do good, “it is not I who live, but Christ who lives in me.”

the way you phrased it made it sound like somehow, Jesus was actually doing the gook work it isn’t actually us doing it.

No. True love (and its fruit, good works) can only be done by those who know Christ - those who are part of His church, because outside the church there is no salvation. All salvation comes from Christ the Head through the church which is His Body. An atheist cannot truly love his neighbor, because the atheists ‘love’ is not a good work. It is an imitation of love, a shadow, a genuine mimicry.

You need to make a distinction between natural goods and supernatural goods.

Natural goods are simply things that we good that benifit other people, we in our nature can do good things.

But works that merit us rewards in eternal life (see 1 cor 3) can only come through a cooperation with God’s grace.

 

[JonNC]

Here’s a sermon Luther gave on the topic:

Note the startling similarity to Pope Benedict XVI’s words in a 2008 audience:

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=rcwitness;13378797]Hi Jon, sorry for the delay.

I do not have evidence for proof. I am sorry if that came across as a cheap shot.

Cheap shot? From you? Never would have crossed my mind, Michael.

However, I believe there is much truth that Peter was warning against things which included a “faith alone” belief.

Paul’s letters came first, right? Then Peter, writing in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave warning about Paul’s writings containing things which are hard to understand (properly). And that some “twist” what Paul is actually meaning.

Now we had the Church united for centuries and never proclaimed a “faith alone” doctrine until Luther. We can agree with many things Luther stated, and go even as far as Benedict XVI has in agreeing with him. However, there stands a division which “Sola Fide” believers must rely on interpreting Paul’s Teaching primarily in order to justify.

I think the Luther / Lutheran understanding is very much part of the apostolic understanding of how one comes to justification, and even the thrust of this thread shows just how close our understandings are. Are there tangible differences in the way our communions express how we come to justification? Yes. Are they as distinctively different as once thought? I don’t believe so.

So after Peter also came James to add, from the Holy Spirit, another warning more specific than Peter’s. That Faith alone does NOT justify.

I don’t think that’s James’ warning at all. I think James warning is akin to Paul’s in Galatians 5:6: a faith that works through love justifies. If James is saying that faith alone, as Paul relates it, does not justify, then indeed there is a contradiction. I don’t believe that to be the case.

So, I stand with the Catholic faith that would confirm what I asserted. That Peter was in fact giving warning to those who interpret Paul’s Teachings as “Sola Fide” as taught by Luther.

That would assume that Peter could have known the controversy which occurred 1500 years after his life. There are numerous quotes from the Fathers that one might point to that supports sola fide, but they too would not have knowledge of the 1500’s controversy. For example, St. John Chrysostom:
**What does this mean? That he has justified our race not by right actions, not by toils, not by barter and exchange, but by grace alone. Paul, too, made this clear when he said: “But now the justice of God has been made manifest apart from the Law.” But the justice of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ and not through any labor and suffering. **(Discourses Against Judaising Christians, Discourse VII:2)

In the end, we can not separate faith from works and still have salvation. It’s not faith alone, it’s not works, it’s works done in faith. The first of these is conversion.

No argument. Even Luther does not argue:
And this trust and knowledge of divine grace renders joyful, fearless, and cheerful towards God and all creatures, which [joy and cheerfulness] the Holy Ghost works through faith; and on account of this, man becomes ready and cheerful, without coercion, to do good to every one, to serve every one, and to suffer everything for love and praise to God, who has conferred this grace on him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire.

Peace to you my friend

And also with you,

Jon