Faith and Works

[rcwitness]

Yes, and that should be obvious from my previous post.

Ok. But it is the difference between the Catholic/Orthodox belief and that of the reformers, no?

 

[KjetilK]

Ok. But it is the difference between the Catholic/Orthodox belief and that of the reformers, no?

Well, now you are comparing churches with the individual reformers. Lutheran doctrine is found in the Lutheran confessions (Confessio Augustana (CA) and Luther’s Small Catechism, in addition to the three ecumenical creeds; the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed). These texts do not teach that the works we do have no soteriological value. In VICA, it says that “this faith [through which we are initially justified] is bound to bring forth good fruits, and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God.” And in XIIICA, it is pointed out that our good works comes through the Spirit: “It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works.” This is, essentially, the same thing which is taught in your , §2011Catechism: “The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.”

Now, CA avoids the term merit, but I honestly see no meaningful difference between ‘merit’ and ‘wages,’ which Luther often used. They may denote different aspects, but they are different aspects of the same thing. If you are rewarded for what you do, as both Scripture and Luther teaches, then you have merited that reward. (I know that Luther himself taught a strict difference between reward and merit, as evidenced from the link I just provided, but that cannot be read directly out of the confessions, and it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Yes, we cannot merit anything purely of ourselves, but we do not earn our rewards purely of ourselves either. The distinction is mere sophistry.)

And last, but not least, that Christ comes in judgement is taught both in the Apostles’ Creed (“…from thence [Heaven] He shall come to judge the quick and the dead…”) and the Nicene Creed (“…He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead…”). And we will also be judged by our works, not merely out faith.

 

[guanophore]

The prodigal son trusted his dad , and righteousness was imputed to him , no doing anything to gain favor .

I am not sure that “doing anything to gain favor” is the best way to describe it, but the son did do something to get back into right relationship with his father. He “came to himself” (something that happens to us by grace) and RESPONDED with humilty, repentance, and returning. He did not ‘’'earn" the ability to be in right standing again, but he certainly did participate in it.

The problem, I think, is that the poster to whom you replied was talking about salvation, and you replied about initial justification. But they aren’t the same thing. Salvation is a genus, and initial justification is a species of that. Salvation, then, includes, but cannot be reduced to, initial justification. Scripture tells us that you need faith to initially be justified, but it doesn’t say that you only need faith to be saved.

I just wanted to say that I am enjoying your posts so much. It has been very educational for me. I had no idea the Church of Norway was so Catholic.

How, exactly, is this a difference? I have never been taught otherwise, either in Church or in seminary.

Sorry about that, I was thinking about Lutherans when I wrote that. I was just using your post as a springboard.

I think you may be correct for some of us.

For me, I struggle against faith. Anything remotely redeeming about me is a result of God impressing faith on me.

This seems to deny basic aspects of human nature. God fashioned us in such a way that we are able to place our faith, or fail to place it, where we choose. I do agree that there is a gift of faith, a divine intervention that overflows us with the ability to believe, but Jesus consistently says “be it done for you according to your faith”. Faith is part of our natural faculties. It is up to us to exercise it.

These texts do not teach that the works we do have no soteriological value.

I think it might be more accurate to say that they have sanctification value, but not soteriological. For those of us that think of sanctification as part of the process of salvation, it works fine, but if all of salvation is focused on what we understand as intitial justification, then I don’t see how the good works can be said to have any soteriological value.

This is, essentially, the same thing which is taught in your Catechism

Yes, we seem to have much more in common than not, and certainly more than Catholics do with other ecclesial communities that descend from the Reformation.

Now, CA avoids the term merit, but I honestly see no meaningful difference between merit and wages which Luther often used. They may denote different aspects, but they are different aspects of the same thing.

I think the difference is critical. The CC uses “merit”. differently than it is used in modern language (such as the definitions you linked). In the Church documents, it corresponds more closely with “worth”. Just as John the Baptist directed that the faithful should “bear works that befit repentence”, we are to behave in a manner that is worthy (merits) the high calling to which we have been called. When the Church says we “merit for ourselves” it is a case of being made worthy or deserving of the grace that has been given.

If you are rewarded for what you do, as both Scripture and Luther teaches, then you have merited that reward. (I know that Luther himself taught a strict difference between reward and merit, as evidenced from the link I just provided, but that cannot be read directly out of the confessions, and it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Yes, we cannot merit anything purely of ourselves, but we do not earn our rewards purely of ourselves either. The distinction is mere sophistry.)

I think the Catholic sense of merit is lost when it is compared to wages. Rewards come because transformation has occurred. Transformation is encouraged in us as we walk in the good works He has prepared for us. We become more worthy of the dignity of our calling.

And last, but not least, that Christ comes in judgement is taught both in the *Apostles’ Creed* (“…from thence [Heaven] He shall come to judge the quick and the dead…”) and the *Nicene Creed* (“…He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead…”). And we will also be judged by our works, not merely out faith.

Faith, working through love. They are never “alone”, and are not separable.

And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. I Cor. 13:13

 

[JonNC]

=KjetilK;13436236]I didn’t see any trace of Pelagianism in the post to which you replied. Where, exactly, did he say that faith, or (other) works, are entirely from us? I don’t see it. Assuming that the poster is a Roman Catholic, I rather try to read it in light of what the Roman Catholic teaches, and what I assume he believes. Consider, for instance, this, from the Catechism, §2011:

The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

Hi Father,
I didn’t say there was Pelagianism in his post. My response to you was:

Well, of course, if they are works borne of faith, borne of the Spirit’s work within us. That wasn’t the point. The poster claimed,** it seems**, that faith was a work of ours.** If** it is, the it seems Pelagianism must be correct.

It seems, and if. So, I was not making an accusation, but state that the post seemed to be saying that faith was a work of ours, and if that is the case, then Pelagianism is correct.

Our ‘Spirit-filled’ works have soteriological value. If we do not live according to what we have been given, we will not be saved. Salvation cannot be reduced to our initial justification.

I agree with Guanophore on this:

Guanophore: I think it might be more accurate to say that they have sanctification value, but not soteriological. For those of us that think of sanctification as part of the process of salvation, it works fine, but if all of salvation is focused on what we understand as intitial justification, then I don’t see how the good works can be said to have any soteriological value.

And, hoping Guan won’t be insulted by this, I actually think this is the point of the reformers in CA:

Article IV: Of Justification.

1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

This is later treated again in Article 20

The problem is that you said that faith isn’t a work because it “is a gift, which comes via grace.” But if that is the reason, then you would have to say that those works we perform as Christians qua Christians (our ‘Spirit-filled’ works) aren’t works, since they are also gifts “which comes via grace.” You would basically be saying that work aren’t works, which is a self-contradiction.

Except that the context is how do we access Justification. We do not access justification through our works. Our God-pleasing works, in which we participate, follow faith. Article XX

Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God. 28] It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. 29] **And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. **30] For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. 31] For man’s powers without the Holy Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in God’s sight. 32] Besides, they are in the power of the devil who impels men to divers sins, 33] to ungodly opinions, to open crimes. This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to live an honest life could not succeed, 34] but were defiled with many open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human strength.

The problem,** I think**, is that the poster to whom you replied was talking about salvation, and you replied about initial justification. But they aren’t the same thing. Salvation is a genus, and initial justification is a species of that. Salvation, then, includes, but cannot be reduced to, initial justification. Scripture tells us that you need faith to initially be justified, but it doesn’t say that you only need faith to be saved.

You think that, but the poster didn’t say that. Beyond that, there is nothing here I disagree with. The confessions never say only justification is needed. “There is no justification without sanctification…” - Luther. The point is a saving faith is a faith that works through love.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And last, but not least, that Christ comes in judgement is taught both in the Apostles’ Creed (“…from thence [Heaven] He shall come to judge the quick and the dead…”) and the Nicene Creed (“…He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead…”). And we will also be judged by our works, not merely out faith.

The Athanasian Creed is even more explicit:
He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

There is, of course, the truth that one cannot do good works without the presence of the Holy Spirit, without faith, a faith that justifies, a faith that works through love.

Jon

 

[fhansen]

So, I was not making an accusation, but state that the post seemed to be saying that faith was a work of ours, and if that is the case, then Pelagianism is correct.

Here’s the Church’s teaching on it, from Trent, session 6. Faith simply cannot justify in and of itself:

From Chap 7:
**“For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body.”
**
All of Chap 8:
**"In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And 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 are 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 that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace."

So both faith and works can be looked upon as necessary responses to grace, man cooperating with God Who takes the initiative, but Who nevertheless won’t coerce. Pelagianism eliminates the grace/God part from the equation altogether.

 

[JonNC]

Here’s the Church’s teaching on it, from Trent, session 6. Faith simply cannot justify in and of itself:

From Chap 7:
**“For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body.”
**
All of Chap 8:
**"In what manner it is to be understood, that the impious is justified by faith, and gratuitously.

And 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 are 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 that *none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification. ***For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace."

So both faith and works can be looked upon as necessary responses to grace, man cooperating with God Who takes the initiative, but Who nevertheless won’t coerce. Pelagianism eliminates the grace/God part from the equation altogether.

Thanks for this. I think that was my point with the poster involved, why I used the terms, “seems” and “if”.

Jon

 

[KjetilK]

Except that the context is how do we access Justification. We do not access justification through our works. Our God-pleasing works, in which we participate, follow faith. Article XX

You think that, but the poster didn’t say that. Beyond that, there is nothing here I disagree with. The confessions never say only justification is needed. “There is no justification without sanctification…” - Luther. The point is a saving faith is a faith that works through love.

Except that in the post to which you originally replied no specific mention was made of our (initial) justification. The word used by JB Brother 4446 was ‘saved,’ not ‘justified.’ And therefore we should assume that he, as a Roman Catholic, believes what the Catholic Church teaches on salvation; that it consists not only of our initial justification, but also our sanctification. That is the context in which we must read his post. When he, then, says that faith is a kind of work, and you reply that it isn’t, because it is a gracious gift of God, and add that “it is faith that justifies,” you are not answering his point at all. He wasn’t talking merely of initial justification, but the whole process of salvation, which includes sanctification.

And the problem is that the works we do, as Christians, in the Spirit, are also gifts of God, and they do have a soteriological value. Should we refuse to do them, and refuse to repent, we will be judged and damed. Salvation (soteriology) is not only justification but also sanctification.

 

[KjetilK]

The Athanasian Creed is even more explicit:
He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

There is, of course, the truth that one cannot do good works without the presence of the Holy Spirit, without faith, a faith that justifies, a faith that works through love.

Which is my point. The problem is that you are comparing divine faith with merely human works, by calling them ‘faith’ and ‘works.’ But there is such a thing as a merely human faith. I have faith that the ferry I am going to use tomorrow will go.

The distinction is not between faith and works, but divine faith and merely human works.

 

[HelenRose]

Neither faith nor works are possible with God’s Grace.

With God’s grace we have faith and with that faith we are able to do what God as called us to do.

It is not either/or but both/and. I have never been able to understand why this argument has lasted so long.

 

[JonNC]

Except that in the post to which you originally replied no specific mention was made of our (initial) justification. The word used by JB Brother 4446 was ‘saved,’ not ‘justified.’ And therefore we should assume that he, as a Roman Catholic, believes what the Catholic Church teaches on salvation; that it consists not only of our initial justification, but also our sanctification. That is the context in which we must read his post. When he, then, says that faith is a kind of work, and you reply that it isn’t, because it is a gracious gift of God, and add that “it is faith that justifies,” you are not answering his point at all. He wasn’t talking merely of initial justification, but the whole process of salvation, which includes sanctification.

Here is JB’s post

Yes I eat His body and drink His blood. But then I’d have to go into the whole concept of the Eucharist.

Didn’t Jesus say that if you believe and are baptized, you will be saved? Doesn’t that also mean that you can not be saved even if you believe but have no baptism?

And isn’t faith itself a work? According to Paul himself, love is the greatest virtue of all, exceding only faith.

Remeber when Jesus asked the lawyer what commandments were the greatest? The lawyer answered that we must love God and love others. Do you remember what Jesus said? “Do this and you shall live!”

That statement from Jesus contradicts all of sola fide.

JB was talking about sola fide. Sola fide refers to justification. Hence, I responded about justification. So, he was not speaking about the Catholic understanding, but the Lutheran one.

And the problem is that the works we do, as Christians, in the Spirit, are also gifts of God, and they do have a soteriological value. Should we refuse to do them, and refuse to repent, we will be judged and damed. Salvation (soteriology) is not only justification but also sanctification

We as Lutherans agree, Father, that works of the Spirit do have a role to play in our sanctification, yes. There is no doubt that Lutherans believe that we are bound to do good works, and that bound means both liable to and necessary. Faith without works is, indeed, dead.

None of that contradicts the fact that it is by grace alone, through faith alone, that we are justified.
It seems to me that we are arguing over our agreements.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Which is my point. **The problem is that you are comparing divine faith with merely human works, by calling them ‘faith’ and ‘works.’ **But there is such a thing as a merely human faith. I have faith that the ferry I am going to use tomorrow will go.

The distinction is not between faith and works, but divine faith and merely human works.

Where did I make that comparison?

Of course there is a distinction between merely human works, and works of the Spirit done through us. There are lots of human works, which appear to be good works, that are not done of the Spirit. Justification must come first, which is by grace alone, through faith alone.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Neither faith nor works are possible with God’s Grace.

With God’s grace we have faith and with that faith we are able to do what God as called us to do.

It is not either/or but both/and. I have never been able to understand why this argument has lasted so long.

I suspect you meant in your first sentence, "Neither faith nor works are possible without God’s Grace.

Jon

 

[HelenRose]

I suspect you meant in your first sentence, "Neither faith nor works are possible without God’s Grace.

Jon

So right. Aaaaagh. I hate when I do that.

 

[HelenRose]

Neither faith nor works are possible with God’s Grace.

With God’s grace we have faith and with that faith we are able to do what God as called us to do.

It is not either/or but both/and. I have never been able to understand why this argument has lasted so long.

I meant
Neither faith nor works are possible withOUT God’s Grace.

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t say there was Pelagianism in his post. My response to you was:

It seems, and if. So, I was not making an accusation, but state that the post seemed to be saying that faith was a work of ours, and if that is the case, then Pelagianism is correct.

I didn’t take it that you were.

I agree with Guanophore on this: “I think it might be more accurate to say that they have sanctification value, but not soteriological. For those of us that think of sanctification as part of the process of salvation, it works fine, but if all of salvation is focused on what we understand as intitial justification, then I don’t see how the good works can be said to have any soteriological value.”

For the record, I was articulating my understanding of the Lutheran position here, so I am glad I got it right. On the contrary, I believe the CC teaches as Father KjetilK has stated “Our ‘Spirit-filled’ works have soteriological value. If we do not live according to what we have been given, we will not be saved. Salvation cannot be reduced to our initial justification”.

And, hoping Guan won’t be insulted by this, I actually think this is the point of the reformers in CA:

Article IV: Of Justification.

1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

No, I am not offended, but I think it is a mistake. The CC does not teach that anyone can be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, (since it is Pelagianism). It represents a rebellion against a postion that the CC has never believed or taught, but at the time and place where it was written, it may well have seemed that this is what was believed and taught.

I think this has been adquately addressed in the joint declaration now.

Except that the context is how do we access Justification. We do not access justification through our works. Our God-pleasing works, in which we participate, follow faith.

And for Catholics, supplement and cause that faith to grow, and sanctify us so the are more able to remain in the state of grace into which we were baptized. This is a continuation of justification.

 

[guanophore]

I didn’t say there was Pelagianism in his post. My response to you was:

It seems, and if. So, I was not making an accusation, but state that the post seemed to be saying that faith was a work of ours, and if that is the case, then Pelagianism is correct.

I didn’t take it that you were.

I agree with Guanophore on this:

For the record, I was articulating my understanding of the Lutheran position here, so I am glad I got it right. On the contrary, I believe the CC teaches as Father KjetilK has stated “Our ‘Spirit-filled’ works have soteriological value. If we do not live according to what we have been given, we will not be saved. Salvation cannot be reduced to our initial justification”.

And, hoping Guan won’t be insulted by this, I actually think this is the point of the reformers in CA:

Article IV: Of Justification.

1] Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for 2] Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. 3] This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

No, I am not offended, but I think it is a mistake. The CC does not teach that anyone can be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, (since it is Pelagianism). It represents a rebellion against a postion that the CC has never believed or taught, but at the time and place where it was written, it may well have seemed that this is what was believed and taught.

I think this has been adquately addressed in the joint declaration now.

Except that the context is how do we access Justification. We do not access justification through our works. Our God-pleasing works, in which we participate, follow faith.

And for Catholics, supplement and cause that faith to grow, and sanctify us so the are more able to remain in the state of grace into which we were baptized. This is a continuation of justification.

 

[benhur]

Your postings seem to suggest we are judged twice.

Can you quote anything that suggests truth in this?

Good works, in and of themselves mean absolutely nothing.

When they arise from our faith in God (by grace), and with intent to do His will - that is what is being referred to.

Saying, “Yes Lord I believe” and then sitting down and doing precisely nothing, watching injustice in the word and not trying to spread (i.e. evangelise) the Good News is negligent.
Even if the position you hold is true, ALL Christians should be so filled with joy that they want to tell everyone about their faith. Evangelisation is a type of “work,” believe it or not.

yes there are two judgements upon death. Can not find the quote (Fulton Sheen) but it is also Catholic teaching.

I am also not sure you understand our position when we say "faith alone’’ , or that we have maybe not explained it well enough. Just like "bible alone’’ does not mean just curl up with your bible and you are all set, nothing else to it, so “faith alone” does not mean just believe and there is absolutely nothing after that.

Indeed evangelisation should come forth, for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

Blessings

 

[fhansen]

These are relevant teachings from the catechism, if they haven’t been posted here already:

**1989 The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. *“Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”*39

1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.42

1995 The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man,"44 justification entails the sanctification of his whole being:
Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. . . . But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.45**

 

[benhur]

Yes I eat His body and drink His blood.

Yes, but with all due respect and reverence, the command is to “gnaw”, not just “eat”. if you merely eat it is because you also see that term gnaw as figurative.

Blessings