Faith or work can save us?

[De_Maria]

Yeah I hear you. I wasn’t challenging one’s ability to choose. I was challenging whether or not that ability is free. Free-will would have to mean that the decision is influenced neither by God or the devil. It is free of any bias or outside thought. Who has such a free will? not to mention the element of deception that runs prevalent in the world. So many factors that influence one’s choices. In the end, he does make a choice, but to say it is free, seems to be a stretch.

1. That’s your private interpretation of the term “free” will.
2. To us, free will is the ability to choose what we prefer, regardless of the temptations against it.

Secondly, the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit. He can only choose naturally. He cannot choose spiritually. Only a spiritual man can make spiritual choices.

That’s the entire point of prevenient grace. Prevenient grace is the unmerited grace of faith that God gives every man in order to lead him to choose to turn to Him.

Think of prevenient grace as a hungry man smelling the sweet odor of his wife’s cooking when he’s working on his car. He has the choice to go in and eat or finish what he’s doing.

 

[De_Maria]

Yes. I do. He wanted to know how we should respond to a faith ALONE vs faith and works debate. He has gotten a lot of real life examples.

 

[De_Maria]

The problem is that you’re asking a Protestant to teach you about Catholic Doctrine and his understanding is flawed.

 

[De_Maria]

Actually Ianman87 just gave a great explanation of progressive justification at #149.

His explanation is flawed.

It really helped me to understand why you guys can’t see the most obvious meaning of scripture.

You can’t understand Scripture because your tradition has rejected the Traditions of Jesus Christ which are the basis of the New Testament.

 

[tgGodsway]

This is double talk. I’ve heard people argue on this site that the Trinity doctrine was developed by Roman Catholics over time. By the third century it was finalized. Yet it was always there, you just didn’t know it.

Jesus quoted Moses who told us to build. Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. That is building. This is a checks and balance system designed by God to help weed out false doctrine.

We don’t have the privilege of sitting down with the Apostles to ask questions. But by the power of the Spirit who preserved their writings, we can glean their thoughts and their perspective. After all, they were the eye-witnesses to the resurrection and the forming of the New Testament Church.

got to go for now. blessings to your home, De_Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Every man has a measure of faith. the unsaved have faith in something.

Aren’t we talking about faith in God?

My only point was that if we stick to the historical and inspirational record, Abraham was justified at a specific time and place by God, and there is no other record in Genesis. Some of your friends from this site insist Abraham was justified several times throughout Genesis.

I’m sure he expressed faith prior to his conversion

Faith prior to his conversion, was not faith in God therefore moot. We are talking about faith in God. At least, that’s what I’m talking about.

and expressed faith after, but God only acted upon him to declare it one time.

That’s not the witness of Scripture. Read this:

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

St. James says that Abraham was justified when he offered Isaac upon the altar. That’s Genesis 22.

This is why this pattern can be understood in Paul’s writings.

You are reading that pattern into St. Paul’s writings.

Surely you would see multiple justifications by other characters throughout the bible but especially in the New Testament. We do not. Justification is treated as an Act from Paul’s perspective.

On the contrary, all the Apostles follow the same pattern. First God (i.e. Jesus) befriends them. They come to believe in Him and obey Him. Then He baptizes them. They continue to obey Him and begin to imitate Him. Then He tests them and many of them fall and run away. Then He forgives them and blows His Spirit into them and entrusts them with His ministry. Then they live out their lives suffering and dying for His Church. In essence, sacrificing themselves for Him.

That is ongoing justification.

 

[lanman87]

So who does the believing then, you or God? Who actually DOES the action of believing?

This actually an interesting question for me that I’ve never really pondered. Is faith a work?

I know that Reformed believe in Predestination and they would say that faith is a gift of grace to the Elect and a person comes to faith after a person has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. So they would say that faith is a gift of grace from God and not a “of ourselves”.

Others would say that faith is a synergism between God and Man. That it is not a work because faith in caused by the Holy Spirit. We can’t have faith unless God calls us by the Spirit. Therefore faith is from God and not from ourselves. Furthermore, faith is not a work because our faith is in God and not ourselves.

However, anyway you want to think about it is obvious that the Apostle Paul did not consider faith to be a work. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, Romans 4:5

 

[lanman87]

The problem is that you’re asking a Protestant to teach you about Catholic Doctrine and his understanding is flawed.

Are you talking about my explanation or the quotes from Sproul’s book? And do you mind explaining why it is flawed?

 

[De_Maria]

This is double talk.

Nope.

I’ve heard people argue on this site that the Trinity doctrine was developed by Roman Catholics over time. By the third century it was finalized. Yet it was always there, you just didn’t know it.

It was just their way of trying to explain it to you. But, in my opinion, Jesus explained it the best:

John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jesus Christ revealed everything, but not everything was completely understood when He revealed it. The Holy Spirit brings those things to remembrance and we call it the “development of Doctrine”.

Jesus quoted Moses who told us to build. Upon the mouth of two or three witnesses let every word be established. That is building. This is a checks and balance system designed by God to help weed out false doctrine.

You have to complete the picture. What else does Jesus say?

Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Now, think back to Church history. This is the methodology which has always been used by the Catholic Church. Here’s just one example. Have you heard of Arianism? It’s a heresy started by a Catholic Bishop (Bishop Arius). He was challenged by Bishop St. Athanasius. They argued about Fr. Arius’ interpretations of Scripture. They both brought their factions and finally had to bring it to the Church hierarchy to judge. Even though Fr. Arius had 90% of the people in the Church following him, the Church declared him a heretic and his teaching a heresy.

We don’t have the privilege of sitting down with the Apostles to ask questions. But by the power of the Spirit who preserved their writings, we can glean their thoughts and their perspective. After all, they were the eye-witnesses to the resurrection and the forming of the New Testament Church.

In so doing, you are disobeying Scripture. Scripture doesn’t say, “learn your faith by reading Scripture alone.” Nope. Scripture says:

Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

In essence, Scripture says we are to learn our faith, from the Church. Not by Scripture alone.

got to go for now. blessings to your home, De_Maria

God bless you and yours as well.

 

[De_Maria]

Are you talking about my explanation or the quotes from Sproul’s book? And do you mind explaining why it is flawed?

I don’t mind at all. Here’s what I’m talking about.

From what I can tell, justification, to a Roman Catholic, is an ongoing process.

That’s correct.

They combine the Reformed doctrines of Justification and Sanctification to be just Justification.

That’s incorrect.

First, of course, the Catholic Church was Teaching the Doctrines of Soteriology long before any Protestant came around. But that’s of no consequence.

But the flaw that I’m really talking about is the idea that justification and sanctification are combined to be just justification. That’s false.

Sanctification and justification are two sides of the same coin. That coin being salvation.

And that our works play a part in that Justification.

That’s true.

I have a book by Reformed Theologian and Pastor R.C. Sproul that says this.

Part of the disagreement over justification stems from the meaning of the word justification itself. The English word justification is derived from the Latin term, justifcare, which literally means “to make righteous”. The early Latin fathers, who studied scriptures by means of the Vulgate rather than the Septuagint…In the development of doctrine of justification in Rome, the idea emerged that justification occurs after sanctification.

That’s false. He’s confusing the divine process of justification with Sacramental justification.

Sacramental justification is at a point in time. When one appears before the throne of God, in the Church, repents of his sins and calls out to God. At this point, the man is justified by God, right then and there.

But there’s another aspect of justification which this man is neglecting which is mentioned in Scripture, here:

Luke 11:41 But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

This teaches us that everything good that we do brings about a remission of sin and thus, justifies and sanctifies our very being.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d with lanman87

That is, in order to be declared just, we first must be sanctified to the point that we exhibit a righteousness that is acceptable to God.

This would be equally true if we said, “in order to be declared ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, we first must be JUSTIFIED to the point that we exhibit SANCTITY.”

Let me read you a Scripture to support this:

Hebrews 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

Holiness is sanctity.

The Protestant Reformation, which followed the revival of the study of antiquities, focused on the Greek meaning of the concept of justification, which was the word dikaioo, which means “to declare righteous” rather than to make righteous. So, in Protestantism, justification was understood to come before the process of sanctification.

False. The Early Church Fathers, all Catholic by the way, studied in all the Biblical languages. Many of them, in fact, were Greek. St. John Chrysostom comes immediately to mind.

Dikaioo, by itself needs to be read in context and in the tense that it is written.

He goes on to say:

Protestants believe that a person is justified when the righteousness of Christ is imputed or credited to his account.

1. This is a Protestant misunderstanding of the term, “imputed”
2. But, and more importantly, is an idea nowhere to be found in Scripture.

We likewise believe that our sins were imputed to Christ on the cross, that is, they were placed in His account, and He paid for them.

We believe this about the sins we brought with us at the time of Baptism. We must pay for any sins we commit thereafter.

Rome believes in infusion, which is the view that the righteousness of Christ is actually put into the believer, so that the person is actually righteous. The righteousness of Christ is not simply credited to the person’s account, it actually becomes the person’s possession

Not true. We don’t believe that anyone possesses the righteousness of Christ, but Christ. We believe that God pours into us His sanctifying grace. This grace is a participation in the life of Christ.

Romans 5:17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

One final point, when we are justified in Baptism, it is because God pours into us His SANCTIFYING grace.

 

[BornInMarch]

In the book of James it is written that Faith without Works is dead.

 

[Benadam]

This grace is a participation in the life of Christ.

surely, that can’t happen with faith alone.

 

[De_Maria]

This grace is a participation in the life of Christ.

surely, that can’t happen with faith alone.

Good point. As I understand it, they are declared righteous but not made righteous. Thus, grace is not poured into them. It sort of covers them, like snow covered dunghills.

 

[lanman87]

That’s false. He’s confusing the divine process of justification with Sacramental justification.

Sacramental justification is at a point in time.

In this particular section of the book he is talking about God’s role in Justification. Later on in the chapter he talks about the Sacraments and their role in Justification. Also he later clarifies that the Roman view is that God gives the person the ability to become righteous and that God will declare someone righteous at their death/judgement based on if they actually became righteous and not on the the gift of righteousness, which is the righteousness of Christ, that Protestant believe we possess.

Those couple of paragraphs were just an introduction of sorts to the chapter. I posted them to help tgGodsway get an start at understanding of Catholic Doctrine in more familiar terms. Obviously, you can’t take away the entire contents of a chapter in a book based on a couple of paragraphs.

For instance the sentence you re-wrote. This would be equally true if we said, “in order to be declared ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, we first must be JUSTIFIED to the point that we exhibit SANCTITY.” This would not make sense to an evangelical/reformed mindset. In which Justification is a one time event when God declare us righteous, and exchanges our sins for Christ righteousness.

 

[De_Maria]

In this particular section of the book he is talking about God’s role in Justification. Later on in the chapter he talks about the Sacraments and their role in Justification. Also he later clarifies that the Roman view is that God gives the person the ability to become righteous and that God will declare someone righteous at their death/judgement based on if they actually became righteous and not on the the gift of righteousness, which is the righteousness of Christ, that Protestant believe we possess.

Ok.

Those couple of paragraphs were just an introduction of sorts to the chapter. I posted them to help tgGodsway get an start at understanding of Catholic Doctrine in more familiar terms. Obviously, you can’t take away the entire contents of a chapter in a book based on a couple of paragraphs.

Fair enough.

For instance the sentence you re-wrote. This would be equally true if we said, “in order to be declared ACCEPTABLE TO GOD, we first must be JUSTIFIED to the point that we exhibit SANCTITY.” This would not make sense to an evangelical/reformed mindset. In which Justification is a one time event when God declare us righteous, and exchanges our sins for Christ righteousness.

Agreed.

Well, I’m headed back to work. I’ve been on my days off so I’ve participated heavily. But you’ll probably have to do without me for the next 8 days. Stay calm and carry on.

God bless you!

 

[ajcstr]

What I am getting at is you have a person who admits they are confused. They come to a Catholic forum to get an answer. At best they will be more confused at worst they will be vulnerable with this kind of back and forth.

Lanman you really didn’t break any ediquite. I’m a little sensitive because this kind of thing happend to me and caused a real crisis of faith. I didn’t fully understand what the Church taught and was almost “flipped”.

One thing is evident is that this is what happens when you believe that Jesus just left us a book without an authoritative Church.

 

[De_Maria]

What I am getting at is you have a person who admits they are confused. They come to a Catholic forum to get an answer. At best they will be more confused at worst they will be vulnerable with this kind of back and forth.

That’s just your nerves talking. I was in that person’s shoes once. And when I went to a Catholic forum with questions, a Protestant came in and shot down all the Catholic answers. Then, the Catholics responded to him. I read what they all said and I learned. It was a great experience and very exciting.

 

[Brendan]

In the Catholic sense, Faith is a Virtue granted to us at Baptism. Faith is not something that a person can do or practice on their own initiative, it is a gift initiated by God in the form of prevenient Grace.

But the acceptance is something that we DO, and as a virtue, it is something that we practice. Both the response and the practice of Faith are works, as they rely on human action, and it is not something that God does for us on our behalf.

The Call is from God, the response and the continued practice is human action, thus, a work.

 

[tgGodsway]

Exactly!! You said, Scripture doesn’t say, “learn your faith by reading Scripture alone.” Nope. Scripture says:

Hebrews 13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

This I do. I am in total submission to those who have the rule over me. I do not have a submission issue, but I do think the Roman Church has one. The Roman Church insist that the world should submit to her alone. This was a huge power grab in its day to which the Lord put a stop to it.
When was the last time the Church at Rome submitted to any other rule? Probably in the first century alone when Apostles like Paul were giving her instruction. But that obviously has faded. Rome has a submission problem. Does the Church at Rome come along side other non-Roman Catholic ministries without trying to rule them?.. without insisting on taking authority over them? Does Rome wash the feet of non-Roman Catholic ministries? I seriously doubt it. I know some Pastors who would easily wash the feet of any Roman Catholic. When the Pope comes to town and the city officials shut down the highways to prepare a throne for a Roman king, does this king recognize God has many kings around the world? He can’t find us because we do not sit on thrones. But he’s not looking for us either. He only sees himself.

I agree with what Ephesians 3:10 says, that the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known BY THE CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God. Agreed. This is why the Church all around the world preaches Christ. Including me. I am one stone in this Church, so are you. You can think all day long that you are in the Church and I am not, but that doesn’t make it so.

You said: In essence we are to learn our faith from the CHURCH". agreed. Reading and studying to show ourselves approved unto God a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God" is what we do. The writings we glean from come from the FOUNDERS of the Church with the understanding that their words were inspired by God when they wrote them and considered to be the word of God.

Couple that with the understanding that the Spirit of God is our primary teacher. Have you not read 1st. John 2:27,? “But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you, and you need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, you shall abide in Him.”
Couple that with the understanding that God still has prophet who have not bowed to Baal. God has His body and not all of them answer to Rome. Nor were they instructed to answer to Rome.