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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hermione
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
Click to expand...
]

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
Click to expand...
The problem I see here, is that this quote of Scripture is ripped out of context because it does not include the next few verses:
9 This blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only, or in the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice. 10 How then was it reputed? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith, which he had, being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised, that unto them also it may be reputed to justice: 12 And might be the father of circumcision; not to them only, that are of the circumcision, but to them also that follow the steps of the faithful, that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s just me, but St. Paul seems to be clearly talking about works of the Law, specifically circumcision (which he was just expounding upon in Ch 3). The point is that Abraham was justified before he was circumcized (and way before the Law of Moses), and therefore those who are also uncircumcized are able to be justified as well. Thus, it wasn’t through works of the law that Abraham was justified, it was through his faith obtained through the grace of God(which of course is what Catholics believe); and therefore that those who were uncircumcized in Paul’s time could therefore also be justified by faith. In other words, St. Paul seems to be reinforcing his point to the Jews, that the Law will not justify them, and that uncircumcized can also be justified (since Abraham is their father as well).
 
“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.
 
“Maybe it’s just me, but St. Paul seems to be clearly talking about works of the Law, specifically circumcision (which he was just expounding upon in Ch 3).”

I see your point but disagree. I do agree that the use of the term “law” can be tricky.

Looking over Romans in context, the term “law” generally refers to the entire body of law, not just the discrete segment of ceremonial laws (such as circumcision or festivals). The reference to the psalm in verses 7-8 of the passage I quoted don’t make sense if one were to take Paul as talking about circumcision or ceremonial laws. Indeed, this is one of the 7 penitential psalms used by Catholics and others in times of great crisis or moral failure. Thomas More, for example, prayed them over and over preceding his execution. David was not lamenting anything regarding circumcision.

You see the exapanded moral concerns in Chapters 1 and 2 and beyond. In chapter 7, for example, Paul says that the commandment against coveting (the Tenth Commandment) is part of the law. Romans 13 likewise states:
8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,”a] and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/index.php?search=romans 13&version=31#fen-NIV-28261b”)] 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Click to expand...
The law is equated with love and include things like love your neighbor as yourself and do not murder. Paul’s use of the term law in Romans goes beyond circumcision. I don’t think it is reasonable to take his word “law” to simply mean circumcision and/or like ceremonies.

So, using Paul’s broader definition of “law,” means that doing basic, core morality is not part of what justifies us before God. Now, in the very same book, Romans, he does say that we must follow this law as a rule of conduct. But that is different than using it is a ground of justification.
 
T. More said:
“Maybe it’s just me, but St. Paul seems to be clearly talking about works of the Law, specifically circumcision (which he was just expounding upon in Ch 3).”

I see your point but disagree. I do agree that the use of the term “law” can be tricky.

Looking over Romans in context, the term “law” generally refers to the entire body of law, not just the discrete segment of ceremonial laws (such as circumcision or festivals). The reference to the psalm in verses 7-8 of the passage I quoted don’t make sense if one were to take Paul as talking about circumcision or ceremonial laws. Indeed, this is one of the 7 penitential psalms used by Catholics and others in times of great crisis or moral failure. Thomas More, for example, prayed them over and over preceding his execution. David was not lamenting anything regarding circumcision.
Click to expand...

And I will have to respectfully disagree with you here as well. It seems to me that if one were to subscribe to your interpretation, we would have to assume that St. Paul talks about Abraham in relation to works of the law, then expounds on penance (referring to David’s Psalm), then goes back to talking about Abraham and circumcision as a totally unrelated issue. This whole passage seems to make more sense if the Psalm is seen as backing up Paul’s assertion regarding justification by grace through faith, after which goes into more specifics (giving a concrete example of what he is talking about. After all he states in verse 9, “does this blessedness (referring to the Psalm) remain in circumcision only, or in uncircumcision also?” Here he is clearly tying the Psalm in with circumcision (it doesn’t matter if David was lamenting circumcision, the relevent reference is to being “blessed”).
T. More:
You see the exapanded moral concerns in Chapters 1 and 2 and beyond. In chapter 7, for example, Paul says that the commandment against coveting (the Tenth Commandment) is part of the law. Romans 13 likewise states:

The law is equated with love and include things like love your neighbor as yourself and do not murder. Paul’s use of the term law in Romans goes beyond circumcision. I don’t think it is reasonable to take his word “law” to simply mean circumcision and/or like ceremonies.
Click to expand...
I agree that St. Paul uses “Law” to refer to various things. However, when in the middle of a discourse about works of the law and justification, he specifically mentions circumcision vs. uncircumcision as it relates to justification, it is pretty safe to conclude (IMHO) that this is exactly what he means by “works of the law” in this context.
T. More:
So, using Paul’s broader definition of “law,” means that doing basic, core morality is not part of what justifies us before God. Now, in the very same book, Romans, he does say that we must follow this law as a rule of conduct. But that is different than using it is a ground of justification.
Click to expand...
However, St. Paul also does state in the same epistle, that God will “render to each according to his works.” (See Romans 2:5-10)
 
I don’t see it. Paul seems to consistently use the law as a whole throughout. Circumcision is part of the collective law. Paul speaks of the collective law throughout. There is no reason to believe that his use of the word “law” in ch. 3 is suddenly limited to a discrete part of the law.

Also, the general gist of the passage would not make sense. Circumcision is a one-time event. Paul is talking about continued “working” and then appeals to a penitential psalm, which is clearly in ther contect of the moral law.
 
Salvation is through both faith and works. It is directly through faith bu indirectly through works. You could never do enough works to save yourself without Christ. But the fact that you try to do what you can and are willing to help is a necesity for salvation. Salvation is impossible if you are unwilling to change your life.

Its not like if you do this many works you will be saved. It is more along the lines of loving your neighbor as yourself and loving God with all your heart. Love takes sacrifice. If you love them you will help them, you will do the good works.

When Paul says that it is through faith and not the works of the law. He is speaking of the Jewish laws. You don’t have to follow the 617 laws of the Jews. There is no specific laws that you have to follow or specific deads that you have to do in order to be saved. But he does encourage doing good works and helping people. That is completely different than the Jewish laws. Those works are meant to be done out of love for your neighbor and love for God while the laws of the Jews are followed because they are necisarry.
Therefore, it takes both faith and works to be saved.
 
40.png
Contarini:
The classical Protestant belief is that true faith necessarily produces works and will be known by that fact. Yes, there are Protestants who have gotten this mixed up.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Thats called predestination and it is basically saying that we do not have free will to decide to do the good works.
 
40.png
jimmy:
Thats called predestination and it is basically saying that we do not have free will to decide to do the good works.
Click to expand...
Jimmy,

No, predestination is a different issue, though a related one. Predestination is believed by all Christians–the debate is over how God predestines (is it based on His foreknowledge or not, for instance) and how predestination relates to free will. As a Catholic, you are required to believe in both predestination and free will! Different Catholic theologies reconcile the two in different ways–the two traditional alternatives are Thomism and Molinism. There are several relevant articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia on this, which you can read online.

I understand what you mean, though. Classical Reformed theology holds that anyone who has received grace is one of the elect (someone God has chosen to be saved) and therefore will inevitably do good works and eventually be saved. Many Baptists, though, believe in this doctrine of “eternal security” without accepting the traditional Reformed (Calvinist) understanding of predestination.

More to the point, many other Protestants, including my “Wesleyan” tradition, believe that true faith is tied to good works without believing in “eternal security” or in the Calvinist understanding of predestination (which is what you mean by “predestination,” I think). We believe that if someone deliberately turns away from God and chooses to persist in serious sin, then that person will lose true faith and be left with no more than (at best) a “dead faith” like that of the demons. In other words, we can link true faith and good works together without saying that anyone who has once believed will always go on doing good works and finally be saved. You can lose saving faith by deliberately choosing to disobey Christ and persisting in that disobedience. This is of course much closer to the Catholic view than other Protestant theologies are.

However, even Calvinists, contrary to the stereotype, don’t necessarily deny free will. The relationship between free will and predestination is a very complicated matter. Many Calvinists, like Catholic Augustinians and Thomists, would say that human beings do have free will–it’s just that God can cause us to behave in a certain way without violating our free will. This is a matter of dispute among Catholics, but there are great Catholic theologians on both sides.

In Christ,

Edwin
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
**## Exactly. **

For Luther, faith was not assent of the intellect to propositions, but adherence to a person - an adherence which of its very nature included love. Which is why he rejected the analytical approach which distinguished “faith formed by love” from faith not so formed: fides charitate formata, & fides informis respectively.

**That is why “fides” is “sola” - faith is alone, because it is comprehensive; it is not one element in Christian life, divorced from all others; but one which includes and shapes all others. **

**Luther’s approach may be inadequate (though that is debatable) but it is not the easily refuted or stupid or ignorant or anti-Christian thing that it is so often thought to be. Luther was profoundly religious, and profoundly Christian, so he was a man greatly in earnest, unlike so many Christians: and he certainly had no wish to break with the Church of his birth. He did so, because he could not in conscience do otherwise. He cannot be understood if he is seen only through modern RC eyes. **
When he is compared with such giants of the Christian life as St. Paul and St. Augustine, Origen & St. Bernard, this is not frivolous; it is a response to Luther’s career and teaching as a whole. If he had been a spiritual dwarf, he could not have had the volcanic effect that he did. ##
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).
Click to expand...
 
“However, even Calvinists, contrary to the stereotype, don’t necessarily deny free will. The relationship between free will and predestination is a very complicated matter. Many Calvinists, like Catholic Augustinians and Thomists, would say that human beings do have free will–it’s just that God can cause us to behave in a certain way without violating our free will. This is a matter of dispute among Catholics, but there are great Catholic theologians on both sides.”

That is right. Calvinists (I am one) believe that that man is free in some ways and not free in others. For example, man is free to act volitionally. In other words, he always does what he wants. Yet, we believe that the natural man (unsaved) always freely chooses to do evil as inevitably as a poison tree always produces poison fruit. The natural man is free to do what he wants but not what he ought.

T. More
 
Jimmy: Romans does not teach the view you are suggesting. It expressly teaches how the law is not to be used and how it is to be used. The law is not to be used as a means of justification before God in any sense. Justification is by faith and not the works of the law (these include, for example, love your neighbor). Yet, Paul does say that the law is good and holy and is to be used as a standard to measure conduct.

Let’s use an analogy, household rules. A child’s obedience to household rules does not determine whether or not the child is a true son of the father of the house. That is determined by birth. Disobedience to the household rules does determine whether one is in good graces with the father and whether discipline or punishments will be meted out.

The Christian life is similar. Spiritual sonship is determined by new birth, or being born again. The law matters but in terms of preserving the relationship with God.

Anyway, Paul is clear in Romans that he is talking about the law as a package (not just ceremonial laws) and that this law is love. In Chs. 3 and 4 he denies that this can be used as a means of justification. In chs. 7 and elsehwere he identifies it as a continuing standard of conduct.
 
Jimmy: Romans does not teach the view you are suggesting. It expressly teaches how the law is not to be used and how it is to be used. The law is not to be used as a means of justification before God in any sense. Justification is by faith and not the works of the law (these include, for example, love your neighbor). Yet, Paul does say that the law is good and holy and is to be used as a standard to measure conduct.

Let’s use an analogy, household rules. A child’s obedience to household rules does not determine whether or not the child is a true son of the father of the house. That is determined by birth. Disobedience to the household rules does determine whether one is in good graces with the father and whether discipline or punishments will be meted out.

The Christian life is similar. Spiritual sonship is determined by new birth, or being born again. The law matters but in terms of preserving the relationship with God.

Anyway, Paul is clear in Romans that he is talking about the law as a package (not just ceremonial laws) and that this law is love. In Chs. 3 and 4 he denies that this can be used as a means of justification. In chs. 7 and elsehwere he identifies it as a continuing standard of conduct.
 
40.png
Contarini:
Jimmy,

No, predestination is a different issue, though a related one. Predestination is believed by all Christians–the debate is over how God predestines (is it based on His foreknowledge or not, for instance) and how predestination relates to free will. As a Catholic, you are required to believe in both predestination and free will! Different Catholic theologies reconcile the two in different ways–the two traditional alternatives are Thomism and Molinism. There are several relevant articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia on this, which you can read online.

I understand what you mean, though. Classical Reformed theology holds that anyone who has received grace is one of the elect (someone God has chosen to be saved) and therefore will inevitably do good works and eventually be saved. Many Baptists, though, believe in this doctrine of “eternal security” without accepting the traditional Reformed (Calvinist) understanding of predestination.

More to the point, many other Protestants, including my “Wesleyan” tradition, believe that true faith is tied to good works without believing in “eternal security” or in the Calvinist understanding of predestination (which is what you mean by “predestination,” I think). We believe that if someone deliberately turns away from God and chooses to persist in serious sin, then that person will lose true faith and be left with no more than (at best) a “dead faith” like that of the demons. In other words, we can link true faith and good works together without saying that anyone who has once believed will always go on doing good works and finally be saved. You can lose saving faith by deliberately choosing to disobey Christ and persisting in that disobedience. This is of course much closer to the Catholic view than other Protestant theologies are.
Click to expand...
**## This raises - among several problems - that of the security of the Christian and the Sovereignty of God: **

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who hath given them unto me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10)
Those who belong to Christ, can (it would seem) not fall from Christ - unless (and this is a problem) for a while: their final perseverance is certain. An elect murderer, is still elected, not as a murderer, but, as a man who has been elected, has savingly believed, and has then sinned. ISTM that in strict logic Calvinism should teach the sinlessness of the believer.
How do Methodists deal with this (bundle of) problem(s) ? ##
However, even Calvinists, contrary to the stereotype, don’t necessarily deny free will. The relationship between free will and predestination is a very complicated matter. Many Calvinists, like Catholic Augustinians and Thomists, would say that human beings do have free will–it’s just that God can cause us to behave in a certain way without violating our free will. This is a matter of dispute among Catholics, but there are great Catholic theologians on both sides.
Click to expand...
## I always thought it was common RC teaching. So TY for that detail. R.A.Knox expounds and uses the idea in his last book as an Anglican, a meditation on the Agony in the Garden. ##
In Christ,

Edwin
Click to expand...
 
I saw a sign in front of a local Presbyterian church which said: “By the Grace of God we are saved by Faith Alone.”

This thinking is still going strong.

StMarkEofE
 
How can people read the bible and still believe that their works play a role in their salvation?

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
40.png
Contarini:
Jimmy,
…
However, even Calvinists, contrary to the stereotype, don’t necessarily deny free will. The relationship between free will and predestination is a very complicated matter. Many Calvinists, like Catholic Augustinians and Thomists, would say that human beings do have free will–it’s just that God can cause us to behave in a certain way without violating our free will. This is a matter of dispute among Catholics, but there are great Catholic theologians on both sides.

In Christ,

Edwin
Click to expand...
When I say predestination I am refering to the idea that specific people are chosen over others by God and that they can not lose there salvation and they have no choice in the matter and they can not do evil.

The idea that God knew everything beforehand is not what I am refering to. That is Catholic theology, so I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is the idea many protestants have that says that God forces us to act a certain way. It is impossible to reconcile that with free will. To say that God makes us act a certain way but gives us free will is an oxymoron.

Now I would like to make clear what faith is. Faith is a belief in, or an scent to, something that you can not prove. It does not say anything about the way you live or about repentance or anything like that.

I have a problem with the idea that “true faith gives works” because it fosters the idea of eternal security. It basically says that if you did not do works then you never had faith. That is false. Doing works is a choice that is seperate from having faith. Although it can be influenced by faith, it is done out of an act of love.

As James says, faith without works is dead. To live a life with faith but to never take advantage of it or to never make it known, is pointless.
 
**
40.png
Hermione:
How can Protestants believe that they can be saved by faith alone, the Bible directly and clearly says that it is not so!
Click to expand...
**
**## The words of James 2.26 say “…not by faith alone” - but what is the “faith alone” that is rejected ? **
**Is the word “faith” in that verse referring to something that Protestants would condemn as vigorously as Catholics - or not ? **
**Is what James means by “faith” what Paul means by “faith” ? **
**The fact that Protestants see no contradiction between Paul and James, suggests that they do not mean by “faith alone” what James does when he condemns it. **
**Luther rejected the idea that the good works of Christians could be meritorious (clearly those done before justification cannot be meritorious either - though Catholic dogma in its post Tridentine form sees here a nuance that Luther did not, or else did not consider significant, or, rejected) - but he could hardly reject the duty of Christians to do good, as this is taught by the very Paul whom he so greatly admired. **
Words are not enough - the question is, what is the thing that is pointed to, meant by, that word or those words ?
FWIW, I think that Catholics need to realise more just how worthless our works are, if they do not flow from union with Christ. Luther did at least not trust in his works, but in Christ, Who is far better. ##
 
40.png
Stingray:
How can people read the bible and still believe that their works play a role in their salvation?

8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– 9not by works, so that no one can boast. Ephesians 2:8-9

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
Click to expand...
Stingray,

That is refering to the Jewish laws. You do not need to follow laws to be saved. You do not need to follow the 617 laws of the Jews to be saved. But that does not mean you do not need to live a good life and do good works. In fact in Matt25 Jesus specifically says that we will be judged based on our works. They are separated according to the works they have done. These are the words of Jesus which are much better than the words of Paul.
 
40.png
jimmy:
Stingray,

That is refering to the Jewish laws. You do not need to follow laws to be saved. You do not need to follow the 617 laws of the Jews to be saved. But that does not mean you do not need to live a good life and do good works. In fact in Matt25 Jesus specifically says that we will be judged based on our works. They are separated according to the works they have done. These are the words of Jesus which are much better than the words of Paul.
Click to expand...
I don’t see where Jesus says we will be judged by our works in Matthew 25. Would you mind telling me which passage you have in mind specifically? Further, could you explain how the passage in Ephesians is referring to Jewish laws rather than works? Finally, could you explain exactly how “the words of Jesus are much better than the words of Paul?” I look forward to reading your answers.

God bless,
Stingray 🙂
 
Gottle of Geer said:
**## Exactly. **

For Luther, faith was not assent of the intellect to propositions, but adherence to a person - an adherence which of its very nature included love. Which is why he rejected the analytical approach which distinguished “faith formed by love” from faith not so formed: fides charitate formata, & fides informis respectively.

That is why “fides” is “sola” - faith is alone, because it is comprehensive; it is not one element in Christian life, divorced from all others; but one which includes and shapes all others.
Click to expand...

I could buy this argument concerning Luther, if you could convince me that it were true. I have no trouble with the idea that a *fides charitate formata *is “alone”, however I don’t see that Luther believed this at all.

In his writings are evidence to the contrary. In his letter to Melancthon write, “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin.” Isn’t also "“If adultery could be committed in faith, it would not be a sin” attributed to him? By these two quotes alone, it appears to me that for Luther faith is devoid of charity or good works, a *fides informis. *

It seems to me that according to Luther, this type of faith is merely fiducial, which reduces faith to a legal transaction with God, in which intellectual assent is given, and righteousness is “imputed”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top