Justification by Faith?

[Redbandito]

## I said nothing about necessity - that such a life follows, is itself due wholly, every instant of it, to God’s grace ##

I’m RC already, but thanks - AFAICS, a great deal of what the Reformers taught is perfectly compatible with Catholicism: attention seems to be given to what is not, ot to what is expressed in a way that sounds unCatholic.​

FWIW, I don’t think there is anything unusual in this “all-encompassing” definition - see fivesolas.com/5solas.htm#Fide - see the whole page. ##

There are two problems with the “all-encompassing” definition. First, it is not representative of Biblical language. The “all-encompassing” definition is specifically formulated to exclude works. Which leads us to the second problem. This is the doctrine by which Luther believed the church stood or fell. If justification is truly not a divisive point, than Lutherans should be Catholic. However, as long as people try to distinguish, in any way, their soteriology from that of the Church, there will not be unity. This is why a proper Biblical understanding of justification is crucial.

 

[Redbandito]

Athanasius18:

i think that we are not that far off in our views from protestants. i think this article really cleared things up:

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=18021

Depends on which Protestant denomination you are referring to. Anyone who is reformed will naturally be a lot closer to the Catholic understanding of things. However, Baptists, Pentecostals, Assemblies of God, etc are not very close on the matter of salvation or in anything sacramental. It is my opinion that there problem in these areas is two fold. A fundamental misunderstanding of nature, and a lack of understanding of grace.

 

[wpr]

Hello Jpete79,

Are you still with this thread? I’d enjoy hearing from you.

In the last post I hoped to ask you to read Scripture without the lens of OSAS and faith alone. Basically, just read it and reflect on what each story tells you at face value.

In any case, I promised some Scripture that is directly contrary to “OSAS and faith alone.”

How shall we reconcile “sola fide once saved always saved justification” with the Jn 15:16, Luke 8:11~15, and Rm 11:20~22?

*John15:6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked-up, thrown into the fire and burned.” *

If a one time act of faith guarantees justification how is it that Jesus says, “if anyone does not remain in me”. Is it not clear by the word “remain” that he considered them “in him” at some point and because they did not “remain” in him they withered and are to be thrown into fire and burned?

What about the Parable of the Sower (Luke 8: 11~15) *“This the meaning of the parable. The seed is the word of God. 12 Those on the path are the ones who have heard, but the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts that they may not believe and be saved. 13 Those on the rocky ground are the ones who, when they hear, they receive the word with joy, but they have no root; they believe only for a time and fall away in time of trial. 14 As for the seed that fell among thorns, they are the ones who have heard, but as they go along, they are choked by the anxieties and riches and pleasures of life and they fail to produce mature fruit. 15 But as for the seed that fell on rich soil, they are the ones who, when they have heard the word, embrace it with a generous and good heart and bear fruit through perseverance.” *

Christ speaks of several types of people here. All of whom have heard the Word. Only those sowed on the path seem to never believe, so it may be rightly said that they never had faith. But those who were sowed on the rocky ground “believe only for a time” and those that fell among the thorns, “as they go along, they are choked…"

Christ is clear that some of these people heard the Word and believed (faith) yet fell away and did not bear good fruit. Notice also that the seed that fell on rich soil produces good fruit “through perseverance.” It does not say “…when they heard the word, embrace it with a generous heart and bear fruit though [their faith].”

Do you see the mental gymnastics required to secure sola fide, OSAS? Can’t we just take this awesome parable at face value in light of our human nature? It makes so much more sense to me.

Please also reflect on this parable in the light of the typical hyper-predestination theology that so often accompanies OSAS. Basically, if God “predestines" without any free will on the part of man. This is truly a pessimistic and depressing parable. In that view, the parable is neutered. No lesson can be taken from it. It would just be God telling His disciples how it is.

As a final example (among many) Paul teaches (as Christ did) in *Romans 11:20~22 “They [Jews] were broken off because of unbelief, but you are their becuase of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe. For if God did not spare the natural branches, perhaps he will not spare you either. See then the kindness and severity of God; severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.” *

What about Paul’s verse? The Jews of whom he speaks clearly believe in God (faith). Their “unbelief” was not unbelief in God. Paul has made it painfully clear up to this point in Romans that the Jews who are rejected by God are those who think they can justify themselves by works of the law apart from God’s grace (intending to obligate God). The point is, these are real individual Jewish people to which Paul refers.

Up to this point in Romans Paul has been speaking to Roman Jewish and Gentile Christians with most of the message aimed at the Jews in the community. Now, he switches his tune and begins speaking primarily to the Roman Gentile Christians. He gives them this stern warning for he says in Rm 11:20 “… but you are there because of faith” speaking metaphorically of them being grafted into the tree of God’s chosen people. He closes with “…provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”

The Gentiles to which he is writing are considered Christian believers already (see Rm1:8). And, he says, they were “grafted in.” He also says they will be “cut off”. This is harsh! He does not say, “don ‘t worry, you’ve professed your faith, so you can’t be cut off.

How does a “faith alone, OSAS” Christian reconcile this clear Scripture? Surely mental gymnastics are required? Do you just ignore it?

I’ll just drop this if there is no reply.

 

[christaddict]

## Thanks - I don’t see how you came to your conclusion. ##

Do Not Murder says God’s commandment.

Can I a dead man ask for forgiveness of this grievious sin? NO

As simple as that

 

[Kendy]

Fidelis:

Actually, the proper Catholic understanding is that we are saved by grace, through faith. Period, no “alones” required. In the Catholic understanding, faith, is understood to be obedience (Galatians 5:6, Romans 1:5; 16:26) out of love of God and our neighbor for God’s sake.

As a protestant, this is what I believe as well. I think often we are not really disagreeing in many these arguments. As for works or obedience, I think a person who does not obey does not love God. But on the other hand, there is no amount of works that I can do to earn God’s favor, which is what protestant fear that catholics believe. I think Catholics would agree that God is not sitting in Heaven thinking if Suzie does one more hour of volunteering, she will make the cut. On the other hand, I think catholics believe that protestant believe that you should just say the sinners prayer and then continue in your sinful ways, and that’s not true either.

 

[Kendy]

Pjs2ejs:

We are not saved by faith alone. We are indeed saved by grace alone though. Faith is mandatory in our salvation but certainly not the only thing necessary.

I wish protestants would just agree to this one. Most mainstream protestant churches believe that faith is essential and without good works or deeds, our faith is really not true. (James 2:24) That is what we believe too. They have such a hard time saying that our deeds are very important too. Why is that?

Prostestants have a hard time saying deeds are important because we are afraid of contradicting Ephesians 2: 8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your doing it is a gift from God— Not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” Having said that, I realize how it can come across as saying, your works are not important, which would contradict James 2:17. Because there are so many protestant denominations, it’s hard to speak for “protestants” but most major denomination accept that James words without rejecting Paul’s words. That is your faith saves you thorough God’s grace, and that you have been saved unto good works so you would never dream of sinning so that grace may abound. But we are afraid that catholics reject Ephesians 2, and believe that you can earn your salvation by doing good works.

I don’t know what the Catholic church believe 500 years ago, but it seems to me that there is currently no disagreement about this, but rather we are just not speaking each other language, and therefore are talking past each other.

CKH

 

[Kendy]

christaddict:

For God so loved the world that he gave 7 his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
John 3: 16

http://www.visualhymn.com/attic/demons.gif

What distinguishes us from them?

Think about that … there is more to the word ‘BELIEVE’

Demons believe that Jesus is the son of God, but have not placed their faith in Jesus. They have not to use protestant language accepted him as Lord and Savior. The Lord is part very important, you can not accept HIm as Savior without accepting Him as Lord.

 

[Redbandito]

Kendy:

I think catholics believe that protestant believe that you should just say the sinners prayer and then continue in your sinful ways, and that’s not true either.

It’s not that we believe that you are taught to say the sinner’s prayer and keep on in your sinful ways. However, the doctrine of assurance of salvation that many, though not all, denominations hold to, can lead to that conclusion if taken to it’s natural end. The problem with “Assurance of Salvation” is that after all the “exceptions” have been made in order to make it work, it is no assurance at all. It becomes similar to the Catholic position.

 

[christaddict]

Kendy:

As a protestant, this is what I believe as well. I think often we are not really disagreeing in many these arguments. As for works or obedience, I think a person who does not obey does not love God. But on the other hand, there is no amount of works that I can do to earn God’s favor, which is what protestant fear that catholics believe. I think Catholics would agree that God is not sitting in Heaven thinking if Suzie does one more hour of volunteering, she will make the cut. On the other hand, I think catholics believe that protestant believe that you should just say the sinners prayer and then continue in your sinful ways, and that’s not true either.

Hi kendy,

Well, I wish more protestants are like you. However, I’m wondering about this “new” fear that catholics emphasize only on works? (BTW looks like reverse swing ) A little explanation of why protestants feel so is helpful here.

 

[Redbandito]

Kendy:

Prostestants have a hard time saying deeds are important because we are afraid of contradicting Ephesians 2: 8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your doing it is a gift from God— Not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” Having said that, I realize how it can come across as saying, your works are not important, which would contradict James 2:17. Because there are so many protestant denominations, it’s hard to speak for “protestants” but most major denomination accept that James words without rejecting Paul’s words. That is your faith saves you thorough God’s grace, and that you have been saved unto good works so you would never dream of sinning so that grace may abound. But we are afraid that catholics reject Ephesians 2, and believe that you can earn your salvation by doing good works.

I don’t know what the Catholic church believe 500 years ago, but it seems to me that there is currently no disagreement about this, but rather we are just not speaking each other language, and therefore are talking past each other.

CKH

The Church believed the same thing 500 years ago as it does now. As for Ephesians 2, it is a simple misunderstanding of this verse that leads Protestants in the wrong direction. For starters, you reversed the roles of grace and faith, which leads me right into my point. It is not by faith we have been saved through grace. Just as it is not through works we have been saved. It is by GRACE we have been saved through faith, working through love. This is the Scriptural formula. Protestants complain that Catholics make “works” too important and take away from the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice, but have no problem “obligating” God to reward them for their faith. The truth of the matter is that both our faith and our works are gifts from God. It is by grace that we are even able to have faith (Phil 2:13) or do works (Eph 2:10).

Furthermore, Protestants need to read the whole of Ephesians 2. Put the verse into context. The chapter starts out with, “1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.”

So, Paul is prefacing his point that we are saved by grace, not works, with the point that we were dead in our transgressions. This is before our initial justification. Basically, a perfect reward (Heaven), would require a perfect offering (sinlessness), and we were not capable of doing this for ourselves. Thus, works, apart from the grace of God are nothing. That’s not to say that people never did anything “good” before they became Christian, but rather that doing “good” did not bring me into relationship with God. For grace as we understand it is two-fold (and this is where I think the Protestant confusion comes from). 1. Unmerited favor (We both agree on this) 2. God’s own divine life (2 Pet 1:4).

When we receive initial justification, several things happen. Our previous sins are “washed away”, along with the stain of original sin. We are infused with the Holy Spirit, along with the three theological virtues (faith, hope, and love). We are baptized into the body of Christ. That is to say that we have become “adopted sons”. Now that we share in God’s nature, through grace, we can become part of his family. So, while God loves his son just the way he is. Our Father in Heaven also loves us too much to let us stay that way.

We know that God’s word is efficacious. An example is the divine fiat. God said, “Let there be light”, and there was light. Thus, when God says, “Josh is justified” or “Josh is righteous”, it doesn’t stop there. What God says, is. Thus, through GRACE, God transforms this being into what he has declared.

Furthermore, when we understand justification as “divine sonship”. This is the process of God’s grace (His divine nature) turning us into his adopted children, we realize that nothing we could do could ever merit such a thing. That would be like saying I was going to work my way into your family. It just wouldn’t work. Nothing I could do, could make me part of your family. However, if you saw me completely broken, had mercy on me, and adopted me, I would be expected to live up to certain responsibilities. If I didn’t, there would be consequences. The most horrible of these would be that I basically disown myself because I reject my role in your family.

With this understanding we can finish off Ephesians 2. “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. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do”(NIV).

Continued…

 

[Redbandito]

Our initial justification comes from grace, which allows us to have faith (Phillipians 2:13). From there, we are “created (anew) in Christ”. We have died and have been reborn. We are no longer living in the family of Adam, that we were born into, but rather in God, our Father’s family, through grace (1 Cor 15:21-22). Thus, we look at verse 10. Verse 10 says “we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do”. Now living in Christ Jesus, we must do these “good works”, we have been recreated in Christ to do them. This is not because we obligate Him through our works, but rather because He expects them of us. As Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments”. Prior to our initial justification, and apart from sanctifying grace, our works had no merit. BUT, verse 10 is talking about AFTER our initial justification. These works do have merit as they are viewed through the loving eyes of our Father.

Finally, as the parable of the prodigal son shows, a son can squander all of his inheritance. The parable makes the analogy to our salvation very obvious by using father-son terminology and also speaking of our inheritance (See Gal 4). The wonderful thing about God as Father, rather than God solely as a judge in a courtroom, is that while a Father has more expectations of his son than the mere black and white of the law, a Father also has mercy. While we can separate ourselves completely from God and our inheritance, God always loves a humble and repentful heart. He will never reject one of His children that repents. Thus, our “assurance” is living in God’s grace, and constantly asking his forgiveness and mercy for our ineptness.

 

[Redbandito]

Kendy:

Demons believe that Jesus is the son of God, but have not placed their faith in Jesus. They have not to use protestant language accepted him as Lord and Savior. The Lord is part very important, you can not accept HIm as Savior without accepting Him as Lord.

The problem is, Protestant language is not Biblical language. So, what exactly is “faith in Jesus”? I agree that belief is not a mere intellectual assent, for the demons BELIEVE AND TREMBLE. However, I don’t see much of a distinction between belief and the faith you are talking about. Could you clarify more please?

 

[wpr]

Hello Kendy,

Your posts are revealing. I am a converted Lutheran MO Synod. The leap to Catholicism was not too great for me. I was not brought-up beleiving “once saved always saved” and the LCMS does hold to some understanding of the true presence in the Eucharist.

I have learned that Catholic Church teaching has not changed since the time of the Apostles. It was the same in Apostolic times and in 1520 as it is today.

Please do not misunderstand. It would be right to say that the practice of the Catholic Church, that is, what some or even many Church leaders or Clergy did throughout history even in the name of the Catholic Church were in error and possibly directly contrary to the same Gospel message the Church protects.

On the otherhand, the same cannot be said for the Protestant beliefs. That is, the interpretation of the Gospel message pertaining to how one is saved has changed and divided greatly since the Reformation. Little or no thought historically was given to unity as is shown by the widely different doctrines even among similar Protestant denominations. If you disagree, as a Protestant, you just go start your own Church! In my view this is far from Biblical (see St Paul and others for details on the matter)

Luther himself was quite wild-eyed in his early days concerning the very subject of which you speak (Faith, Works, and Justification) Do you realize he completely divorced good works from justification? I mean radically!

From Luther’s letter “On Christian Freedom” (1520).“It is certain that absolutely none among outward things, whatever name they may be reckoned, has any influence in producing Christian rightiousness…” “…On the otherhand, it will not at all injure the soul that the body should be clothed in profane raiment,…” He does later seem to modify this view in his “An Introduction to St. Pauls Letter to the Romans” Luther’s German Bible of 1522. “Faith cannot help doing good works constantly.” In essence, good works spontaneously combust from faith! (oh that I should be so fortunate)

For a greater understanding of your Protestant roots, you may read many of Luther’s letters online as well as those of Zwingli and Calvin. The Canons of Dort are revealing as well.

I’m certainly glad to find a Christian brother/sister with an open mind on the matter.

 

[scylla]

Kendy to make a long answer shorter as a Catholic returning to the faith and having friends trying to convince me otherwise on my return, I heard Ephesians 2:8-9 often and have found the Catholic position is more Ephesians 2:8-10, or the whole chapter.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

“Faith Alone” is the problem in that the belief has to be twisted to fit the slogan. If Faith Alone means a faith that isn’t alone but lived out in love and obedience but never lacking Faith in God then it might be accepted by Catholics, but since it results in people being confused and directly is spoken against in the Bible then how can we accept it?
Should the slogan be changed then to fit the belief?

Luther made these slogans to distiguish himself from the Catholic Church but also misrepresented Catholic belief in his rejection of it.

It has always been saved by God’s Grace by faith working through love.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Kendy]

Scylla,

You may be right that slogans don’t full capture what the bible says, but they are very good for getting people on your side. I think overall we agree. From an evangelical perspective, I think emphasizing by faith alone is cherished because we would hate to see anyone imagine that they can earn’s God’s grace. In fact, we think that’s down right heretical. The minute you imagine that you can earn God’s grace through works, you have rejected God’s gift of salvation. I can’t remember the passage right now, but Paul goes to great lengths to remind is that by faith Abraham was justified by Faith, saying, “Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him righteousness.” On the other hand, works is the evidence of faith. Had Abraham refused to offer his son to God, we would know that he did not believe God through his action. But it was not His action that brought him God’s grace, but the faith that compelled his actions. I hope this clarifies what I believe is the position of the overwhelming majority of evangelicals. Is this the position of the RCC?

Kendy

 

[Redbandito]

Kendy:

Scylla,

You may be right that slogans don’t full capture what the bible says, but they are very good for getting people on your side. I think overall we agree. From an evangelical perspective, I think emphasizing by faith alone is cherished because we would hate to see anyone imagine that they can earn’s God’s grace. In fact, we think that’s down right heretical. The minute you imagine that you can earn God’s grace through works, you have rejected God’s gift of salvation. I can’t remember the passage right now, but Paul goes to great lengths to remind is that by faith Abraham was justified by Faith, saying, “Abraham believed God and it was accounted unto him righteousness.” On the other hand, works is the evidence of faith. Had Abraham refused to offer his son to God, we would know that he did not believe God through his action. But it was not His action that brought him God’s grace, but the faith that compelled his actions. I hope this clarifies what I believe is the position of the overwhelming majority of evangelicals. Is this the position of the RCC?

The problem is that the “Evangelical perspective” diminishes God’s grace. An Evangelical believes in (name removed by moderator)utation of Christ’s righteousness. Luther describes this as, “We are a pile of cow dung covered by snow”. Luther’s and the Evangelical idea of grace says that we are not made righteous, but rather Christ stands in our place. On the other hand, the Church elevates grace to it’s highest point. The Church teaches infusion. God’s grace transforms us. When God declares us righteous, he makes us righteous. It is not of our own merit or ability that we do this, but rather the grace transforms us and enables us to. The difference is like saying I will cover your mess with a bunch of paper towels or I will clean up your mess and make it clean again. Of course the latter is preferable. God loves us just the way we are, but he loves us too much to let us stay that way.

Furthermore, it would be heretical to say we can earn God’s grace. The passage you were referring to is in Romans 4. Also check out James 2 though. The point made there is that it is not an either/or, it’s a both/and. Faith is something that I do or a requirement on me. Yet, you do not think that takes away from God’s grace. Why? Because it is a gift from God! The same think is to be said for works. Once, we are made a new creation, God gives us the gift of true Christian charity. There is nothing heretical about that. This is the Biblical approach to salvation. By grace, through faith working through love. It’s very simple. This, alone, is Biblical. Trying to depart from this terminology, while possibly done with good intent, is wrong.

 

[Kendy]

Redbandito:

The problem is that the “Evangelical perspective” diminishes God’s grace. An Evangelical believes in (name removed by moderator)utation of Christ’s righteousness. Luther describes this as, “We are a pile of cow dung covered by snow”. Luther’s and the Evangelical idea of grace says that we are not made righteous, but rather Christ stands in our place. On the other hand, the Church elevates grace to it’s highest point. The Church teaches infusion. God’s grace transforms us. When God declares us righteous, he makes us righteous. It is not of our own merit or ability that we do this, but rather the grace transforms us and enables us to. The difference is like saying I will cover your mess with a bunch of paper towels or I will clean up your mess and make it clean again. Of course the latter is preferable. God loves us just the way we are, but he loves us too much to let us stay that way.

Furthermore, it would be heretical to say we can earn God’s grace. The passage you were referring to is in Romans 4. Also check out James 2 though. The point made there is that it is not an either/or, it’s a both/and. Faith is something that I do or a requirement on me. Yet, you do not think that takes away from God’s grace. Why? Because it is a gift from God! The same think is to be said for works. Once, we are made a new creation, God gives us the gift of true Christian charity. There is nothing heretical about that. This is the Biblical approach to salvation. By grace, through faith working through love. It’s very simple. This, alone, is Biblical. Trying to depart from this terminology, while possibly done with good intent, is wrong.

You know, I honestly don’t think you have proposed a real disagreement with what I said, but you are disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me because I am protestant and therefore, I must be diminishing God’s grace and you must disagree with me. You must realize that as people isolate themselves from another, they develop their own language and often the words that we use to talk about the same things are different. So, in order to understand the other person’s language you must commit yourself to listening (reading) carefully before launching your refutation.

But guess what, I am going to look beyond your attempt to pointlessly disagree with me and point out all the parts in your statement that are perfectly consistent with evangelical theology. You said, “When God declares us righteous, he makes us righteous. It is not of our own merit or ability that we do this, but rather the grace transforms us and enables us to.”

I could not agree with you more. Billy Graham, Rick Warren, D.L. Moody, C.S. Lewis all agree with you!!!

You told me to check out James 2. Guess what, I have checked it. I have used it in my church to motivate people to get involved in just causes. I believe, I try to live, my pastor believes and calls us to live it. We just finished a series on generous living and how to put James 2 into practice. There is no disagreement.

You said, “Once, we are made a new creation, God gives us the gift of true Christian charity.” I agree. I would add that the Holy Spirit empowers to serve God. One of my favorite songs is “By the grace of God, I will serve the Lord” So, at the risk of being redundant, I AGREE!

So, it seems like what you are saying is that “we are saved unto to good works by grace through faith, and that faith without works is dead, but that salvation is a gift from God that we cannot earn or boast about.” Well, guess what. I agree, but more importantly, the overwhelming majority of evangelicals agree.

In agreement,
Kendy

 

[scylla]

Kendy, I can agree with you,

Emphasis is important and I think the slogan Faith Alone succeeds in emphasis, but fails in clarity, and unity.

It is a divisive term in that it was made in reaction of Martin Luthers perception of Catholic teaching and not in an effort to promote unity.

The Catholic Church definitely believes we can do nothing on our own and if frequently mischaracterized as teaching salvation by works. This is against Catholic belief, we are saved by God’s Grace Alone, but we must accept it.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Kendy]

scylla:

Kendy, I can agree with you,

Emphasis is important and I think the slogan Faith Alone succeeds in emphasis, but fails in clarity, and unity.

It is a divisive term in that it was made in reaction of Martin Luthers perception of Catholic teaching and not in an effort to promote unity.

The Catholic Church definitely believes we can do nothing on our own and if frequently mischaracterized as teaching salvation by works. This is against Catholic belief, we are saved by God’s Grace Alone, but we must accept it.

God Bless
Scylla

Thanks. Sometimes, it’s diificult to say the word, I agree.

 

[Redbandito]

Kendy:

You know, I honestly don’t think you have proposed a real disagreement with what I said, but you are disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me because I am protestant and therefore, I must be diminishing God’s grace and you must disagree with me. You must realize that as people isolate themselves from another, they develop their own language and often the words that we use to talk about the same things are different. So, in order to understand the other person’s language you must commit yourself to listening (reading) carefully before launching your refutation.

But guess what, I am going to look beyond your attempt to pointlessly disagree with me and point out all the parts in your statement that are perfectly consistent with evangelical theology. You said, “When God declares us righteous, he makes us righteous. It is not of our own merit or ability that we do this, but rather the grace transforms us and enables us to.”

I could not agree with you more. Billy Graham, Rick Warren, D.L. Moody, C.S. Lewis all agree with you!!!

You told me to check out James 2. Guess what, I have checked it. I have used it in my church to motivate people to get involved in just causes. I believe, I try to live, my pastor believes and calls us to live it. We just finished a series on generous living and how to put James 2 into practice. There is no disagreement.

You said, “Once, we are made a new creation, God gives us the gift of true Christian charity.” I agree. I would add that the Holy Spirit empowers to serve God. One of my favorite songs is “By the grace of God, I will serve the Lord” So, at the risk of being redundant, I AGREE!

So, it seems like what you are saying is that “we are saved unto to good works by grace through faith, and that faith without works is dead, but that salvation is a gift from God that we cannot earn or boast about.” Well, guess what. I agree, but more importantly, the overwhelming majority of evangelicals agree.

In agreement,
Kendy

Actually Kendy, you shouldn’t be so quick to judge my motives. I am glad you agree with me, but my post was not pointless. Here’s the deal. Luther stated that the doctrine of justification is the “doctrine by which the church stands or falls”. Thus, if you agree with Catholic teaching on justification, one of the two historic reasons for division cease to exist. Now there is only one (authority).

Furthermore, the majority of Evangelicals do not agree with me on this stance. For starters, my father in law is a Baptist minister. I have a lot of experience in discussing these issues with all kinds of Baptists. My wife is a convert. I have discussed these issues with several reformed, several non-denominational, etc, etc. Point being there does not seem to be a consensus on what they believe. The one thing I have found to unite the majority of them is that they disagree with the “Catholic” stance. Thus, I disagree with you based on experience and the fact that in reading any Evangelical theologian, their theology does not match with what you are saying. You can say I’m just disagreeing to disagree, but that is really just an attempt to change the focus off the issue at hand and personally attack me. That’s okay. It ain’t the first time brother.

Finally, I do want to emphasize that I am glad you agree with the Catholic stance of grace, infusion, justification, etc. I also want to re-emphasize that if this is the case, maybe you need to look into some of the other issues a little harder. You might find that there is no need to be separate from Christ’s Church at all.