If I am saved by faith alone, why do I need to read the Bible?

[WCH]

The origin? As in who wrote it?

I suppose the answer is the Catholic author, St. Paul.

Joel 2:32.

 

[PRmerger]

Joel 2:32.

Amen!:extrahappy::extrahappy:

(Sorry about the icons. I let DD#4 choose which ones she wanted)

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread pruned significantly.
Remain on the topic of the OP.
And…ah, if you are new to this site I highly suggest you read the rules below.

 

[PRmerger]

What I’m referring to is the idea that you do this or that number of works and it gains you something. There is no formal, defined works that you are expected to do and if you don’t do it, you are in danger of hellfire.

Well, the above is really in concert with real life, is it not? You do something, and it gains you something, yes? IOW, you plant a seed, it gains you a flower.

Why should our relationship with Christ be any different?

Now, to be sure, I am not talking about grace–which is of course a totally free, unmerited outpouring of love to the undeserving.

I am simply saying that* all* of life requires us to do work. Why would religion be any different?

 

[JonNC]

=JMartyr73340;7925889]At best, the names of these doctrines are confusing. At worst, they are outright contradictions.

Suppose there was a sign outside a school which said, “Elementary Kids Only”, and right below that it said, “Junior High Kids Only”, and below that it said, “High School Kids Only”. I would seriously question the qualifications of the teachers at that school. Either they do not understand the meaning of the word “only” or they have some strange obsession with the word itself. The same is true for the “Solas”. The names themselves imply contradiction.

In my 5th grade classroom, I have some rules. Only with my prior consent may a student be out of his/her seat. Only when called on, may a student talk. Are these 2 things contradictory because in both cases I’ve used the word “only”? Of course not, as they are different things, both happening to use the same qualifier, “only”.

The names do not imply a contradiction. Alone - only - are used in numerous ways as a qualifier. So when one says by Grace alone, this is a recognition that nothing other than God can make salvation possible. When one says by faith alone, it is only referring to the way we access justification. When one says scripture alone, the alone is specifically and narrowly identifying what the final norm is. In fact they are qualifying different things.

For some reason, the people who made these doctrines felt some irrational need to emphasize how they all work “alone". Why the obsession with this word? I personally think that each of these “alones” where originally meant to be a refutation of the Catholic Church. Sola Fide was saying, “All you need is faith, not the Pope or his Church.” . **Sola Scriptura was saying “All you need is the Bible, not the Pope and his Church.”, etc, etc, That meaning may very well have changed over the centuries since the Reformaton. **

This is not the meaning of sola scriptura, and the true meaning has not changed. From the Book of Concord:

1. We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

2] Other writings, however, of ancient or modern teachers, whatever name they bear, must not be regarded as equal to the Holy Scriptures, but all of them together be subjected to them, and should not be received otherwise or further than as witnesses, [which are to show] in what manner after the time of the apostles, and at what places, this [pure] doctrine of the prophets and apostles was preserved.

3] 2. And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.

As I pointed out, the names themselves are contradictions. Perhaps I have a poor understanding, but that poor understanding may be a result of confused/illogical doctrine. To say that doctrines with names such as “faith alone”, “the Bible alone”, “grace alone” all work “together” or “in concert” is itself rather confusing, if not a logical contradiction.

Having a poor understanding is not a crime. Many non-catholics have a poor understanding of, say, Marian doctrines. Perhaps we would all do well to ask questions beforehand.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I would like to off this essay by James Akin on the topic of Justification.

catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/justification-salvation/justification-by-faith-alone-by-james-akin/

Jon

 

[WCH]

Could you please cite the verse in Romans?

WCH claims he was referring to Timothy, not Romans, which, incidentally is not at all what his original premise proclaimed, which is that the OT has all that is needed to bring one to salvation

[BIBLEDRB]2 Tim 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

Romans 10:13, which is from Joel 2:32 which is from the OT, as I stated the OT, and you noted above.

 

[WCH]

So do you see the irony now, True Light? Reading the Sacred Scripture is considered “works” by Evangelicals, yet they profess that one needs to be “reading the Sacred Scripture”.

So it seems that Evangelicals also perform works, yes?

Can you prove what you say above that "evangelicals consider reading Scripture ‘works?’ "

I’ve never heard such a thing.

Perhaps you can link to an Evangelical website which states that.

Thanks.

 

[Inishfree]

You don’t have to read the bible, you should want to read the bible, we don’t have to go to church, we should want to go to church in order to learn more about god so that we can become like him and worship him, that is one reason we are here.

Bravo! Well said.

 

[Big_Dummy]

sanctification ii peter 1

 

[SteveVH]

Here’s the complete quote from Luther just so we can put that quote in context. Because, Steve, you must know that your interpretation of that quote (as evidenced by the wording of your version of it) is not correct:

Thanks for providing the actual quote, Pinay. But it does nothing to contradict my point, rather it provides even more evidence. He is still promoting “once saved, always saved”, which is a departure from the original Church’s doctrines. He says that we must sin, so we should go out and “sin boldy” and believe that we are still saved.

I don’t think anybody has ever said that if one has faith then they won’t sin. If you’re referring to my example that states “if you have faith, you’re not going to murder somebody the next day” - all I meant to say on that is that if one has faith, one will not desire to commit sin. Of course, we are not perfect - as Luther stated, Life is not a dwelling place of righteousness - we sin. But, with our exercise of faith, we are brought back to repentance. If one commits sin and is not remorseful and broken-hearted, pleading with Christ to forgive them, and to help them that they might not sin no more… then one will have to question if he really does have faith.

And yes, Catholic priests preach this too.

No, actually they would tell you to frequent the sacrament of Reconciliation so that you may receive true forgiveness. He would tell you that you need to feel contrition for your sins and have a desire to avoid sin, but this isn’t enough. We still require the sacrament through which we receive true grace from God. And he would tell you that to believe you were saved regardless of your sins, would be another sin; the sin of presumption.

 

[JMartyr73340]

Originally Posted by stephen cerutti
You don’t have to read the bible, you should want to read the bible, we don’t have to go to church, we should want to go to church in order to learn more about god so that we can become like him and worship him, that is one reason we are here.

Bravo! Well said.

It is precisely my desire (my want) to do the right thing (avoid sin and do good works) that Sola Fide undermines. Sola Fide tells me that I am ultimately saved by faith, not my choices. It tells me that Jesus is less concerned about the choices I make (to sin or not sin, to obey or not to obey, to sacrifice or not to sacrifice) and is more concerned that I accept him as my Lord and saviour.

 

[JonNC]

=SteveVH;7932570]Thanks for providing the actual quote, Pinay. But it does nothing to contradict my point, rather it provides even more evidence. He is still promoting “once saved, always saved”, which is a departure from the original Church’s doctrines. He says that we must sin, so we should go out and “sin boldy” and believe that we are still saved.

From the earliest time of the Reformation, Lutherans have condemned perseverence of saints, once saved always saved.
Article XII of the Augsburg Confession:

They condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that those once justified can lose the Holy Ghost. Also those who contend that some may attain to such 8] perfection in this life that they cannot sin.

Luther didn’t write Augsburg, but he approved it, so it is absolutely wrong that he is saying here OSAS. When he says that, “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners", he is saying that, for someone like Melanchthon, you cannot sit back and do nothing, simply because what you do has sin in it. Instead he is saying, be brave and go out and do good works, preach the word, and know that your sins will be forgiven, if you confess of them. He is, in fact, talking about not being lukewarm.

No, actually they would tell you to frequent the sacrament of Reconciliation so that you may receive true forgiveness. He would tell you that you need to feel contrition for your sins and have a desire to avoid sin, but this isn’t enough. We still require the sacrament through which we receive true grace from God. And he would tell you that to believe you were saved regardless of your sins, would be another sin; the sin of presumption.

Luther presumes nothing of the sort. And the whole of Lutheran doctrine shows this. This quote is from a letter, a letter to a fellow theologian, not a doctrinal statement. There was no need to dot every I and cross every T. Not only does Luther not presume the lack of need of repentence and confession, he assumes that Melanchthon knows it is necessary.
From the Smalcald Articles, Part III Article III

This office [of the Law] the New Testament retains and urges, as St. Paul, Rom. 1:18 does, saying: The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. Again, Rom 3:19: All the world is guilty before God. No man is righteous before Him. And Christ says, John 16:8: The Holy Ghost will reprove the world of sin.

2] This, then, is the thunderbolt of God by which He strikes in a heap [hurls to the ground] both manifest sinners and false saints [hypocrites], and suffers no one to be in the right [declares no one righteous], but drives them all together to terror and despair. This is the hammer, as Jeremiah 23:29 says: Is not My Word like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? This is not activa contritio or manufactured repentance, but passiva contritio [torture of conscience], true sorrow of heart, suffering and sensation of death.

3] This, then, is what it means to begin true repentance; and here man must hear such a sentence as this: You are all of no account, whether you be manifest sinners or saints [in your own opinion]; you all must become different and do otherwise than you now are and are doing [no matter what sort of people you are], whether you are as great, wise, powerful, and holy as you may. Here no one is [righteous, holy], godly, etc.

4] But to this office the New Testament immediately adds the consolatory promise of grace through the Gospel, which must be believed, as Christ declares, Mark 1:15: Repent and believe the Gospel, i.e., become different and do otherwise, and believe My promise. And John, preceding Him, is called a preacher of repentance, however, for the remission of sins, i.e., John was to accuse all, and convict them of being sinners, that they might know what they were before God, and might acknowledge that they were lost men, and might thus be prepared for the Lord, to receive grace, and to expect and accept from Him the remission of sins. Thus also Christ Himself says, Luke 24:47: 6] Repentance and remission of sins must be preached in My name among all nations.

Repentence and remission of sin!! Not permission to sin!!!

Jon

 

[JMartyr73340]

In my 5th grade classroom, I have some rules. Only with my prior consent may a student be out of his/her seat. Only when called on, may a student talk. Are these 2 things contradictory because in both cases I’ve used the word “only”? Of course not, as they are different things, both happening to use the same qualifier, “only”.

The names do not imply a contradiction. Alone - only - are used in numerous ways as a qualifier. So when one says by Grace alone, this is a recognition that nothing other than God can make salvation possible. When one says by faith alone, it is only referring to the way we access justification. When one says scripture alone, the alone is specifically and narrowly identifying what the final norm is. In fact they are qualifying different things.

I think you’ve simplified the doctrines for the sake of argument. I believe the “alones” in these doctrines have a much wider scope (and have far more serious implications regarding the Catholic Church) than you are indicating here. I guess it is possible that none of these * Protestant * (protesting what?) doctrines that are linked to the * Reformation* (reforming what?) had much to do with the Catholic Church.

Having a poor understanding is not a crime. Many non-Catholics have a poor understanding of, say, Marian doctrines. Perhaps we would all do well to ask questions beforehand.
Jon

Thanks Jon. Your concern (and the concern of the other Protestants in this thread) for my “poor understanding” gives me warm fuzzy feelings in my heart.

The Signs Argument

Now, before this thread “gets buried” I want to say one more thing about the supposed counter-argument to my OP. The argument is one I have heard before. I call it the “signs” or “evidence” argument. Good works and virtuous acts are the "sign“ or "evidence’ that we have been saved. I don’t know when this part of the Sola Fide doctrine was developed. To me it seems like a later “add-on”. Protestant seem to find it very compelling and convincing, I personally think it is nothing more than a bad (lame) attempt to counter the logical absurdity that naturally follows from making a statement such as, “We are saved by faith alone”; namely that our moral choices after that saving action are irrelevant.

To me, the “signs” argument is a misguided attempt to have it both ways. The people who say it do not want to admit that there is something else besides the intellectual/emotional assent to the faith (just accept Jesus as your savior and into your heart) that is necessary for salvation. This is because they want to reject the Catholic Church’s emphasis on mortal sin. At the same time, they do not want to say that works (virtuous acts) are irrelevant to our salivation, because that would be ridiculous.

From a logical perspective, it still doesn’t work. If you say that good works and virtuous acts (such as reading the Bible) are the “signs” (evidence) that you’ve been saved, then it is not by faith alone that justification is accessed. The signs are also necessary. The name says “faith alone” but the doctrine says “faith +signs”. So, once again we see that the name of the doctrine and the doctrine itself presents us with yet another (apparent) contradiction.

But I do not need to point out the contradiction. The way Protestants argue about Sola Fide is itself a sign that the doctrine is confused. If a Catholic starts a thread about the importance of good works/virtuous acts, the Protestants will respond by attacking the role that works play in our salvation. If a Catholic starts a thread that points out the hypocrisy of their position (like this one), then they will say that good works/virtuous acts are necessary “signs" of our salvation. One argument tries to strongly downplay the role that works play in our salvation, the other tries to strongly bolster it.

“Hey Pastor. I was born again this service. I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and into my heart, So, am I saved?”

“Why are you asking that? Of course you’re saved! Only those silly Catholic worry about whether they are saved or not saved! Don’t worry about a thing. They think by doing good works they can *earn *their way into heaven. You are going to heaven. Hallelujah!”

“So, if I sin and live a self-centered life, I still go to heaven?”

"WHAT? Of course not! If you don’t do good works it means that you’re not saved. You were not serious about your commitment to Christ. Go to a soup kitchen tomorrow and get back to me in a month!”

“So if I don’t do these works (manifest these signs), I’m not saved?”

“No.”

“Ahh…Pastor, I’m worried!”

 

[Edward_H]

The “I am saved by faith alone” focus is really at root a selfish focus, very American too.

While the point of salvation is infinitely important, we tend to define down the real point of our existence on earth to a very limited “MY salvation”…and MY certainty.

We’re here on earth to sanctify our life, with God, and to help others sanctify their lives. We’re here for others…for God…and for others; we’re not here for ourselves! Just as Jesus wasn’t here for Himself, we’re not here for ourselves.

The tenor and focus of the “salvation crowd” (far and away Protestant driven, but some Catholics now share this view, sadly) has led to confusion and to faulty thinking. And it’s subtle and insidious. It leads to pride, vanity, and comfort seeking. Pride and a sort of vanity in “having made it” already on earth, and comfort seeking in the “irreversibility” of that state of salvation.

And it leads to a “I got mine, why haven’t you gotten yours yet” sort of mentality. Again selfish. It also has a separating effect on the children of God, just like Satan would want.

No…we have joy and confidence (God offers us this joy) in knowing that we are sons of God, and that our Father wants us more than we do to be joined with Him in heaven. And that He gives us the god-like opportunity to live a life of love like His Son…a Son Who worked, Who suffered, Who Love until His last breath. He gives us the dignity (we don’t deserve and can’t earn) to love like He does.

And that’s what we are to do…to love like His Son, until our last breath. To exhaust ourselves in love, for God and for others.

We’re not to sit here on our laurels, knowing that “we’ve been saved”. Our focus shouldn’t be our knowledge and comfort but the salvation of the whole world. Did Mother Teresa sit around arguing about the certainty of her salvation. No she was too busy loving God with total abandonment, despite the feeling of love.

God allowed Mother Teresa not to have the sustaining feelings that can inflame love…and look at how much she loved.

 

[Kristin234]

The “I am saved by faith alone” focus is really at root a selfish focus, very American too.

While the point of salvation is infinitely important, we tend to define down the real point of our existence on earth to a very limited “MY salvation”…and MY certainty.

We’re here on earth to sanctify our life, with God, and to help others sanctify their lives. We’re here for others…for God…and for others; we’re not here for ourselves! Just as Jesus wasn’t here for Himself, we’re not here for ourselves.

The tenor and focus of the “salvation crowd” (far and away Protestant driven, but some Catholics now share this view, sadly) has led to confusion and to faulty thinking. And it’s subtle and insidious. It leads to pride, vanity, and comfort seeking. Pride and a sort of vanity in “having made it” already on earth, and comfort seeking in the “irreversibility” of that state of salvation.

And it leads to a “I got mine, why haven’t you gotten yours yet” sort of mentality. Again selfish. It also has a separating effect on the children of God, just like Satan would want.

No…we have joy and confidence (God offers us this joy) in knowing that we are sons of God, and that our Father wants us more than we do to be joined with Him in heaven. And that He gives us the god-like opportunity to live a life of love like His Son…a Son Who worked, Who suffered, Who Love until His last breath. He gives us the dignity (we don’t deserve and can’t earn) to love like He does.

And that’s what we are to do…to love like His Son, until our last breath. To exhaust ourselves in love, for God and for others.

We’re not to sit here on our laurels, knowing that “we’ve been saved”. Our focus shouldn’t be our knowledge and comfort but the salvation of the whole world. Did Mother Teresa sit around arguing about the certainty of her salvation. No she was too busy loving God with total abandonment, despite the feeling of love.

God allowed Mother Teresa not to have the sustaining feelings that can inflame love…and look at how much she loved.

Having the mentality that being saved by faith alone can and has led many people to believe that they don’t have to do anything, but Christians who read and understand the word of God know that through faith come your good works. Without good works you don’t have faith because when you have faith and are saved you strive to be like Christ. I know many Christians, more specifically Evangelicals, who do not just sit there and claim that they are saved. They sacrifice their life, money, and family to go do whatever God has called them to do. The ones who believe that all they need to do is say they are saved and do absolutely nothing are misinformed.

 

[Edward_H]

Having the mentality that being saved by faith alone can and has led many people to believe that they don’t have to do anything, but Christians who read and understand the word of God know that through faith come your good works. Without good works you don’t have faith because when you have faith and are saved you strive to be like Christ. I know many Christians, more specifically Evangelicals, who do not just sit there and claim that they are saved. They sacrifice their life, money, and family to go do whatever God has called them to do. The ones who believe that all they need to do is say they are saved and do absolutely nothing are misinformed.

Agree.

I think the verb “saved” has a more substantial meaning than a mere past tense, a fully completed act.

Our saving is completed by God when we die.

This is where the OSAS crowd fall off the tracks.

 

[JonNC]

=JMartyr73340;7936999]I think you’ve simplified the doctrines for the sake of argument. I believe the “alones” in these doctrines have a much wider scope (and have far more serious implications regarding the Catholic Church) than you are indicating here. I guess it is possible that none of these * Protestant * (protesting what?) doctrines that are linked to the * Reformation* (reforming what?) had much to do with the Catholic Church.

Perhaps they have a wider implication for our coomunions’ relationship, but that doesn’t undermine the intent of the alones, at least how I see it.

Thanks Jon. Your concern (and the concern of the other Protestants in this thread) for my “poor understanding” gives me warm fuzzy feelings in my heart.

I know you have a grinning emoticon after this sentence, but if you think that I was being condescending, I apologize, as it wasn’t my intent.

Now, before this thread “gets buried” I want to say one more thing about the supposed counter-argument to my OP. The argument is one I have heard before. I call it the “signs” or “evidence” argument. Good works and virtuous acts are the "sign“ or "evidence’ that we have been saved.

Well, I would say they are evidence of justification, as in the good tree bears good fruit.

I don’t know when this part of the Sola Fide doctrine was developed. To me it seems like a later “add-on”.

Added on? The Book of Concord was presented in 1580, and the call to good works as evidence of faith is throughout. In Luther’s writings as well.

Protestant seem to find it very compelling and convincing, I personally think it is nothing more than a bad (lame) attempt to counter the logical absurdity that naturally follows from making a statement such as, “We are saved by faith alone”; namely that our moral choices after that saving action are irrelevant.

Again, not what it means. Sola fide is the vehicle by which we access justification, by grace alone through faith alone. We cannot come to justification by our own means or works. But coming to justification is not the end. It is the beginning of an internal change, where we do God’s will, confess when we fail to keep His will, and continue to grow in grace when we hear the word and receive the sacraments.

To me, the “signs” argument is a misguided attempt to have it both ways. The people who say it do not want to admit that there is something else besides the intellectual/emotional assent to the faith (just accept Jesus as your savior and into your heart) that is necessary for salvation.

Lutherans have rejected the “intellectual assent” notion for 500 years.

This is because they want to reject the Catholic Church’s emphasis on mortal sin. At the same time, they do not want to say that works (virtuous acts) are irrelevant to our salivation, because that would be ridiculous.

Virtuous works cannot save us, but failure to do His will is sin. Repeated, unconfessed sin soon drives out faith. A dead faith cannot save.

From a logical perspective, it still doesn’t work. If you say that good works and virtuous acts (such as reading the Bible) are the “signs” (evidence) that you’ve been saved, then it is not by faith alone that justification is accessed. The signs are also necessary. The name says “faith alone” but the doctrine says “faith +signs”. So, once again we see that the name of the doctrine and the doctrine itself presents us with yet another (apparent) contradiction.

No, it says faith working through love. That’s the kind of faith that saves.

But I do not need to point out the contradiction. The way Protestants argue about Sola Fide is itself a sign that the doctrine is confused. If a Catholic starts a thread about the importance of good works/virtuous acts, the Protestants will respond by attacking the role that works play in our salvation. If a Catholic starts a thread that points out the hypocrisy of their position (like this one), then they will say that good works/virtuous acts are necessary “signs" of our salvation. One argument tries to strongly downplay the role that works play in our salvation, the other tries to strongly bolster it.

Examples, please.

“Hey Pastor. I was born again this service. I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and into my heart, So, am I saved?”

“Why are you asking that? Of course you’re saved! Only those silly Catholic worry about whether they are saved or not saved! Don’t worry about a thing. They think by doing good works they can *earn *their way into heaven. You are going to heaven. Hallelujah!”

“So, if I sin and live a self-centered life, I still go to heaven?”

"WHAT? Of course not! If you don’t do good works it means that you’re not saved. You were not serious about your commitment to Christ. Go to a soup kitchen tomorrow and get back to me in a month!”

“So if I don’t do these works (manifest these signs), I’m not saved?”

“No.”

“Ahh…Pastor, I’m worried!”

I’ll have to let those who think this way respond to the caricature.

Jon

 

[JMartyr73340]

I know you have a grinning emoticon after this sentence, but if you think that I was being condescending, I apologize, as it wasn’t my intent.

Well, if there was no purposeful attempt, then I’m sorry as well. I argue a lot in movie and political forums, and quite often people make these “snobby” remarks that seem reasonable but are actually subtle ad hominem attacks. But, it is not always the case.

Added on? The Book of Concord was presented in 1580, and the call to good works as evidence of faith is throughout. In Luther’s writings as well.

I only said it feels that way.

Again, not what it means. Sola fide is the vehicle by which we access justification, by grace alone through faith alone.

"Faith alone**" **is the vehicle by which we access justification, by **“grace alone” ** and “faith alone”.

I agree maybe the doctrines are more complex, and that word “alone” can have different contexts. But, surely you can also see how these names create confusion.

We cannot come to justification by our own means or works.

Of course.

But coming to justification is not the end. It is the beginning of an internal change, where we do God’s will, confess when we fail to keep His will, and continue to grow in grace when we hear the word and receive the sacraments.

Again, confusing. You are saying I am justified (going to heaven). And then you say it is the beginning of the internal change. Then you will say I must have the internal change or I wasn’t actually justified.

Doesn’t it make more sense to say that you are not justified if you do not have the internal change? Why do you have this need to say you are justified before the internal change?

Lutherans have rejected the “intellectual assent” notion for 500 years.

Explain. Would Lutherans say that if I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior (intellectual assent) and I accept him “into my heart” (emotional assent), I am not justified?

Virtuous works cannot save us, but failure to do His will is sin. Repeated, unconfessed sin soon drives out faith. A dead faith cannot save.

So if you live a life of mortal sin you will go to hell.

No, it says faith working through love. That’s the kind of faith that saves.

Then why not just call the doctrine “Faith and love” instead of “faith alone” which is pretty misleading?

 

[JonNC]

=JMartyr73340;7941127]Well, if there was no purposeful attempt, then I’m sorry as well. I argue a lot in movie and political forums, and quite often people make these “snobby” remarks that seem reasonable but are actually subtle ad hominem attacks. But, it is not always the case.

I am happy that I clarified. rest assured, there are many things in Catholicism that I admit I have a poor understanding of.

I only said it feels that way.

Understood.

"Faith alone****" is the vehicle by which we access justification, by **“grace alone” ** and “faith alone”.

I agree maybe the doctrines are more complex, and that word “alone” can have different contexts. But, surely you can also see how these names create confusion.

Would you agree that many protestants are confused by the phrase “faith and works”, and that it can sound like our works save us?

Again, confusing. You are saying I am justified (going to heaven). And then you say it is the beginning of the internal change. Then you will say I must have the internal change or I wasn’t actually justified.

Donesn’t the CC teach that even those justified can lose their salvation, even if they have been infused by justification? ISTM that it might be even more confusing from an infusion of righteousness sense. Now, I’m not saying infusing is in itself confusing (I find the whole infused righteousness/imputed righteousness debate confusing), I’m just saying that, in this way - the ability of free will to reject justification - to be similar in both of our theologies.

Doesn’t it make more sense to say that you are not justified if you do not have the internal change? Why do you have this need to say you are justified before the internal change?

See aboce.

Explain. Would Lutherans say that if I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior (intellectual assent) and I accept him “into my heart” (emotional assent), I am not justified?

Yes, but evidence of obedience is still required.

So if you live a life of mortal sin you will go to hell.

While I have no way of knowing who goes to hell, and while we use the term mortal sin differently, scriptural evidence is that one very well might.

Then why not just call the doctrine “Faith and love” instead of “faith alone” which is pretty misleading?

Mainly scriptural, but faith does not exist without love, or hope for that matter.

Jon