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

[jimmy]

Stingray:

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

16 And he that had received the five talents, went his way, and traded with the same, and gained other five. 17 And in like manner he that had received the two, gained other two. 18 But he that had received the one, going his way digged into the earth, and hid his lord’s money. 19 But after a long time the lord of those servants came, and reckoned with them. 20 And he that had received the five talents coming, brought other five talents, saying: Lord, thou didst deliver to me five talents, behold I have gained other five over and above.

21 His lord said to him: Well done, good and faithful servant, because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. 22 And he also that had received the two talents came and said: Lord, thou deliveredst two talents to me: behold I have gained other two. 23 His lord said to him:** Well done, good and faithful servant: because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord**. 24 But he that had received the one talent, came and said: Lord, I know that thou art a hard man; thou reapest where thou hast not sown, and gatherest where thou hast not strewed. 25 And being afraid I went and hid thy talent in the earth: behold here thou hast that which is thine.

26 And his lord answering, said to him: Wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed: 27 Thou oughtest therefore to have committed my money to the bankers, and at my coming I should have received my own with usury. 28 Take ye away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him that hath ten talents. 29 For to every one that hath shall be given, and he shall abound: but from him that hath not, that also which he seemeth to have shall be taken away. 30 And the unprofitable servant cast ye out into the exterior darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35** For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: **

36** Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me.** 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying:** Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. **46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

 

[jimmy]

Stingray:

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

I was refering to pretty much the whole of Matt. 25.

I think I may have misspoken on Ephesians. I am probably thinking of Romans or something where it is refering to the Jewish Laws. Sorry about that one.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Stingray:

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

Hi Stingray.If you read John 15;1-6 Any branch[us] that does not bear fruit will be cut off and thrown into the fire [hell]. You are right we will not be judged by our works. Our works will be tested and if proven will recieve its rewards in heaven.Every person will face judgement before the Lord and will be judged according to the 10 commandments. As believers Jesus will step in for us and pay the penalty , Praise God. God Bless

 

[Contarini]

mtr01:

I could buy this argument concerning Luther, if you could convince me that it were true.

Actually your “two quotes” to the contrary are both from the same letter to Melanchthon. Luther may have said similar things elsewhere, but it’s interesting that the only citation people ever give is this one letter. In other words, you are ignoring Luther’s entire theological output in which he explains his position in detail, and concentrating on one single letter to a friend. Don’t you think there is something odd about this method? Luther’s 1535 commentary on Galatians (based on his 1531 lectures) explains his position quite clearly.

The most relevant passage is Luther’s discussion of Gal. 5:6: “faith which worketh by love.” I’m referring to an English translation published in 1953 (Bristol: Burleigh Press), based on the translation of 1575. For the original Latin see WA 40.2:33-38.

Luther begins by rejecting the scholastic view that infused faith does not justify unless formed by charity. “For who will bear to be taught that faith, which is the gift of God through the Holy Ghost infused into our hearts, can stand together with mortal sin?” This is true of a purely “historical” faith, Luther notes (belief that the story of Jesus is true). Paul does not say that faith justifies by love, but rather that faith works by love. Faith in the sense Paul is speaking of cannot be unformed and does not need something else to form it. Charity is “the instrument of faith”–the good works stem from faith and are worked by means of charity. Luther paraphrases Paul’s meaning thus: “he that will be a true Christian indeed, or one of Christ’s kingdom, must be a true believer. Now he believeth not truly, if works of charity follow not his faith. So on both hands, as well on the right hand as on the left, he shutteth hypocrites out of Christ’s kingdom. On the one hand he shutteth out the Jews, and all such as will work their own salvation . . . . On the other hand he shutteth out all slothful and idle persons, which say: If faith justify without works, then let us work nothing, but let us only believe and do what we list. Not so, ye enemies of grace, saith Paul. It is true that only faith justifieth, but I speak here of faith, which, after it hath justified, is not idle, but occupied and exercised in working through love.”

Luther could write as he did to Melanchthon because he knew Melanchthon would not misunderstand him–he knew that Melanchthon was a sincere, scrupulous person whose trouble was that he knew that however hard he tried he could never be righteous enough to please God. “Sin boldly” was a rhetorical exaggeration meaning “don’t worry that God will condemn you even though you continue to sin.” It’s clear from the Galatians commentary and many other places in Luther’s writings that he did not think that “mortal” sin could coexist with true faith. But in terms of the act of justification itself, sin was irrelevant. Luther thought this was vitally important, because people could never have true faith (and thus lead holy lives) as long as they were fixated on their own sins and worrying that God would condemn them. Only once you have accepted God’s free forgiveness (Luther thought), can you do genuinely good works.

Now I think this position is open to a lot of critique. It takes a pastoral approach that may be necessary for some people in some times and places and turns it into a systematic soteriology on which the Church allegedly “stands or falls.” But Luther makes it absolutely clear that he does not think that you can persevere in serious sin and still have true faith. (If, per impossible, you could have true faith and commit adultery a hundred times a day, it’s true that it wouldn’t affect your justification–but that is an impossible situation, because a person with true faith wouldn’t want to commit adultery.)

It’s important to bear in mind that technically Luther regarded all sin as mortal. So when he talks about how we all live in sin, he wasn’t talking about serious, deliberate sin. He was talking about the same sins that the Council of Trent admitted everyone falls into. The difference is that Luther didn’t think there was an intrinsic difference–he thought that speaking irritably to your spouse deserved damnation, and the only way to avoid being damned for everything you did was to put your faith in Christ’s free forgiveness. But once Luther has established that principle, he brings the mortal/venial distinction back (as the passage I quoted shows–see also his sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, commenting on Matt. 5:27-30, in Luther’s Works 21:88). While all sins are covered through Christ’s forgiveness, faith cannot “stand together with mortal sin.” As I’ve shown in a previous post on this thread, confessional Lutheranism entirely agrees with Luther on this point.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

jimmy:

When I say predestination I am refering to the idea that specific people are chosen over others by God

It is unquestionably true that everyone who is saved is saved because they have been chosen by God. Most Catholic theologians have historically been very dubious about the proposition that God just generically chooses to save whoever should happen to repent and believe. Rather, in Western Christianity at least the dominant view has been that God moves the wills of those whom He has chosen to repent and believe. This was the view of Augustine and Aquinas. A variant of this–the “Molinist” position–is that God chooses to put certain people in the circumstances in which He knows that they will repent and believe. The problem of course is that this implies that God passes over everyone else (or in the Molinist view, allows them to die in mortal sin rather than putting them in the circumstances that might result in their salvation). Augustine and Aquinas did not shrink from that conclusion. Others, including myself, can’t accept it. But it is very far from incompatible with Catholicism.

jimmy:

and that they can not lose there salvation

That, of course, is incompatible with Catholicism (and for the record I don’t believe it either).

jimmy:

and they have no choice in the matter

Depends what you mean by “choice.” The statement that people have no choice is incompatible with Catholicism. However, the “Thomist” tradition of Catholic theology holds that God moves the will of the elect by granting them “efficient” grace, which causes them to believe without violating their free will.

jimmy:

and they can not do evil.

The Reformed view is that once people have truly believed in Christ, God will indeed so move their wills that they will not remain in deliberate sin. The Catholic equivalent of this is that God gives the elect the gift of final perseverance, so that they die in a state of grace with no unrepented mortal sin on their souls.

jimmy:

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.

The dominant tradition in Catholic theology says that predestination cannot be reduced to foreknowledge. Molinism can be taken in that direction, and the view you appear to hold is held by many Catholics (probably most today). But Augustine, Aquinas and the Thomists, and Molina and the leading early Molinists all agree that God not only knows who will believe but so orders things that those God has chosen are those who believe and persevere. The technical way of putting this is whether predestination is “ante praevisa merita” (without consideration of foreseen merits) or “post praevisa merita” (with consideration of foreseen merits). You seem to think that the “post praevisa merita” position is the only one Catholics may hold. This is a common view, but the truth is quite the contrary–while that view is not contrary to Catholic dogma (as far as I can tell), it is not the majority position in Western Christianity historically. That predestination is “ante praevisa merita” was the majority view throughout medieval and early modern Catholicism–it’s certainly not incompatible with Catholic teaching.

jimmy:

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.

Of course saying that God “forces” us is incompatible with free will. But very few people would say that God “forces” us. The question is whether God can move the will to act in a certain way without doing violence to it. I do not claim to understand how God works in the human will well enough to have an opinion on that subject.

jimmy:

To say that God makes us act a certain way but gives us free will is an oxymoron.

Well, you may see it that way, and as a private philosophical opinion that’s OK. Alvin Plantinga, who is a well-respected philosopher, would agree with you (and ironically he’s a Calvinist, while I am not). But I don’t. And more to the point, you have the greatest theologians of your own tradition (Augustine and Aquinas) against you. So perhaps you should be a bit more modest in your claims to know just how God can or cannot work in the human soul. You certainly cannot claim that you speak for Catholicism as a whole in this respect.

 

[Contarini]

jimmy:

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.

That is the Catholic view. Protestants define faith differently. We believe that the “faith” of which you are speaking is simply an opinion and is not a supernatural gift of God. This is the faith of which James speaks–Paul, however, is talking about saving faith, a trust in the promise of God in Christ, which is a divine gift and hence does involve repentance and a disposition to do good works.

jimmy:

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 what many Protestants believe, but others (including myself) do not draw this conclusion (as Luther himself did not). You can lose true faith by failing to nourish it and live according to it. This is of course much closer to the Catholic position than the Reformed view is. The main difference between my tradition of Protestantism and Catholicism is the definition of faith, to which you alluded above.

jimmy:

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.

We do not believe that faith and love can be separated in this way. The faith that is separable from love is not true faith–it is, as St. James says, “dead.”

jimmy:

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.

In the Reformed (Calvinist) view, such a person never had faith. In the Wesleyan/Arminian view (which I hold), a failure to live according to one’s faith results in losing faith.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[mtr01]

Contarini:

Actually your “two quotes” to the contrary are both from the same letter to Melanchthon. Luther may have said similar things elsewhere, but it’s interesting that the only citation people ever give is this one letter. In other words, you are ignoring Luther’s entire theological output in which he explains his position in detail, and concentrating on one single letter to a friend. Don’t you think there is something odd about this method? Luther’s 1535 commentary on Galatians (based on his 1531 lectures) explains his position quite clearly.

Edwin, thanks for your reply. As I stated, I’m not closed to accepting that I may be wrong, I’m just looking for convincing. As for the quotes, I agree that it is somewhat lacking. I’ll freely admit that I’m no expert (far from it) on Luther. The two quotes, however are easily found (and well known). Perhaps it is unfair to take one letter and apply it universally, however as coming from Luther, I would expect it to be representative of his views (perhaps wrongly, considering his penchant for hyperbole).

Contarini:

The most relevant passage is Luther’s discussion of Gal. 5:6: “faith which worketh by love.” I’m referring to an English translation published in 1953 (Bristol: Burleigh Press), based on the translation of 1575. For the original Latin see WA 40.2:33-38.

Luther begins by rejecting the scholastic view that infused faith does not justify unless formed by charity. “For who will bear to be taught that faith, which is the gift of God through the Holy Ghost infused into our hearts, can stand together with mortal sin?” This is true of a purely “historical” faith, Luther notes (belief that the story of Jesus is true). Paul does not say that faith justifies by love, but rather that faith works by love. Faith in the sense Paul is speaking of cannot be unformed and does not need something else to form it. Charity is “the instrument of faith”–the good works stem from faith and are worked by means of charity. Luther paraphrases Paul’s meaning thus: “he that will be a true Christian indeed, or one of Christ’s kingdom, must be a true believer. Now he believeth not truly, if works of charity follow not his faith. So on both hands, as well on the right hand as on the left, he shutteth hypocrites out of Christ’s kingdom. On the one hand he shutteth out the Jews, and all such as will work their own salvation . . . . On the other hand he shutteth out all slothful and idle persons, which say: If faith justify without works, then let us work nothing, but let us only believe and do what we list. Not so, ye enemies of grace, saith Paul. It is true that only faith justifieth, but I speak here of faith, which, after it hath justified, is not idle, but occupied and exercised in working through love.”

I understand what Luther is getting at here, it’s just that last sentence above that is a stumbling block for me. It seems to me, that from what you have posted, Luther is still making a kind of division of faith. To me, he seems to be saying that true faith works in love, but it doesn’t matter when it comes to justification. It still appears to be nothing more than a “legal” exchange (faith for righteousness). In other words, true faith must work through love (and without true faith, one is not really a Christian). However, to be justified, works don’t matter, and faith without works (dead faith) still justifies. So I guess my question is, would it be fair to say that for Luther, dead faith justifies?

An assumption of mine, that I guess needs to be cleared up here, is that Luther would consider justification as a one-time deal (hence the fiducial aspect). Would that be an accurate assessment? For if he saw justification as a process (as the Catholic Church teaches) I don’t see it as problematic, although the a Catholic would say that initial justification is obtained by grace through baptism (with no works), not faith. However, if indeed Luther believed in a process of justification, then I think his views regarding faith are pretty much on target.

cont’d…

 

[mtr01]

…cont’d

Contarini:

Luther could write as he did to Melanchthon because he knew Melanchthon would not misunderstand him–he knew that Melanchthon was a sincere, scrupulous person whose trouble was that he knew that however hard he tried he could never be righteous enough to please God. “Sin boldly” was a rhetorical exaggeration meaning “don’t worry that God will condemn you even though you continue to sin.” It’s clear from the Galatians commentary and many other places in Luther’s writings that he did not think that “mortal” sin could coexist with true faith. But in terms of the act of justification itself, sin was irrelevant. Luther thought this was vitally important, because people could never have true faith (and thus lead holy lives) as long as they were fixated on their own sins and worrying that God would condemn them. Only once you have accepted God’s free forgiveness (Luther thought), can you do genuinely good works.

Now I think this position is open to a lot of critique. It takes a pastoral approach that may be necessary for some people in some times and places and turns it into a systematic soteriology on which the Church allegedly “stands or falls.” But Luther makes it absolutely clear that he does not think that you can persevere in serious sin and still have true faith. (If, per impossible, you could have true faith and commit adultery a hundred times a day, it’s true that it wouldn’t affect your justification–but that is an impossible situation, because a person with true faith wouldn’t want to commit adultery.)

Before I can comment, I would have to know Luther’s view of justification as a one-time event, or an ongoing process; and if it would be fair to say that Luther believed that dead faith could justify. Other than that, I not sure what to think about the implications for “true faith”. My initial reaction is that it would seem that even if a person did not have true faith, he would still be justified since that is accomplished by faith alone (without works of charity). So what would it matter if one had a true faith or not? Does being shut out of the kingdom mean that one lost his justification?

Contarini:

It’s important to bear in mind that technically Luther regarded all sin as mortal. So when he talks about how we all live in sin, he wasn’t talking about serious, deliberate sin. He was talking about the same sins that the Council of Trent admitted everyone falls into. The difference is that Luther didn’t think there was an intrinsic difference–he thought that speaking irritably to your spouse deserved damnation, and the only way to avoid being damned for everything you did was to put your faith in Christ’s free forgiveness. But once Luther has established that principle, he brings the mortal/venial distinction back (as the passage I quoted shows–see also his sermons on the Sermon on the Mount, commenting on Matt. 5:27-30, in Luther’s Works 21:88). While all sins are covered through Christ’s forgiveness, faith cannot “stand together with mortal sin.” As I’ve shown in a previous post on this thread, confessional Lutheranism entirely agrees with Luther on this point.

In Christ,

Edwin

Again, I’m really trying to learn here. On the surface, his doctrines still seem very problematic for me. Can one lose justification? If so, how can one be justified again? This is just my impression of what seems to be put forward by Luther:

Justification occurs through faith as a sort of fiducial arrangement. However, after justification it is not true faith if it is not working through love. True faith can also not stand with mortal sin. Thus if one doesn’t work, or is in a state of mortal sin, he doesn’t have true faith, and is not a true Christian. Here’s where it gets iffy for me, because it seems as though those without true faith are shut out of the kingdom, so they lose their justification. But justification doesn’t require true faith to begin with. I’m sure I’m misunderstanding, but it really seems like a big contradiction to me.

Perhaps you’re right, it might be ok as a postoral approach for certain individuals, but it doesn’t seem (to me) to be a good doctrine upon which to build a church.

 

[Contarini]

mtr01:

I would expect it to be representative of his views (perhaps wrongly, considering his penchant for hyperbole).

Exactly. For one thing, care and consistency in how he expressed his views were not among Luther’s virtues. He certainly left lots of handles to his enemies to twist what he said. But the fact is that if you read the offensive remarks in context, it’s clear that Catholic polemicists are twisting them.

mtr01:

So I guess my question is, would it be fair to say that for Luther, dead faith justifies?

Absolutely not. Why on earth are you interpreting him as saying that? Dead faith is, in Luther’s view (and that of Protestants generally), a purely human thing and has no spiritual value whatsoever. His whole point is that the only faith that counts spiritually speaking is living faith.

No one thinks that dead faith justifies. That isn’t even an issue. I’m not sure where you’re getting this from, except perhaps that you’re misunderstanding his references to “infused faith” (maybe I should have quoted the entire passage instead of excerpting from it, but I didn’t want to take up too much space). “Infused faith” means the supernatural gift of faith, as opposed to faith that we acquire by our own efforts. The scholastic view–and the standard Catholic view to this day (though I hope in my more pro-Catholic moments that it can be construed as something less than dogma, since I don’t agree with it!) is that this infused faith itself is “dead” without the addition of charity. Luther’s point is that the only “dead” faith is a faith that is not infused by God but is simply a human belief like any other–what he calls “historical” faith. (In other words, someone can believe that Jesus rose from the dead just as they can believe that Julius Caesar was assassinated in 44 B.C.) Any faith that is infused by God is a living faith, which justifies irrespective of good works but at the same time cannot exist without good works.

If you want to dispute this, then please go read the relevant texts for yourself. The passage I quoted from the Galatians commentary is a good place to start. You can find the commentary in the Luther’s Works series, which should be in any good academic library. Unfortunately, the only version online appears to be an abridged version. But it still gets the basic point across quite succinctly: “an idle faith does not justify.” Luther’s treatise On the Freedom of a Christian is another (much earlier) basic text. For the view of confessional Lutheranism, consult the references I gave in my post of Feb. 17 on this thread.

mtr01:

An assumption of mine, that I guess needs to be cleared up here, is that Luther would consider justification as a one-time deal (hence the fiducial aspect).

Luthe wouldn’t have seen justification as a process, no–it was an either/or. But that needs several caveats: he didn’t believe in eternal security, he didn’t emphasize a moment of conversion, and he did recognize that faith can be stronger or weaker. So he emphatically did not believe, as most Baptists (for instance) believe today, that justification happens in a definable instant when someone chooses to put their faith in Christ. Faith was something that people had to keep exercising, which was the major role of the sacraments in Luther’s view. When you receive the Eucharist and hear the words “This is the Body of Christ” (which in Lutheran usage today are usually accompaned by the words, “broken for you”), then faith lays hold of the promise. When you confess your sins (something Luther believed was very important, though his understanding of it was not the Catholic one) and the priest/pastor pronounces the words of absolution, then faith lays hold of the promise. When you hear the Gospel preached every Sunday (or even every day), then faith lays hold of the promise.

Similarly, Luther thought that baptism was the supreme example of faith laying hold of the promise. He suggested that possibly infants could have a kind of faith, and at any rate he saw baptism (yes, infant baptism) as the moment to which an adult believer should look back as the point at which the promise of God had been initially applied to the individual. So when Satan tries to tempt you to lose faith in Christ, you respond not (as a Baptist would today) “I accepted Jesus into my heart at 7 PM on Feb. 15, 1990,” but rather, “I have been baptized.”

So justification wasn’t a process for Luther, but it wasn’t exactly a “one-time” deal either. Rather, it was a state which depended on your continually laying hold of the promise offered to you. If you “doubted your salvation,” then the answer was not to engage in introspection as to whether you had been really “saved,” but simply to look to Christ yet again in repentance and faith.

 

[Contarini]

Can one lose justification? If so, how can one be justified again?

As far as I can tell, yes someone can lose one’s justification by losing one’s faith. It isn’t something Luther talks about much as far as I know (because his whole endeavor was to draw people’s attention away from themselves), but it is implicit. One is justified or not depending on whether one is looking to Christ in faith or not. If one finds oneself no longer looking to Christ in faith, then obviously one begins doing so once again. The basic premise of Luther’s theology, as I see it, is that precisely at the point when you aren’t thinking “am I justified” but rather “Jesus Christ died for me”–that is the point when you are justified and also the point when you are going to find yourself overflowing with love toward God and neighbor. The part of your summary that you are getting wrong is

But justification doesn’t require true faith to begin with.

I’m really baffled as to why you think this. Of course false faith can’t justify. “True faith” is not something other than “faith.” “Dead faith” or “historical faith” is something other than faith. That is to say, “faith” in the proper sense is precisely living faith that works by love. That was what I was trying to show by using the phrase “true faith.” Apparently it’s given you the opposite impression, though I can’t see why. The word “true” usually means “that which is really what it claims to be.” So I’m not sure what has made you decide that “true faith” is something other than “faith.” I was using that terminology only to make it clear that yes, there is a kind of “faith” that does not justify in Luther’s view.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[scylla]

This bothers me, and that is why I left Calvary Chapel.

From what I have learned it seems so much simpler to me. We are saved by God’s Grace alone. We are saved by our Faith, Working through Love, but only by God’s Grace. I might not have stated is as precisely as possible, but this makes a lot more sense than the Faith Alone concept to me.
I don’t have to lie to myself just to justify a doctrine as a Catholic, and the Bible makes sense, I don’t have to ignore anything, it is truly liberating.
Now some people say that they justify Faith Alone, just because they want to make sure that we don’t EARN our way into heaven. I have never seen any Catholic teaching that teaches that we earn our way into heaven with our works. This actually is enforced by the Council of Trent.
Catholics don’t think they can earn their way into heaven. But we do believe you should take up your cross everyday and follow Jesus. You should love your neighbor, forgive others and keep the commandments.

You have to go through so much mental gymnastics just to justify the doctrine of Faith Alone. It really then becomes a huge issue of what kind of faith they were talking about, or if you have free will, or even if love is part or not part of faith.
Now adding things to Faith Alone to make it fit the Bible like some people do now, just complicates things and make it a bunch of mental gymnastics like I said before. Or making all these distinctions of Faith Alone just to make it seem like it is Faith Alone as a doctrine, but that somehow includes love, then works.
The very words Faith Alone, imply that is all that is needed and lead many people astray as it negates love, and obedience. That I believe is the big problem with Faith Alone.

 

[alekzander]

If faith alone is all that is necessary-What does Paul mean by being cut off? How is that even a possibility?what does he mean by “enduring till the end’? how come some people who believed in Jesus(had faith alone)walked away when he required them to eat his body and blood and essentially became 'unsaved”.Anybody care to answer.

 

[Stingray]

alekzander:

If faith alone is all that is necessary-What does Paul mean by being cut off? How is that even a possibility?what does he mean by “enduring till the end’? how come some people who believed in Jesus(had faith alone)walked away when he required them to eat his body and blood and essentially became 'unsaved”.Anybody care to answer.

Cut off from what? In what context is he making this remark? Is he speaking of salvation? In what context is he speaking of enduring till the end?

As far as those who walked away, I think John explains this well when he says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” 1 John 2:19

God bless,
Stingray

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mtr01:

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”.

## Those two quotations look to me like hyperbole, not like encouragements to sin. I don’t think they are any more antinomian in reality, than Augustine’s “Have charity, & do what you will” - for antinomianism is what (I think) Luther is being said to preach. IIRC, he had no time for that, at all. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Contarini:

It is unquestionably true that everyone who is saved is saved because they have been chosen by God. Most Catholic theologians have historically been very dubious about the proposition that God just generically chooses to save whoever should happen to repent and believe. Rather, in Western Christianity at least the dominant view has been that God moves the wills of those whom He has chosen to repent and believe. This was the view of Augustine and Aquinas. A variant of this–the “Molinist” position–is that God chooses to put certain people in the circumstances in which He knows that they will repent and believe. The problem of course is that this implies that God passes over everyone else (or in the Molinist view, allows them to die in mortal sin rather than putting them in the circumstances that might result in their salvation).

## Molina’s ideas seem to lead to one complication after another. ##

Augustine and Aquinas did not shrink from that conclusion. Others, including myself, can’t accept it. But it is very far from incompatible with Catholicism.

**## The trouble with the Molinist view, is that it is fundamentally Pelagian - the Molinist God, far from being a God who saves by pure and and entire and sole grace, is a God who allows man to do something which he can call his own towards his salvation: so man is saved partly by grace, partly by works. **

If God does not constantly work within a man to turn him freely toward Himself, no amount of preaching can be effectual in bringing him to conversion. There is something Deistic in the idea that God creates us, then leaves to our own devices in the matter of coming to Him - we can’t do that, unless He works in us to cause us to do so.
Since freedom of the will is His gift, and since He alone can show us how to use aright whatever He gives us, this does not at all compel us: even to decide for God needs help from God at every instant. So to be influenced by God in this case, is no more than is done in us constantly anyway. It is a condition of our willing aright, that God should so move in us. ##

That, of course, is incompatible with Catholicism (and for the record I don’t believe it either).

Depends what you mean by “choice.” The statement that people have no choice is incompatible with Catholicism. However, the “Thomist” tradition of Catholic theology holds that God moves the will of the elect by granting them “efficient” grace, which causes them to believe without violating their free will.

The Reformed view is that once people have truly believed in Christ, God will indeed so move their wills that they will not remain in deliberate sin. The Catholic equivalent of this is that God gives the elect the gift of final perseverance, so that they die in a state of grace with no unrepented mortal sin on their souls.

The dominant tradition in Catholic theology says that predestination cannot be reduced to foreknowledge. Molinism can be taken in that direction, and the view you appear to hold is held by many Catholics (probably most today). But Augustine, Aquinas and the Thomists, and Molina and the leading early Molinists all agree that God not only knows who will believe but so orders things that those God has chosen are those who believe and persevere. The technical way of putting this is whether predestination is “ante praevisa merita” (without consideration of foreseen merits) or “post praevisa merita” (with consideration of foreseen merits). You seem to think that the “post praevisa merita” position is the only one Catholics may hold.

## It may be that the distinction is without meaning, given that God does not know in a way that is time-bound. ##

This is a common view, but the truth is quite the contrary–while that view is not contrary to Catholic dogma (as far as I can tell), it is not the majority position in Western Christianity historically. That predestination is “ante praevisa merita” was the majority view throughout medieval and early modern Catholicism–it’s certainly not incompatible with Catholic teaching.

Of course saying that God “forces” us is incompatible with free will. But very few people would say that God “forces” us. The question is whether God can move the will to act in a certain way without doing violence to it. I do not claim to understand how God works in the human will well enough to have an opinion on that subject.

[SNIP OF LAST PARAGRAPH]

 

[Catherine_S]

Steven Merten:

Hello T. More and Contarini,

You make it sound like Protestants have been preaching works are required to go to heaven all along.

Catholics have always held that the only path to heaven is through the blood of Jesus Christ. The Mass has always been our celibration of salvation through the body and blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. **Catholics also believe that Jesus will judge, reward and punish Christians according to their conduct and repentance on earth. **

Many of the Protestants I have talked with in my life condemn the Catholics for thinking one has to do good works to go to heaven.

Do we agree that it is evil to teach “faith alone not works” are required to go to heaven? Do we agree that Christians will be judged by Jesus and recieve heaven through Jesus blood, or hell, **according to their obedience to God’s commandments, caring for the poor, repentance and doing good works? **

Do we agree that the way people go to heaven is through the blood of Jesus and the reason people go to heaven is because they love God and love for God is accomplished through free from the will of God obedience to the will of God?

NAB MAT 19:16"Teacher, what good must I do to possess everlasting life?" He answered, “Why do you question me about what is good? There is One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments." “Which ones?” he asked. Jesus replied “You shall not kill”; ‘You shall not commit adultery’; ‘You shall not steal’; ‘You shall not bear false witness’; ‘Honor your father and mother’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

NAB MAT 25:41Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

NAB REV 22:12"Remember, I am coming soon! I bring with me the reward that will be given to each man as his conduct deserves. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End! **Happy are they who wash their robes so as to have free access to the tree of life **and enter the city through its gates Outside are the dogs and sorcerers, the fornicators and murderers, the idol-worshipers and all who love falsehood."

Peace in Christ,

Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

More scripture to make one sit up and take notice !!!:bigyikes:

What does Jesus mean in making a distinction between “little” and “much”? Why did he say that the one who knows his master’s will and does not do it will be beaten with many blows, while the one** who does not know** his master’s will and does not do it will be beaten with few blows (Luke 12:47-48)?

Doing God’s will seems very important to me :yup: ! He left quite a list of things that we were to do !!! **It is a must to know that none of us have arrived at perfection…**we have a long way to go and we will not have arrived when they close the lid ! This needs to be taken very seriously and once saved always saved as it is understood by most… cheapens what Christ indured for our salvation !

Shalom

 

[cyprian]

What about “charity covers a multitude of sins”. Is not charity “doing” something. And if it covers a multitude of sins it seems to imply doing something. as if something else (salvation) might be gained or lost? Sorry I can’t call up the exact quote.

Peace and love

 

[mtr01]

cyprian:

What about “charity covers a multitude of sins”. Is not charity “doing” something. And if it covers a multitude of sins it seems to imply doing something. as if something else (salvation) might be gained or lost? Sorry I can’t call up the exact quote.

Peace and love

James 5:20 perhaps?

“He must know that he who causeth a sinner to be converted from the error of his way shall save his soul from death and shall cover a multitude of sins.”

 

[Steven_Merten]

cyprian:

What about “charity covers a multitude of sins”. Is not charity “doing” something. And if it covers a multitude of sins it seems to imply doing something. as if something else (salvation) might be gained or lost? Sorry I can’t call up the exact quote.

Peace and love

Hello cyprian,

The way we go to heaven is through the blood of Jesus. The reason we go to heaven is because we love God and love for God is accomplished through free from the will of God obedience to the will of God.

Luke and other biblical writers know that it is only through Jesus that one goes to heaven. Luke and other biblical writers also know that it is those who do the will of God who will have their sins washed clean and go to heaven through Jesus.

**NAB LUK 11:41 **

“But if you give what you have as alms, all will be wiped clean for you”

**NAB SIR 3:29 **

Water quenches a flaming fire, and alms atone for sins. He who does a kindness is remembered afterward; when he fails, he finds a support. **NAB 1PE 4:8 **

Above all, let your love for one another be constant, for love covers a multitude of sins. **NAB SIR 3:14 **

For kindness to a father will not be forgotten, it will serve as a sin offering–it will take lasting root. In time of tribulation it will be recalled to your advantage, like warmth upon frost it will melt away your sins. **NAB SIR 29:12 **

Store up almsgiving in your treasure house, and it will save you from every evil, Better than a stout shield and a sturdy spear it will fight for you against the foe.

Peace in Christ,

Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

 

[john_ennis]

scylla:

This bothers me, and that is why I left Calvary Chapel.

From what I have learned it seems so much simpler to me. We are saved by God’s Grace alone. We are saved by our Faith, Working through Love, but only by God’s Grace. I might not have stated is as precisely as possible, but this makes a lot more sense than the Faith Alone concept to me.
I don’t have to lie to myself just to justify a doctrine as a Catholic, and the Bible makes sense, I don’t have to ignore anything, it is truly liberating.
Now some people say that they justify Faith Alone, just because they want to make sure that we don’t EARN our way into heaven. I have never seen any Catholic teaching that teaches that we earn our way into heaven with our works. This actually is enforced by the Council of Trent.
Catholics don’t think they can earn their way into heaven. But we do believe you should take up your cross everyday and follow Jesus. You should love your neighbor, forgive others and keep the commandments.

You have to go through so much mental gymnastics just to justify the doctrine of Faith Alone. It really then becomes a huge issue of what kind of faith they were talking about, or if you have free will, or even if love is part or not part of faith.
Now adding things to Faith Alone to make it fit the Bible like some people do now, just complicates things and make it a bunch of mental gymnastics like I said before. Or making all these distinctions of Faith Alone just to make it seem like it is Faith Alone as a doctrine, but that somehow includes love, then works.
The very words Faith Alone, imply that is all that is needed and lead many people astray as it negates love, and obedience. That I believe is the big problem with Faith Alone.

Well said. And “mental gymnastics” is right. Think of it: to actually believe that Christ meant to say,

[To “Master, what must I do to gain eternal life?”]…
“Well, you don’t have to do anything.”

and, to the woman with five husbands…“Go, and sin boldly.”


As someone once said, “Faith alone…I wish!”

Peace.
John