Help with a question from a Protestant

[JRKH]

I agree with everything you said here. We are “saved unto good works” and the works themselves bring us no merit. We are saved totally by God’s grace. I also agree that James and Paul do not disagree. If a person has no good works, then his faith is dead. Only genuine faith produces good works. How does this tie in with keeping count of sins and having to go to confession to have a mortal sin forgiven? If our act of sin can keep us from heaven, and our ability to avoid sin or going to confession can get us in, how is that not “works based” salvation?

“Mortal sin” - again - consider the term - the words…Sin is an offense to God. To do so mortally is to do so unto death. If one is dead in sin they are not saved - they have essentially turned away from God and God’s gift of salvation.
Having done so - one needs to turn back to God and be restored. Confession provides this.

Additionally - confession provides a way to practice humility and to learn and to grow in holiness. It is truly an under-utilized gift from God.

Just some thoughts

Peace
James

 

[Richard_White]

I agree with everything you said here. We are “saved unto good works” and the works themselves bring us no merit. We are saved totally by God’s grace. I also agree that James and Paul do not disagree. If a person has no good works, then his faith is dead. Only genuine faith produces good works. How does this tie in with keeping count of sins and having to go to confession to have a mortal sin forgiven? If our act of sin can keep us from heaven, and our ability to avoid sin or going to confession can get us in,

Jesus clearly gave the power to forgive sins to His apostles, who passed this ability to his priests and Bishops of today: “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (John 20:23).

Now, I have no idea where this topic came from when, before, we were talking about faith and works together being necessary for salvation. But, I figured I would show you how Jesus Himself instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation for us.

how is that not “works based” salvation?

I don’t understand what you mean by this.

May God bless you and lead you to the Truths of Catholicism!

 

[Lek]

“Mortal sin” - again - consider the term - the words…Sin is an offense to God. To do so mortally is to do so unto death. If one is dead in sin they are not saved - they have essentially turned away from God and God’s gift of salvation.
Having done so - one needs to turn back to God and be restored. Confession provides this.

Additionally - confession provides a way to practice humility and to learn and to grow in holiness. It is truly an under-utilized gift from God.

Just some thoughts

Peace
James

I agree that if we’re going to define “mortal sin”, then I agree that it would have to be a complete turning away from God–walking away from one’s faith.

 

[Lek]

Jesus clearly gave the power to forgive sins to His apostles, who passed this ability to his priests and Bishops of today: “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained” (John 20:23).

Now, I have no idea where this topic came from when, before, we were talking about faith and works together being necessary for salvation. But, I figured I would show you how Jesus Himself instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation for us.

I don’t understand what you mean by this.

May God bless you and lead you to the Truths of Catholicism!

By works based" I mean that our salvation is based on whether or not we perform certain duties or keep from doing things. For example: I miss mass on Sunday because of my own fault and I die one hour later. This causes me to lose my salvation. Or, even though I’m tired, I get up and go to mass and this allows me to remain in God’s grace. I see this as salvation by what we do, not purely by God’s grace. Anyway, I do agree that we have wandered off the subject of the thread. Sometimes one thing leads to another. Sorry.

 

[pablope]

A non denominational told me that catholics aren’t christians if they follow he church

I told him we have saved the same way grace alone through faith

He responded with

Can you explain why it is that the Council of Trent anathamatized the message of Justification by Faith alone? Can you explain the difference between the catholic view of infused grace and the protestant view of imputed grace?

Catholic and protestant views…follow a same path…up to a point…then diverge. It is explained more here:

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

Justification By Faith
By Dr. William Marshner

*Stages of Justification
Catholic and Protestant views on the respective roles of grace, faith and works cannot be compared meaningfully, unless one specifies what stage of the justificational process one is talking about. In the preparatory stage, for instance, in which prevenient graces first stir a person towards an interest in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists are at one in saying “sola gratia.”2 A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and how far it is a matter of words. Finally, however, there comes a third stage, that of actual Christian life, with its problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to “walk” with God, to progress in holiness.
It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge. Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, Protestant piety has no obvious place for the self- sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety. At each stage, neither the apparent agreements nor the apparent disagreements can be understood without looking at certain metaphysical quarrels, the chief of which is over the very existence of what
Catholics call “grace.”

 

[JRKH]

I agree that if we’re going to define “mortal sin”, then I agree that it would have to be a complete turning away from God–walking away from one’s faith.

Bingo…and if there is a complete turning away from one’s faith - there needs to be a way to be restored…Confession, or more properly the sacrament of reconciliation, is the means by which this is accomplished.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

By works based" I mean that our salvation is based on whether or not we perform certain duties or keep from doing things. For example: I miss mass on Sunday because of my own fault and I die one hour later. This causes me to lose my salvation. Or, even though I’m tired, I get up and go to mass and this allows me to remain in God’s grace. I see this as salvation by what we do, not purely by God’s grace.

But here is the thing…If faith without works is dead - then our salvation DOES depend on what we do…also on why we do it.
Yet the base - the foundation - remains faith and not works. Therefore it is inaccurate to describe the Catholic faith as “works based”.

Anyway, I do agree that we have wandered off the subject of the thread. Sometimes one thing leads to another. Sorry.

Amen…
Happens all the time around here…

Peace
James

 

[Lek]

Bingo…and if there is a complete turning away from one’s faith - there needs to be a way to be restored…Confession, or more properly the sacrament of reconciliation, is the means by which this is accomplished.

Peace
James

If we turn away from the faith, we do need a way to be restored. We do this by turning back to Christ in true repentance, asking for forgiveness, and rededicating ourselves to him. I guess Protestants just don’t understand the need to have a separate sacrament for this purpose.

 

[Lek]

But here is the thing…If faith without works is dead - then our salvation DOES depend on what we do…also on why we do it.
Yet the base - the foundation - remains faith and not works. Therefore it is inaccurate to describe the Catholic faith as “works based”.

That’s one reason I believe the Catholic church is a true pathway to salvation. I always thought that we really are not as far apart concerning faith and works as most people seem to think. When you follow it back, we all believe that without the power of faith in Christ, we cannot be saved. I do know this, though. Even though as a christian I always strive to do his will, as scrupulous as I am, I would be constantly living in dread if I had to keep track of my sins and decide if they were mortal or venial and then go to confession. To me that element of Catholicism seems to take the joy out of following Christ.

 

[steve_b]

He responded with

Can you explain why it is that the Council of Trent anathamatized the message of Justification by Faith alone?

Show him scripture. “By faith alone” is in scripture. The problem for your friend is, NOT is in front of it. James 2:24
A:

Can you explain the difference between the catholic view of infused grace and the protestant view of imputed grace?

Catholics view grace as really being received, and working in the individual as through receiving the sacraments. ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=infused&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

 

[Vico]

A non denominational told me that catholics aren’t christians if they follow he church

I told him we have saved the same way grace alone through faith

He responded with

Can you explain why it is that the Council of Trent anathamatized the message of Justification by Faith alone? Can you explain the difference between the catholic view of infused grace and the protestant view of imputed grace?

Is this person Lutheran or another denomination? For Lutheran the following is helpful.

This is from the JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, the conclusion first:41.Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

Earlier text:**4. Explicating the Common Understanding of Justification

**
***4.1 Human Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification

---

19.We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God’s judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God’s grace. Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say:

20.When Catholics say that persons “cooperate” in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities.
​

21.According to Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action. Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace. When they emphasize that a person can only receive (mere passive) justification, they mean thereby to exclude any possibility of contributing to one’s own justification, but do not deny that believers are fully involved personally in their faith, which is effected by God’s Word. [cf. Sources for 4.1].
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

​

 

[JRKH]

If we turn away from the faith, we do need a way to be restored. We do this by turning back to Christ in true repentance, asking for forgiveness, and rededicating ourselves to him. I guess Protestants just don’t understand the need to have a separate sacrament for this purpose.

Understood…Perhaps if I were to explain it this way. Think of the Sacrament of reconciliation as a type of “re-baptism”.
As you say - one needs restoration. They left the Church and Christ behind. So in a sense, when they come back they are entering anew. Same repentance, same desire to be accepted into the kingdom. So why not the same sacrament? Baptize them again.

Of course we don’t do this because we recognize some differences between the initial entry into the Church and re-entering. Still there is a need, a very profound need for this restoration. Confession and absolution then becomes this “re-baptism”.

As for this being a separate sacrament it is simply because, Christ granting the authority of forgive (or retain) sins to the Apostles and their successors is a separate gift from the authority to baptize. Therefore - 2 sacraments.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

That’s one reason I believe the Catholic church is a true pathway to salvation

.

I always thought that we really are not as far apart concerning faith and works as most people seem to think. When you follow it back, we all believe that without the power of faith in Christ, we cannot be saved.

Amen

I do know this, though. Even though as a christian I always strive to do his will, as scrupulous as I am, I would be constantly living in dread if I had to keep track of my sins and decide if they were mortal or venial and then go to confession. To me that element of Catholicism seems to take the joy out of following Christ.

Yes - scrupulosity can be a heavy cross to bear.

In truth - I have to agree with you that many people seem to make the whole matter of sin, venial or mortal - and the act of confessing - too legalistic.

Far better to focus our energies on loving God and neighbor and doing that which builds up Love. If we focus on the good - on the Love - it become harder and harder to sin seriously. Such things are simply not part of our character.

Focus on that which you wish to become - not on what you wish to avoid.

Just some thoughts.

James

 

[PoorKnight]

To the O.P.

For the first part, ask them what they mean by “Catholics aren’t Christians”, then, whatever they respond, ask “How did you come by that conclusion?” Usually by then you have specific topics to discuss. If they merely repeat “Catholics aren’t Christians” show them paragraph 161 of the Catechism.

For the Grace differences, first off read the Catechism paragraphs on Grace. There is no “the” protestant view. There are many views in Protestantism.

For Faith Alone, let them know that Trent (and all of Christian history prior to 500 years ago) condemns Faith Alone because Scripture does. The Scripture that immediately comes to mind is James 2:14-26.

Many Protestants argue that James 2:18 is the thesis statement, that James is talking about being Justified in front of men. In reality, if you read the whole letter, verse 14 is the thesis statement: “What good is it, you ignoramus, if you say you have faith but have not works? Can that faith save you?” The context is salvation, and whether or not faith that does not have works can save you.

As others have pointed out, the only place in Scripture that the phrase “Faith Alone” appears is James 2:24, but it’s preceded by “Not by”. Every argument against Faith Alone must deal with this verse. But be aware that in the end, the one making the argument wants you to interpret the phrase “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” to mean “You see that a man is justified by faith alone and not by works” which is a direct reversal of the plain text of Scripture.

Another argument will be that works are mere evidence of faith. That it is the faith alone that does the saving, and works follow as gratitude for salvation. Again this contradicts both James 2 and the rest of Scripture: James 2:26 says that as a body with out a soul is dead, so is faith without works. If this objection was true, then a body is actually alive on it’s own… the soul comes sometime later for some other reason than to give life.

The rest of Scripture shows this as well. The following is my paraphrase of Ken Hensley’s explanation. Both Catholics and most Protestants believe that it is God who approaches us first. Then, as a result we intellectually assent to God. It is here we diverge: Catholics believe we must obey God, and then God blesses us. Many - not all - protestants believe that because we intellectually assent, God then blesses us, then out of gratitude we obey God.

But what does Scripture show us? If we look at the story of Noah we see that God moves first: God approaches Noah and tells him that God is going to destroy the world because it is full of sin. God then says He wants to save Noah, his family and make a covenant with him. God then gives Noah instructions to build the Ark.

The question is: Did God set up a system where Noah HAD to build the Ark in order to be “saved” and receive the blessing (covenant). OR did Noah just intellectually assent, then God lifted him, his family and the animals off the earth while the flood came, then blessed Noah, gave him the covenant and AFTER Noah spent 120 years building the Ark out of gratitude?

We see the same pattern on virtually every page of Scripture: Did God set it up so that Abraham have to move his family in order to gain the promised land? Did God set it up so that Naaman had to wash in the Jordan in order to be cleansed of leprosy? Did God set it up so that Paul had to go to Damascus in order to be cured of blindness?

The answer to all is: YES.

Why would God give us His inspired written word with this pattern all over the place, then suddenly (after 1500 years) change His mind?

What the Catholic Church teaches is that we are saved by Grace Alone. There is nothing we can do about this: we cannot merit it, nor can we stop God from giving it. That Grace is so amazing it empowers both our ability to believe AND our ability to do meritorious works. This is witnessed to in passages like Phil 2:12-13 where it is God working in us to both will and work.

Part of the misunderstanding on the part of many protestants comes from the words “faith” and “believe”. Many protestants will say that the words “faith” and “believe” mean a kind of intellectual assent only. Two problems with this: first off, both the phrases “to have faith” and “to believe” are both verb forms - something we DO, even if it’s only neurons firing; secondly that definition is wrong. According Fr. Richard Simons (teacher of Koine Greek for 30 years) the word for “faith” is the same as the one for “trust”. Is there a difference between “intellectual assent” and “trust”? Yes. Think of watching a famous tightrope walker going over Niagara Falls several times, each time with a 200lb weight on his back. Then he asks the audience if they think he can do it again, this time with a person on his back instead. The audience responds loudly “Yes, we believe!” Then the tightrope walker asks for a volunteer…

Trust means intellectually assenting to the point of putting it into action. That is the Greek meaning of the word “Faith” in Scripture.

Also we see this is the definition of “believe” in Scripture as well. Scripture defines “Believe” by saying that the opposite of “believe” is “disobey” in Jn 3:36.

 

[PoorKnight]

continued:
Also know that when Paul refers to “works” or “works of the law” he is usually referring to Mosaic ritualistic cleanliness laws, not good works. The phrase “works of the law” is only used in two places - that we know of - in ancient writings: Paul’s letters and a scroll from the Dead Sea community, scroll 4QMMT. The scroll supports that Catholic understanding of the phrase, not the way some protestants view it.

Thankfully we can agree with our Protestant brothers and sisters that Faith is absolutely essential. I believe the Catholic Church also gives a primacy to the intellectual act of Faith. However, works - in Christ, empowered by His Grace - are essential as well.

Finally I’ll just point out the parable of the Sheep and the Goats. Have your protestant friend read that. Note that BOTH Sheep and Goats call Jesus “Lord”. Everywhere Scripture teaches how one is judged, it is ALWAYS by their deeds.

“And now faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the Greatest of these is…” 1 Cor 13:13 for answer.

Hope this long-winded explanation helped.
God Bless,
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

 

[guanophore]

A non denominational told me that catholics aren't christians if they follow he church

Most of them say this because they don’t understand what the Church teaches. But in this case, your nondenom has been contaminated by Calvanistic heresies created at the Reformation, and these are believed to be what the Apostles taught.

I told him we have saved the same way grace alone through faith

He responded with

Can you explain why it is that the Council of Trent anathamatized the message of Justification by Faith alone?

The Apostles taught that faith is never “alone”. Church Militant has given you some excellent material which I think will cover this. A good response is "do you know where in Scripture the words “faith alone” appear together?

It is:

James 2:24
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Actually Lutherans and Calvanists ( the spiritual ancestors of most non-denoms today) agree that a saving faith is a faith that WORKS! They will say that, if a person is truly saved, that person will produce those works that befit repentance, and will want to follow the commandments of Christ because they love Him.

Lutherans also affirm that the “faith alone” to which Luther referred has that quality of a faith that produces good works.

Can you explain the difference between the catholic view of infused grace and the protestant view of imputed grace?

This one is pretty simple. “imputed” is an accounting term that was used by Paul to talk about the state of being justified before God. Those who have received the Apostolic faith (Orthodox and Catholics) know that when God “imputes” (credits) something, an actual deposit is made to the account. Jesus does not just doctor the books - he infuses our “pours” grace into us.

The view of most ecclesial communties coming out of the Reformation was that we are just snow covered dunghills - not really changes qualitatively, but just “declared” righteous based on Christ’s sacrifice. No actual credit or deposit was made into the account.

Too late to edit my first post. To put it more simply --Catholics can earn their salvation, but only because they have faith in Christ and are enabled by the Holy Spirit. Protestants cannot earn their salvation, but are saved only because of their faith in Christ. They are enabled by the Holy Spirit to do good works, but these works have no merit as far as salvation goes. Good works are evidence that a person has true faith. Without works there is no faith. Faith and works are all wrapped up into one.

I confess that I have not read the whole thread, so it may have already been said that Catholics don’t believe we can “earn salvation” in any way, shape or form.

The fact that we are able to produce good works that sanctify us is the work of the Holy Spirit, not ours. It makes more sense to understand this in terms of “worthy” (the medieval concept of merit). Catholics believe that we are actually MADE worthy by the Holy Spirit (not just “declared” worthy when we are not), and that the HS works in us to continually produce those works that make us worthy of repentance. In the industrial revolution, the modern concept of merit changed, so it is misunderstood often in a theological context as meaning “earn”.

 

[guanophore]

As I said above James must be interpreted in light of the whole new testament. How about the following?

Ephesians 2:8-9New International Version (NIV)

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

I notice that those communities that have been heavily influenced by Calvanism quote this passage, but Catholics do not stop quoting at nine, we include 10!

Eph 2:8-10
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God - 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship,** created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. **

We do not separate the good works from the fact of salvation. They are the reason why we are saved. Both the faith to be saved,a nd the faith to produce good works, emanate from grace. Works cannot save us. Faith cannot save us either. Only grace saves us. Faith is the faculty through which we access grace, and the works are the expression of a saving faith, which is FAITH THAT WORKS. They are not separated from salvation, nor is salvation based upon them.

The reward spoken of here us probably an earthly reward.

Did you find that in scripture?

 You can't say that any person who gives someone a cup of cold water is ensured of salvation because of it.

No, I would not, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

Most people do not know that Martin Luther and most of the leading protestant theologians at the time were invited to the Council of Trent to enter into dialogue with the Church and resolve the dispute. They refused to attend the session in which these issues were addressed, even though they were granted safe passage to and from the Council.

You are right, I am not aware that Luther was ever invited to the Council of Trent. Can you provide a link to a document? My understanding is that Luther’s health in the last years of his life was not good. Though he continued to teach at Wittenberg University until the end of his life; his last lecture ended with the words: “I am weak, I cannot go on.” The death of his daughter Magdelena, in 1542, was also very difficult for him (he never seeemd to recover emotionally).

His mental capacities also seemed to be deteriorating, as evidenced by his attitude toward those of different beliefs, especially the Jews. In his later years the aging reformer sentenced all who did not want to convert to his beliefs. The strongly anti-semetic work Jews and their Lies(1543) came out during this period.

Luther made his last trip on January 17, 1546, to his birthplace Eisleben. Although he was drawn with illness, he went to settle a dispute among the Mansfeld Counts. The negotiations ended successfully but he did not have the energy to return to Wittenberg. He died on February 18, 1546 in Eisleben.

I would not expect any invitation to Trent given the ban of the Diet of Worms and his previous excommunication. His work Against the Papacy at Rome Founded by the Devil! he performed his last blow against the Roman Church and was published the year Trent first convened.

Maybe there were other Lutherans invited?

Here is where Catholics and Protestants differ.

Justification by Faith Alone states that the grace of Baptism is what ultimately causes salvation.

I do not think this applies to modern day nondenoms, who do not believe in baptism as a sacrament at all (does not convey grace), or reject water baptism completely. Most believe in a “believers baptism”, where a person is baptized because it is commanded (an ordinance) and that it is an outward sign of an inward grace, that occurred when a person put their faith in Christ.

 It covers over all imperfection of man kind. God sees that grace given through his Son, and ultimately allows the person's salvation. Luther uses the famous example of snow (God's grace) covering a dung heap (man). This salvific grace causes the believer to be compelled to do good works. These good works cover the person with more grace, but ultimately don't do anything, since they already were saved before the good works. If no good works come from a person, then this is supposedly proof that the person did not have true faith to begin with and are not saved.

I think this is a good rendering, except for I am not even sure they think that good works can cover the person with more grace. It seems that some of them do not see grace in amounts at all! Especially those more influenced by Calvanism.

Catholics believe that the grace of Baptism is just the beginning and actually changes the person’s soul for the better, making them more like Christ. Salvation, then, does not come from God seeing Christ covering you with His grace, but rather the resemblance your soul has to His Son. As such, Catholics are then called to do good works. Like Justification by Faith Alone, good works impart grace, but unlike Justification by Faith Alone, the graces imparted through those works change your soul more and more to resemble Christ.

Our separated brethren do agree with the apostolic teaching on transformation of the soul through sanctification. I am unclear on the position of doing good works in the process…

 

[guanophore]

I agree. Once we’ve been justified through faith in Christ, that’s where sanctification comes in. We are continually striving to become more Christ-like. When we accept Christ into our lives it doesn’t just mean that we’ve got a free ticket to heaven. We’ve made a decision to follow Christ. We’ve given our lives over to his will. If someone says he’s believes in Jesus and doesn’t strive to become more like him, then he doesn’t have saving faith.

Do you believe that engaging in good works further the process of sanctification? How do you understand this Scripture?

Phil 2:12-13
much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

That’s exactly my point. Most protestants have a modern evangelical viewpoint, not the original view Martin Luther had of Justification by Faith Alone. The modern evangelical viewpoint extremely different than the original Lutheran, Zwinglian, or Wycliffite theology. Modern protestants don’t realize what the actual “Justification by Faith Alone” that was declared anathema sit at the Council of Trent was. This is why I said that the council is very misunderstood. The definitions have changed dramatically, but the old arguments haven’t.

But that IS the Reformed position! Luther’s concept of justification by faith was that saving faith is faith that works.

Calvin’s was that a person who was saved would demonstrate that saving faith in their works. If it was not evident in their works, they were not saved.

I agree with everything you said here. We are “saved unto good works” and the works themselves bring us no merit.

What do you understand here by the word “merit”? I suspect it sounds to you as if Catholics are saying that we earn or deserve salvation by something we have done, rather than God making us more worthy from the inside out.

Phil 2:12-13
work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

“Merit” or deserving results from God being at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. We become the righteousness of God in Christ, producing the works worthy of the high calling.

If our act of sin can keep us from heaven, and our ability to avoid sin or going to confession can get us in, how is that not "works based" salvation?

Sin separates us from God. The nature of sin has not changed, just because Jesus died to free us from it. If we return to a life of sin, sin still separates us from God.

Confessing our sins enables us to access His grace and to return to a right relationship with Him.

One of the most dangerous of the “once saved always saved” mentality is that the nature of sin has somehow changed, and that it no longer separates us from God.

By works based" I mean that our salvation is based on whether or not we perform certain duties or keep from doing things.

Ahh. Well, salvation is based on a relationship, specifically, our relationship with God. We cannot be saved if we are not in right relationship with Him, and sin separates us from Him.

I miss mass on Sunday because of my own fault and I die one hour later.  This causes me to lose my salvation.

Although this is not accurate, the Mass is the Source and Summit of our faith. Refusing to meet Jesus in the Eucharist is like abandoning Him while He is hanging on the cross.

Or, even though I’m tired, I get up and go to mass and this allows me to remain in God’s grace.

Do you not agree that obedience does keep us in God’s grace?

Those who have received the Apostolic Faith beleive it is possible to fall from grace.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Dear OP,

as a wise priest explained to me once, Martin Luther could not get his mind around the fact that God actually infuses us. He co-mingles with us. He becomes us. He joins with us. We share in his life directly. He gives himself to us in the eucharist so that he can join with us. These are all Christian notions that Martin Luther rejected because he never wrapped his mind around what the scriptures say regarding this and never experienced it himself.

He describes instead that God’s holiness is imputed (impersonally assigned). He describes us a dung heap. And when we are imputed with God’s holiness we are covered up with snow. But we are still a dung heap. (That is his metaphor, not mine). The beautiful snow makes us look nice but there is no infusing, no transformation, no joining. We are still the same dung.

Please consider these two distinct understandings of what it means to be a Christian. But realize that it is Luther’s (and perhaps other protestant’s who follow him) basic issue that they don’t want to believe God would ever want to join with us and become one with us (infuse us with himself). Instead, he covers us up (with Christ) to make us look more palatable, but no infusing happens - just imputing. Imputed means to assign. It is impersonal. We are unaltered.

Think about it. If you know that God wants to join with you. To infuse you, to change you, to let you live with him, this notion of Luther’s really does sound quite disturbingly bland, self loathing, and even insulting or rejecting of God’s offer of love. Makes sense to me that the church would have serious problems with it.

 

[adf417]

Dear OP,

as a wise priest explained to me once, Martin Luther could not get his mind around the fact that God actually infuses us. He co-mingles with us. He becomes us. He joins with us. We share in his life directly. He gives himself to us in the eucharist so that he can join with us. These are all Christian notions that Martin Luther rejected because he never wrapped his mind around what the scriptures say regarding this and never experienced it himself.

He describes instead that God’s holiness is imputed (impersonally assigned). He describes us a dung heap. And when we are imputed with God’s holiness we are covered up with snow. But we are still a dung heap. (That is his metaphor, not mine). The beautiful snow makes us look nice but there is no infusing, no transformation, no joining. We are still the same dung.

Please consider these two distinct understandings of what it means to be a Christian. But realize that it is Luther’s (and perhaps other protestant’s who follow him) basic issue that they don’t want to believe God would ever want to join with us and become one with us (infuse us with himself). Instead, he covers us up (with Christ) to make us look more palatable, but no infusing happens - just imputing. Imputed means to assign. It is impersonal. We are unaltered.

Think about it. If you know that God wants to join with you. To infuse you, to change you, to let you live with him, this notion of Luther’s really does sound quite disturbingly bland, self loathing, and even insulting or rejecting of God’s offer of love. Makes sense to me that the church would have serious problems with it.

Thank you for this. Don’t know about others, but I needed it.

Peace!!!