How can people read the Bible and still believe they are saved by faith alone?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Katholikos:

Here’s what Luther thought of James:

"I will not have him (James) in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books,

## “chief” being the operative word - this is not the same as decanonising the book. ##

though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases. (Preface to James, 1522 edition. Works of Martin Luther, Vol. VI, P. 477-9)

"Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that is not the writing of an apostle.

**## Luther was aware of the ancient debates about the NT canon, and that some books - such as Luke - were not written by apostles but by “apostolic men”. He is doubtful that an apostle **wrote James - not doubtful that it is inspired and canonical. ##

Someday I will use James to fire my stove. (Weimar, “Tischreden” (5) p. 5854)"

Quoted at:

**## That woefully misrepresents the Reformer’s position, by quoting only part of it. Luther includes James and other books in all editions of his NT - as the prefaces show. There is no defence for the less than honest way in which Catholics too often quote him. We RCs can hardly complain of unfair quotations from our authors, if we are unfair. **

---

**Luther’s distaste for James was not absolute, but comparative - because he did not find the theological core of the Gospel in it as clearly as in the Pauline letters. IOW, while recognising all the books as canonical, he operated with a “canon inside the canon”. This is not illegitimate - Esther is hardly as central to the OT message as Exodus or Isaiah, James as central as Romans or John - IOW, he recognised that some books are theologically more central than others. The question is whether his choice of which were not central - such as James - is fair to the books in question. He can probably be said to have underestimated Revelation, for example. **

---

Luther’s tendency to hyperbole is also too often overlooked - yet Catholics have no problem with hyperbolic statements in Catholic authors. Luther has been very unfairly handled.

---

I doubt the web-page was put together by someone who was familiar with Luther. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Katholikos:

Here’s what Luther thought of James:

"I will not have him (James) in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books,

## “chief” being the operative word - this is not the same as decanonising the book. ##

though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases. (Preface to James, 1522 edition. Works of Martin Luther, Vol. VI, P. 477-9)

"Only the papists accept James on account of the righteousness of works, but my opinion is that is not the writing of an apostle.

**## Luther was aware of the ancient debates about the NT canon, and that some books - such as Luke - were not written by apostles but by “apostolic men”. He is doubtful that an apostle **wrote James - not doubtful that it is inspired and canonical. ##

Someday I will use James to fire my stove. (Weimar, “Tischreden” (5) p. 5854)"

Quoted at:

**## That woefully misrepresents the Reformer’s position, by quoting only part of it. Luther includes James and other books in all editions of his NT - as the prefaces show. There is no defence for the less than honest way in which Catholics too often quote him. We RCs can hardly complain of unfair quotations from our authors, if we are unfair. **

---

**Luther’s distaste for James was not absolute, but comparative - because he did not find the theological core of the Gospel in it as clearly as in the Pauline letters. IOW, while recognising all the books as canonical, he operated with a “canon inside the canon”. This is not illegitimate - Esther is hardly as central to the OT message as Exodus or Isaiah, James as central as Romans or John - IOW, he recognised that some books are theologically more central than others. The question is whether his choice of which were not central - such as James - is fair to the books in question. He can probably be said to have underestimated Revelation, for example. **

---

**His relatively low estimate of Revelation can hardly be ascribed to anti-Papist bias. And Baruch 6 would have been very handy as a condemnation of certain “Papist” practices. So the idea that he rejected books out of anti-RC bias is far too over-simple. **

---

Luther’s tendency to hyperbole is also too often overlooked - yet Catholics have no problem with hyperbolic statements in Catholic authors. Luther has been very unfairly handled.

I doubt the web-page was put together by someone who was familiar with Luther. ##

 

[Robert_in_SD]

T. More:

So, for the Catholics, I would still ask just for your understanding of what way works are necessary for justification. Do they merit pardon for sin? If not, what do they do? You don’t have to cite confessional formulas, just let me know how you understand things. Thanks

Hello T. More;

I’ve read most of your posts and skimmed all of them. Your view on salvation is very similar to my understanding of the Catholic view.

We Catholics do not believe that one can earn the right to Salvation, in the sense of a commercial or contractual payment for good works.

It is only by grace that we are saved. That grace is a gift offered by God the Father through his Son, Jesus Christ. To obtain that gift of grace we must repent, believe in the Gospel, be baptized, and obey God’s moral laws (I.e. the Ten Commandments, the beatitudes, etcetera, as opposed to the ritual Mosaic ceremonial laws of the OT.) If we hold to these, we remain in a state of grace - i.e. we remain justified. If we die in that state of grace, we merit final salvation. If, however, we commit mortal sin, we are no longer in a state of grace.

We will not regain a state of grace without first repenting and asking God’s forgiveness. For Catholics, the normative method for regaining this state of grace is by the sacrament of confession.

So where do works come in? We believe that works performed while in a state of grace - in which we necessarily recognize that we can never merit our own salvation by works of law - have the salvific effect of infusing God’s grace, and keeping us from mortal sin. Moreover, we believe that these works that affect our salvation are not our own works but are only made possible by Christ through us ("… so no man may boast.")

There is a book written by Robert Sungenis, called “Not By Faith Alone” that is a Catholic response to the doctrine of Sola Fide. It is a very detailed comparison of the Catholic and Protestant views. I highly recommend it if you’re sincerely looking for the Catholic point of view on Salvation.

Charity,
Robert in SD

P.S. Thomas More is one of my very favorite saints.

 

[robertjohn]

The whole misunderstanding is based on the word “faith”. Faith is supposed to mean “commitment to Christ”. Therefore it refers not only to knowledge of Christ’s existance but following his teachings to the honest best of our ability. This infers both a moral, and social justice aspect to the gospel.

Unfortunately, many Christians (including Roman Catholics) often prefer the idea of Faith referring to the knowledge of Christ’s existance with following is teachings being “optional” or vain faith.

Are we saved by our works? Paul suggests we are saved by the action of this loving God on the cross. As a result of this, our answer should be to follow his teachings ( a large part of which is teachings of social justice).

 

[MariaG]

posted by T. More
So, for the Catholics, I would still ask just for your understanding of what way works are necessary for justification. Do they merit pardon for sin? If not, what do they do? You don’t have to cite confessional formulas, just let me know how you understand things. Thanks

For me, this sums up how I understand that works are necessary for justification.
Matthew 25:31 - 46 I encourage you to read for your self. A condensed version follows.

In this gospel, Jesus tells us about how men will be judged. He will first separate the two groups into the sheep and goats. He will then tell the sheep to come to the kingdom of heaven for God is well pleased with them for when He was thirsty, they gave Him drink, clothed Him, etc.

The goats He will tell to depart from Him because they did none of these things.

Both groups asked when did they do this or not do this to Him? “Whenever you did it for any of my people, no matter how unimportant they seemed, you did it for me.”

This clearly is not faith alone.

Pardon for sin? No. Only God forgives sin. Nothing we do can earn forgiveness for sin. But if we confess with our mouths but do nothing, that is no faith at all.

I hope this helps a little.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[T.More]

“P.S. Thomas More is one of my very favorite saints.”

Robert - You are very perceptive! I did not know if anyone would perceive the meaning of T. More. More was an extraordinary man. Even as a Protestant I appreciate his resistance to the disunity brought on by the pretext of Henry VIII. I think there were good reasons for reformation but Henry’s were not among them.

BTW, thanks for the explanation.

 

[T.More]

Let me ask this. You have two people who die. The first used to be in a state of grace but fell from it by mortal sin (which was not cured). The second remained in a state of grace, which necessarily involves refraining from sin (at least some types, such as mortal). The fundamental difference in the status of the two is their works. Wouldn’t that give the second man cause to boast about his righteousness, which exceeded that of the first man?

Thanks

 

[MariaG]

posted by T. More

Let me ask this. You have two people who die. The first used to be in a state of grace but fell from it by mortal sin (which was not cured). The second remained in a state of grace, which necessarily involves refraining from sin (at least some types, such as mortal). The fundamental difference in the status of the two is their works. Wouldn’t that give the second man cause to boast about his righteousness, which exceeded that of the first man?

Thanks

Wasn’t it Paul who said we are not saved by our works lest any man boast?

Our Salvation is a free gift from God. We are justified by our works(As Abraham was). But we still do not have a right to boast of them because it is only through God’s Grace that we did good works in the first place.

I read but tend to avoid discussions when they start getting to the finer points of Salvation, Justification and Sanctification, that seems to be where you are headed. And for clarification, you may wish to start using such terms for the discussion.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Steven Merten,

I didn’t have time to read every post but I wanted to take a crack at answering why some Protestants believe that Jesus’ words are not for the church. (I believe they are and am not a proponent of sola scriptura.) This belief is not linked directly to sola scriptura but to a system of theology called dispensationalism.

Dispensationalists believe that the Bible teaches seven ages or eras (hence dispensations) in salvation history. Jesus lived in the Age of Law and his words only applied to that Age. We are in the Age of Grace. These are the fifth and sixth Ages. The final Age will be the Millenium.

Dispensationalists also believe that, after the rapture of the church, the world will revert back to the Age of Law for the final seven years of history and then the Gospels will apply, and those on the earth will need to heed Jesus’ words again. They also believe that the Temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem during or right befire this seven year period. Not all dispensationalists agree on when the rapture will occur. Some before the seven years, some in the middle of the seven years and some believe it comes at the end.

I’m doing this from memory so I hope I got it right but that’s basically it in a nutshell. Not every Protestant who believes in sola scriptura holds to dispensationlism. Calvinists, meaning Presbyterians, Reformed and some Baptists, hold to what is called the redemptive-historical scheme of salvation history, and I believe the Catholic Church might fall into this category, too. If I’m wrong on this last point, someone please correct me.

Blessings,
Gene

 

[T.More]

Maria: Yes Paul did say that. He also stated the reasons why boasting is excluded, which I think relates to justification not being by works.

 

[HeirofChrist]

Hermione:

How can Protestants believe that they can be saved by faith alone, the Bible directly and clearly says that it is not so!

The faith James writes about is in the exsitence in one God. Even Muslims hold to a single god. That doesn’t save them. Faith IN the Triune God and the saving work of Jesus is what counts.

James 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well. The demons also believe, and shudder.

I can explain: If you note the context, James is talking about being justified (shown of demonstrated to be righteous) before men.

James 2:18 Yes, a man will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

James 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness;” and he was called the friend of God.

The "called friend of God is not, to my knowledge in the OT, but in those who knew his actions. The justification before God was accounted when Abraham believed, before his did a work to prove it amoung men.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

T. More:

Let me ask this. You have two people who die. The first used to be in a state of grace but fell from it by mortal sin (which was not cured). The second remained in a state of grace, which necessarily involves refraining from sin (at least some types, such as mortal). The fundamental difference in the status of the two is their works. Wouldn’t that give the second man cause to boast about his righteousness, which exceeded that of the first man?

Thanks

Absolutely not ! ​

 

[john_ennis]

T. More:

Let me ask this. You have two people who die. The first used to be in a state of grace but fell from it by mortal sin (which was not cured). The second remained in a state of grace, which necessarily involves refraining from sin (at least some types, such as mortal). The fundamental difference in the status of the two is their works. Wouldn’t that give the second man cause to boast about his righteousness, which exceeded that of the first man?

Thanks

Oh, man–I’m so glad you asked it that way. It perfectly parallels Paul’s example of the widows in 1 Tim 5:11-15. The only difference between the young widows bringing “judgment on themselves” or not, had nothing to do with a difference in faith, per se. It was about whether they were placed on the list of widows, which could lead them to break a pledge not to remarry.

I’ve been wanting to hear what people thought of this passage as it answers the Protestant understanding that our obedience is a spontaneous response to our faith, and has no effect on our salvation. Even to Matthew 25, a sola fide Christian will say, “Christ isn’t judging our works; he is presenting them as proof of the faith which alone is saving us.” This cannot be stated in the passage from Timothy, for the same person (the young widow) stands to be saved or not, depending on the occasion of sin which is brought about by placing her on the list of widows.

Oh, to your question, TMore: no boasting. You don’t boast, as Christ is staggering under the cross, that you have acknowledged him, and another has not.

Peace.
John

[BTW, your Man For All Seasons is a model who’s never far from my mind.]

 

[john_ennis]

HeirofChrist:

The faith James writes about is in the exsitence in one God. Even Muslims hold to a single god. That doesn’t save them. Faith IN the Triune God and the saving work of Jesus is what counts.

James 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well. The demons also believe, and shudder.

I can explain: If you note the context, James is talking about being justified (shown of demonstrated to be righteous) before men.

James 2:18 Yes, a man will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

James 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness;” and he was called the friend of God.

The "called friend of God is not, to my knowledge in the OT, but in those who knew his actions. The justification before God was accounted when Abraham believed, before his did a work to prove it amoung men.

So James speaks of deeds here only as serving to justify us before men? “A person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (verse 24) Is James saying this because some of his audience mistakenly thought they were justified before men by faith alone?! Somehow men were judging each other based on faith aside from works, and James felt compelled to correct this?

“Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (verse 17)
This is about salvation, from the start. Read, and you’ll not sense the lack of cohesion necessary for James to be speaking of the insufficiency of a simple belief in god one minute, then how to show men that you are justified at another point, then the need to know God. Insert verse twenty-two ahead of your citation of verse 23; the true context of the whole passage is about works completing faith. I don’t know of the Bible implying anywhere that we should ever be concerned about how to appear justified before men.

Peace.
John

 

[HeirofChrist]

HeirofChrist:

The "called friend of God is not, to my knowledge in the OT, but in those who knew his actions. The justification before God was accounted when Abraham believed, before his did a work to prove it amoung men.

Allow me to correct myself. Abraham IS called friend of God. I think it is from Isaiah. I was reading my Bible in a relatively random place the night after I posted it, and there it was. I am thinking God somehow got me to read that, for time and chance are in the hands of the Lord, should he want to them.

In any event, I repeat: look at the context. James is talking about being justified (shown to be righteous) before men, and Paul writes about justification before God. Does not God look at the heart and men notice only the actions?

 

[MariaG]

posted by T. MoreMaria: Yes Paul did say that. He also stated the reasons why boasting is excluded, which I think relates to justification not being by works.

I think you need to show me where Paul says we are not justified by our works because that completely contradicts James.

:bible1: James 2:21-24 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22Do you see that faith was woking together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?23And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24** You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.**

There is a tract here that defines Salvation, Sanctification and Justification. catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

I will reread it, why don’t you read it and we can discuss more.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Robert_in_SD]

T. More:

Let me ask this. You have two people who die. The first used to be in a state of grace but fell from it by mortal sin (which was not cured). The second remained in a state of grace, which necessarily involves refraining from sin (at least some types, such as mortal). The fundamental difference in the status of the two is their works. Wouldn’t that give the second man cause to boast about his righteousness, which exceeded that of the first man?

Hello again T.More;

The fundamental difference in the status of the two is that one is in a state of God’s grace while another has rejected that state of grace. So the works of the first person were not the cause for her being in a state of grace. Her boast, if any, is in the Lord Jesus Christ. But she cannot boast - as Paul warns - of being the architect of her own justification and salvation. She did not merit her salvation as a state of grace cannot be merited, but can only come as God’s gift through Jesus Christ.

Another ambiguity in our conversation is what you and I may mean when we use the term “works.” Do you mean any good works, or works of the law. And if you mean works of the law, are you referring to works of the Mosaic law only, or those works, plus God’s commandments - i.e. Love God, Love your neighbor, etc. Works that have no salvific effect are those works of the Mosaic law - i.e. circumscision. Works that assist with one’s salvation are those related to God’s moral law - i.e. obeying the Commandments, the Beatitudes, etc. And as I indicated earlier, even these works have no salvific effect if they are not performed by a person who is in a state of grace. And indeed, they can only have salvific effect because they are Christ’s workings through the person - thus no boasting.

Peace and Charity,

 

[T.More]

“I think you need to show me where Paul says we are not justified by our works because that completely contradicts James.”

I know. Sometimes it seems as if Protestants get their doctrine of salvation from Paul and the Catholics don’t go beyond James.

 

[T.More]

I would look through Romans 3 and 4. Anywhere he is an excerpt using the same illustration James uses (Abraham). Rom. 4:1-4:

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about–but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”a]

4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him

 

[T.More]

“I will reread it, why don’t you read it and we can discuss more.”

Ok, I read it. What points do you want to make? I am still not clear on the role of faith according to this.