Faith+Sacraments

[lanman87]

Is the faith/works relationship that is debated so much on this board actually code for Faith+Sacraments?

I think when Protestants say “faith alone” what is really meant is we aren’t justified by participating in the sacraments. We are justified by an active and living faith that produces works of love

And I think when Catholics say you must have works, what they are really saying to Protestants is your faith (no matter how strong it is or how much you do works of love) will not Justify you because you aren’t participating in the Sacraments given by the Church.

So is it fair to say that Catholics believe Justification=Faith+Sacraments+works of love?

 

[thistle]

http://www.scborromeo.org/mobileccc/p3s1c3a2.htm#1987

 

[Reuben_J]

No, it encompasses more. Simply put it means to believe and demonstrate your believing by actions - for example, work of charity.

Sacraments are graces. Perhaps in a more common language - for our spiritual growth. But there are different types of Sacraments and each has specific purpose.

They are more for Christian living. You can say Sacraments, prayers, word of God and community will constitute to your spiritual growth.

 

[po18guy]

The only problem with justification by faith alone is that an unrepentant Hitler would be in heaven - if he only believed that Christ is the Messiah.

Talk about injustice. Such obvious and tremendoue injustice comes from man, and not God.

 

[lanman87]

The only problem with justification by faith alone is that an unrepentant Hitler would be in heaven - if he only believed that Christ is the Messiah.

Talk about injustice. Such obvious and tremendoue injustice comes from man, and not God.

Well, that is belief alone, not faith alone. Faith includes belief but isn’t limited to belief. A saving faith is much deeper and more life changing that belief alone. That topic has been done to death on this board and it isn’t what I’m asking about. I know the Catholic objections to “faith alone”.

My question is about how the Sacraments relate to one’s salvation/justification? Do they keep you in good standing with God? Do they erase the penalty of sin?

This is a difficult thing for an evangelical to understand because we don’t differentiate different kinds of grace, as least not as much as Catholics do. When we hear that the sacraments are vehicles of grace we think it means that the sacraments are what causes or keeps us in good standing/favor with God. Because it has been drilled into us that we are “saved by grace”.

 

[Kei]

Protestants have sacraments, usually at least two of the 7 (cough number of perfection cough).

It’s a good question, what people mean by faith vs works. I mean, we essentially believe that one to attain Heaven after accepting Christ and living a Christian life would be not dying with mortal sin, being transformed in Jesus.

The difference between protestants and Catholicism is that in Catholicism Justification and sanctification are the same, God’s Mercy flows from His Justice, whereas in Protestantism justification and sanctification are two separate processes, and God’s Mercy is despite His Justice, because of Jesus’ Work.

It depends what you mean by Sacrament. Obviously all comes from God, including the power of the Sacraments. Baptism gives us spititual life in Christ. Eucharist gives us graces, strengthening us spiritually and keeping us from sin, having us grow in Christ more. Marriage is marriage, you know. Confirmation opens us up to more of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Holy Orders gives one authority. Confession is the forgiving of one’s sins and bringing them to the state of Grace (ie God shines through you clearly, stain of sin makes this dimmer, and mortal sin makes it completely empty). Anointing of the Sick was for the dying, a final sacrament that sends one off in the state of Grace

 

[Reuben_J]

My question is about how the Sacraments relate to one’s salvation/justification? Do they keep you in good standing with God? Do they erase the penalty of sin?

This is a difficult thing for an evangelical to understand because we don’t differentiate different kinds of grace, as least not as much as Catholics do. When we hear that the sacraments are vehicles of grace we think it means that the sacraments are what causes or keeps us in good standing/favor with God. Because it has been drilled into us that we are “saved by grace”.

I see what you mean. Your earlier questions are right but you understand it differently as suggested in your last sentence.

It is important to always remember that Catholics believe that we can lose our salvation through unconfessed (unforgiven) sins. This is I think a key difference between us.

Thus Sacraments can only achieve what it supposed to but once we fall, we have to undergo the same process of repenting and strengthening ourselves again, and again, and again.

Sacraments are main things to do that but we must also try to repent and be holy, like leading a prayerful and holy life.

Sacraments being outward signs of inwards grace, are the things we participate in to receive those specific graces.

 

[po18guy]

Nope. Faith alone. Sola fide. Fr. Martin Luther firmly believed that one could sin 10,000 times and it would have no effect on their justification - as long as they had faith that Christ was the Messiah. Faith = belief.

How can anyone believe that?

 

[ltwin]

Nope. Faith alone. Sola fide. Fr. Martin Luther firmly believed that one could sin 10,000 times and it would have no effect on their justification - as long as they had faith that Christ was the Messiah. Faith = belief.

First, you’re taking this from a letter fragment, and taking it out of its context. This is the relevant passage of Luther’s letter to Melancthon:

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong [or sin boldly], but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

The last line of this paragraph gets at the point of this letter. It is not espousing antinomianism or that mere belief can absolve of sin. Luther is writing to Melancthon to tell him he is a sinner, and he needs Christ. That is the point. You are a sinner, and you will sin but your hope is not in yourself. It is in Christ. Look to him for he is our salvation.

Specifically, this was in the context of changes to the Catholic Mass in Wittenberg:

After reading that, some people only hear, “Sin boldly and commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day!” Becomes much more clear if we look at the context of the letter. Written to Melenchthon, who was Luther’s “right hand man”, about how to rework the Roman Catholic mass. Specifically, Luther was addressing a declaration from Karlstadt that said that it was a sin to withhold the wine from the laity. This declaration created a lot of controversy in Wittenberg. Some people agreed with Karlstadt, but some people disagreed.

Luther was telling Melanchthon, “Listen, if you change the mass, you will be sinning because you will be creating discord within the church. If you don’t change the mass, you will be sinning, because the Bible is clear that the bread and the wine should be shared with the laity. So you should go ahead and sin boldly by making the changes to align the mass with Biblical teachings. It’s the right thing to do.” Melanchthon understood and performed the first Evangelical sharing of the bread and the wine with a few students.

Luther is giving Melancthon advice on how to make godly decisions in tough situations.One cannot avoid sin and injustice in this life, which is why we must do our best and place our hope in Christ.

Continued in next post.

 

[ltwin]

Ryan Reeves at the Gospel Coalition delves into the deeper meaning of this phrase:

A few things stand out in this paragraph. First, the slogan itself is placed in a wider reflection where Luther stressed to Melanchthon his sinfulness in order to grasp the cross. The statement is not: ‘Love God’ (justification) and ‘sin boldly’ (anti-sanctification). Rather it is the same point Luther defended at the trial at Worms: the Law shows us our inability to contribute anything to justification.

The rest of the paragraph drives to this same conclusion. Of course, the hyperbole towards the end about sin being covered in Christ ‘even if we were to kill or commit adultery’ is arresting. But it should also be said that Melanchthon was not a murderer or an adulterer. He was an older brother, not a prodigal son. Luther’s point is that, even in the most inconceivable example of ongoing sin, Christ’s atonement covers the sinner. This is hyperbole about the old man who hangs on and still tempts us, not about how justified sinners will actually commit adultery and murder each day.

Lastly, the last line of the paragraph is a real gem, and gives us the final clue as to Luther’s pastoral concern for brother Melanchthon: you’re a sinner, man, get used to it. And the more you get used to it, the more the cross will make sense as the ground of your entire life.

It is helpful, too, to notice that Luther never speaks in this hyperbole to layfolks in his preaching. Nothing comes close, though he is always clear to stress the inability of sinners to save themselves. When discussing the Christian life Luther never instructs someone to ‘sin boldly’, but instead tells them to focus on the cross and let the Spirit do the real work in us. He abhors those who think he is advocating active sin and rebukes Antinomianism. As a pastor, Luther would never tell anyone to ‘sin boldly’.

Now to a former Catholic, like Melanchthon, he will hammer on them to stop hanging on to the cycle of penance of his youth. Be a sinner! Own it. Understand that even those who are not struggling with serious sins are still covenant breakers in need of the cross.

So the boldness of sin is the boldness that takes us to the cross. It’s the boldness to admit were really do need Jesus.

Continued in next post.

 

[ltwin]

Luther’s theology here is often criticized without being fully understood. While Luther does say that those justified by faith are outwardly righteous in God’s sight while still sinners inwardly, no where does Luther indicate that this is a permanent condition. As Alister McGrath explains:

Luther does not necessarily imply that this coexistence of sin and righteousness is a permanent condition. The Christian life is not static, as if – to use a very loose way of speaking – the relative amounts of sin and righteousness remain constant throughout. Luther is perfectly aware that the Christian life is dynamic, in that the believer grows in righteousness. Rather, his point is that the existence of sin does not negate our status as Christians.

God shields our sin through his righteousness. This righteousness is like a protective covering, under which we may battle with our sin. This approach accounts for the persistence of sin in believers, while at the same time accounting for the gradual transformation of the believer and the future elimination of that sin. But it is not necessary to be perfectly righteous to be a Christian. Sin does not point to unbelief, or a failure on the part of God; rather, it points to the continued need to entrust one’s person to the gentle care of God.

McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (p. 158).

 

[Arkansan]

No. The doctrine of salvation by faith alone, as articulated by Luther, was that nothing but apostasy could cause a person to lose his or her salvation (he was quite explicit that leading an immoral life would not prevent a Christian from going to Heaven). Against this stands the doctrine of the Catholic Church, which holds that the willful commission of serious sin bars one from Heaven, unless repented of.

The difference between the Catholic doctrine of the sacraments and the Protestant is that the Catholic Church holds that sacraments actually confer grace, whereas most Protestants hold that they merely symbolize it. However, some Protestants, such as Lutherans, agree with the catholic view of the sacraments.

Regarding the division of grace, the principle division is between sanctifying grace and actual grace. Sanctifying grace is the grace by which we are justified. Since sanctifying grace does not exist equally in all the saved, it is possible both for sanctifying grace to be conferred on a person who was previously in a state of sin, as well for an increase of sanctifying grace to be conferred on one who is already saved. Actual grace refers to all of the graces God gives people throughout life to move them to right action and away from sin. Every living person is to some extent under the influence of actual grace.

Every supernaturally meritorious action, which is a good act freely performed under the influence of actual grace and by a person in the state of sanctifying grace in order to please God, results in an increase in sanctifying grace. However, the sacraments are primary means that God instituted for the conferral of sanctifying grace, which is why we have recourse to them. Only three sacraments, baptism, confession, and anointing of the sick, can confer sanctifying grace on a person who is in a state of sin, although all of the sacraments confer an increase in sanctifying grace when received by someone in the state of grace.

Only three of the sacraments are individually necessary for salvation, and this necessity is not strictly absolute in any case. Baptism is necessary since it is the means by which people first enter the state of grace. Confession is necessary for those who have committed mortal sin after baptism (which nearly all adults have), since it is the means Christ designated for fallen Christians to be forgiven. The grace of both of these sacraments can and will be supplied, under certain conditions, to those who have the desire for them but are unable to receive them. Reception of the Eucharist is necessary, not by virtue of its intrinsic effects, but because Christ commanded its reception, consequently one who would refuse it would commit serious sin, and thus not be saved.

 

[po18guy]

Theology of the Titanic. From your “evidence”

“No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

Where did Jesus teach this?

“Go , and sin no more” - Christ

“Be a sinner and let your sins be strong/bold” - Luther

Hitler answers for bodies. Luther answers for souls.

 

[ltwin]

Theology of the Titanic. From your “evidence”

“No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day.”

He was speaking in hyperbole to a trained theologian who was struggling not with adultery or murder but with whether laymen should partake of communion wine. He was not giving a license to commit adultery or murder a thousand times daily. He was telling Melancthon you will always struggle with sin in this life, so own it and trust that God’s sacrifice is big enough to keep you and preserve you and save you. Our faith in Christ–who frees us from the power of sin–must be stronger than our sin.

 

[ltwin]

@Arkansan Then it is odd that he writes so forcefully against the Antinominans–who believed there was no longer any moral law but only grace. Luther denied this.

To be sure, I did teach, and still teach, that sinners shall be stirred to repentance through the preaching or the contemplation of the passion of Christ, so that they might see the enormity of God’s wrath over sin, and learn that there is no other remedy for this than the death of God’s Son. This doctrine is not mine, but St. Bernard’s.[3] What am I saying? St. Bernard’s? It is the message of all of Christendom, of all the prophets and apostles. But how can you deduce from this that the law is to be cast aside? I cannot find such a deduction in my logic textbook. I should like to see or hear the master who could demonstrate it.

When Isaiah 53 [:8] declares that God has “stricken him for the transgression of my people,” tell me, my dear fellow, does this proclamation of Christ’s suffering and of his being stricken for our sin imply that the law is cast away? What does this expression, “for the transgression of my people,” mean? Does it not mean “because my people sinned against my law and did not keep my law”? Or does anyone imagine that there can be sin where there is no law? Whoever abolishes the law must simultaneously abolish sin.

[Some text omitted]

In Romans 2 [:14–15] St. Paul testifies that the Gentiles who did not receive the law from Moses and thus have no law are nevertheless a law to themselves, being obliged to witness that what the law requires is written in their hearts, etc. But the devil devotes himself to making men secure, teaching them to heed neither law nor sin, so that if sometime they are suddenly overtaken by death or by a bad conscience, they have grown so accustomed to nothing but sweet security that they sink helplessly into hell. For they have learned to perceive nothing in Christ but sweet security. Therefore such terror must be a sure sign that Christ (whom they understand as sheer sweetness) has rejected and forsaken them. That is what the devil strives for, and that is what he would like to see.

[Some text omitted]

Why, then, should one wish to abolish the law, which cannot be abolished, yes, which is only intensified by such an attempt? For the law terrifies me more when I hear that Christ, the Son of God, had to fulfill it for me than it would were it preached to me without the mention of Christ and of such great torment suffered by God’s Son, but were accompanied only by threats. For in the Son of God I behold the wrath of God in action, while the law of God shows it to me with words and with lesser deeds.

Clearly, Luther did not make light of sin, nor did he believe there was any security for those who persist in sin.

 

[ltwin]

We also have the Smalcald Articles written by Luther as a summary of Lutheran doctrine. Articles 40-43 clearly indicate that for Christians, repentance must continue until death and that where sin rules, the Holy Spirit has departed and salvation has been lost. Luther clearly condemns the notion that unrepentant sin will not harm one’s salvation.

40 In the case of a Christian such repentance continues until death, for all through life it contends with the sins that remain in the flesh. As St. Paul testifies in Rom. 7:23, he wars with the law in his members, and he does this not with his own powers but with the gift of the Holy Spirit which follows the forgiveness of sins. This gift daily cleanses and expels the sins that remain and enables man to become truly pure and holy.

42 Some fanatics may appear (and perhaps they are already present, such as I saw with my own eyes at the time of the uprising)1 who hold that once they have received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or once they have become believers, they will persevere in faith even if they sin afterwards, and such sin will not harm them. They cry out, “Do what you will, it matters not as long as you believe, for faith blots out all sins,” etc. They add that if anyone sins after he has received faith and the Spirit, he never really had the Spirit and faith. I have encountered many foolish people like this and I fear that such a devil still dwells in some of them.

43 It is therefore necessary to know and to teach that when holy people, aside from the fact that they still possess and feel original sin and daily repent and strive against it, fall into open sin (as David fell into adultery, murder, and blasphemy), faith and the Spirit have departed from them.

44 This is so because the Holy Spirit does not permit sin to rule and gain the upper hand in such a way that sin is committed, but the Holy Spirit represses and restrains it so that it does not do what it wishes. If the sin does what it wishes, the Holy Spirit and faith are not present, 45 for St. John says, “No one born of God commits sin; he cannot sin.” Yet it is also true, as the same St. John writes, “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

 

[fhansen]

The sacraments are actually known as “sacraments of faith”, particularly baptism which is our first formal public profession of faith. They cannot be opposed to faith because they are actually means that God has provided to live or act out our faith. Catholic theology is “built in” to them.

We enter the kingdom via baptism where we’re forgiven, cleansed, made new creations-and become united with God. We later receive the Eucharist/Communion, partaking of Christ, acknowledging that we need continuous relationship/communion with Him and the spiritual nourishment this provides. “Apart from me you can do nothing” John 15:5 “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matt 19:26

If we commit serious or grave sin, we break that communion; we’ve turned our backs on God/love. Our state of justice is compromised or destroyed; salvation is lost. The sacrament of Reconciliation is available to restore us to communion with Him.

All of these sacraments require faith and proper dispositions in order to be efficacious.

 

[ATraveller]

I think most Protestants would agree with that.
I find it bizarre many Catholics here (or at least it seems like it) think Protestants don’t believe living out a Christian life is important. Now I can understand some of the confusion is due to the unhelpful slogan of ‘Once Saved Always Saved’, which should actually be ‘If Saved Always Saved’ as suggested by a CAF member.
Interestingly, some Protestants hold the equally bizarre view that Catholics think a person can keep on sinning because the Confessional is always available. I know that’s definitely not what Catholics actually believe.

My perception is most of the disagreements on this issue are on semantics and very fine details. I try my best to understand some of these things and jargon but I usually fail on many of them. So I just stick to what I was taught, which is along the lines of Faith causes works. If you have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, then you’ll serve Him as His arms and legs and obey His commands in all aspects of your life.

 

[JonNC]

I think when Protestants say “faith alone” what is really meant is we aren’t justified by participating in the sacraments. We are justified by an active and living faith that produces works of love

Again, the problem with the term Protestant.
As a Lutheran for 60 years and an Anglican more recently, I’ve never understood sacraments as works, or contrary to faith alone.
In fact, the term faith alone is short hand for justification by grace alone through faith alone in the work of Christ alone. Sacraments, along with the word, are the means of grace, the way God brings grace to us.
Baptism brings us forgiveness of sins, regeneration, and the beginnings of faith in infants.
The Lord’s Supper brings us forgiveness of sins through His true body and blood.
Confession brings absolution. And even if one doesn’t believe the others are technically sacraments, they too bring graces.
And none of these are our works, but His work in us

 

[AugustTherese]

And none of these are our works, but His work in us

If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema - Council of Trent