G
guanophore
Guest
Thank you for that clarity!
Justification by works and not by faith alone: James bluntly says it
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
If you love God with your whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, you are justified. That’s why the Greatest Commandment is what it is. The only way this can happen is by communion with God, apart from Whom we can do nothing, a union that man was always meant to experience and abide in, but one that was lost at the Fall. This separation from God, itself, is the essence of original sin-and the injustice that we’re all born with now. Jesus came to reconcile man with God so that this communion may be realized again. The means to-the first step in-this relationship is faith, as a response to grace. This is the beginning of justification in man. But the justice, itself, is constituted by love, another name for holiness and the full blossoming of a relationship with God. This love, as I pointed out, encompasses faith while faith, OTOH, can exist without love. Love, BTW, excludes sin by its very nature, which is why love is said to fulfill the law (Rom 13:8). And this satisfies the justice required for heaven since, as Scripture tells us, no sinners enter heaven. Either way, it’s all a work of God’s from beginning to end, but a work we must cooperate in.
If one wants to expand the meaning of the word “faith” to include more than what the classical definition means, and more than Paul obviously meant in 1Cor13, then I have no problem with that so long as the virtue of love is still preserved as being the core of the gospel, the image of God that we’re to be transformed into, the definition of our justice.
Faith, alone, does not* equate* to justice IOW;* love* does. Faith is a major means to that love, because it’s the major means to *God *, fulfilling the NC prophecy of Jer 31:34: “No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD."
G
guanophore
Guest
Absolutely!
G
GodsGrace154
Guest
I’m good with all of the above.
I just don’t understand how you could say that we could have faith without love.
By justice, do you mean justification? For justification you need faith. The problem is that infants are baptized so it makes justification a little confusing since it means “as if I’d never sinned” and babies don’t sin. I know it takes original sin away. Please don’t explain baptism to me - I know about it.
Also, much of what you say is Sanctification. The works that come after one has received faith, come to believe in God, call it what you will. S requires God’s grace and our works. The combination of both make us sanctified - put aside for service to God.
To say that love = justice. I don’t know. I’m missing something here and I’m not sure it’s worth delving into.
Are you referring to CCC no. 1807?
I also went through no. 1987 to 1995 and can’t see this concept of Love justifying us and not faith.
I repeat, I just can’t see how faith could exist without love.
Faith requires us to love, no?
GG
P.S. You posted this earlier:
“For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity.”
Okay. This is what I’m also saying. There MUST be love together with Faith. I think we’re saying the same thing…
N
Nicene
Guest
And yet both of those are citing initial justification, not final justification as you are asserting. That leaves me to wonder why one would knowingly do such a thing with regards to Rom 2:13.
Initial justification is without merit, why in fact we can baptize babies. However final justification according to the NT is following a Christian way of life and doing the will of the Father.
Why would you knowingly mislead?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
N
Nicene
Guest
Actually he didn’t, in his initial printing of his bible prior to 1522 he says in his commentary “St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.”
Post 1522 bibles removed it. However as can be seen in your later paragraphs he still maintains it is an uninspired work.
From your own citation:
Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, while Catholicism, in common usage, may also sometimes treat faith as encompassing both hope and love, they are traditionally, theologically, treated as separate virtues. So, yes, in order for faith to be a “living faith” it MUST lead to love; love must be present together with it. The problem, that can cause confusion and improper understanding of the gospel, is when people don’t insist that love must be present, when “faith alone” means just that to them, "I believe, therefore all my sins are forgiven, future sins will never be counted against me, works, even those performed as a response to grace, play no part in my salvation; what I do doesn’t count- love is a peripheral nicety but not a requirement or element of our justification. This is the extreme of course but it points to the reason why it’s crucial to uphold or maintain love as being central in defining justice for man, lest we miss the whole point of God’s efforts and purpose in His plan of salvation.
In Catholicism, BTW, justification and sanctification are not separable. There may be a one-time event in which our initial justification takes place but justification always entails a person who was saved, is being saved, and will be saved-what we do with what we’re given, including time, after being born again/from above. The Parable of the Talents illustrates this well.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Hi GG (those are Great initials by the way),
Drinking a glass of wine is not a sin. Stealing ten cents is a sin however small it is.
You do seem to be professing a discrimination between sins (which is very Catholic).
The 10 cent example: some sins are small, venial, which if unrepented, do not merit God’s wrath.
The thief (or stealing someone’s inheritance, taking their land unjustly): some sins are larger, serious ones, which if are unrepented become mortal, bringing his justice.
Do you agree?
G
GodsGrace154
Guest
I do find it easier to separate Justification and Sanctification but I also understand that they go hand in hand - you can’t have one without the other.
GG
G
GodsGrace154
Guest
I agree Porknpie that this is the Catholic way of looking at sin.
It’s very ingrained and difficult to understand anything else.
Let me ask you this:
God is perfect. He’s a blinding light. He’s all good. There is not one speck of evil in Him. He can’t stand sin. He is a just and a pure God.
If someone steals the 10 cents is He mad?
If someone steals an inheritance is He mad?
Is He mad because you stole something big, like an inheritance, OR is He mad because you turned away from Him and did something to hurt His feelings?
Did you ever consider that to a perfect being, maybe both are the same?
What do you think?
GG
C
Cathoholic
Guest
LatinRight. The ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA has nothing to do with once saved always saved.
It is merely saying that an ontological change is just that. Permanent change on the recipient.
The Baptized have this ontologic change.
People who have been Confirmed likewise have an ontologic change.
Priests and Bishops likewise have an ontologic change.
But you cannot conclude because they have an ontologic change, that they cannot freely decide to reject their gifts that go along with their status.
Just like the prodigal son’s status was being a son of the father.
But he REJECTED his gift of his home (but his status as son remained).
Even though his status as a son of the father remained, he died. (“My son was dead. But now he is alive!”)
Now in this case, he repented and was brought back to life through that repentance AND his status, but just because repentance occurred in THIS CASE, you cannot conclude it will occur in EVERY CASE.
That would be faulty logic.
No “Once Saved, Always Saved” in the fullness of Christianity-Catholicism.
God bless.
Cathoholic
It is merely saying that an ontological change is just that. Permanent change on the recipient.
The Baptized have this ontologic change.
People who have been Confirmed likewise have an ontologic change.
Priests and Bishops likewise have an ontologic change.
But you cannot conclude because they have an ontologic change, that they cannot freely decide to reject their gifts that go along with their status.
Just like the prodigal son’s status was being a son of the father.
But he REJECTED his gift of his home (but his status as son remained).
Even though his status as a son of the father remained, he died. (“My son was dead. But now he is alive!”)
Now in this case, he repented and was brought back to life through that repentance AND his status, but just because repentance occurred in THIS CASE, you cannot conclude it will occur in EVERY CASE.
That would be faulty logic.
No “Once Saved, Always Saved” in the fullness of Christianity-Catholicism.
God bless.
Cathoholic
No once saved always saved in the Lutheran tradition of the one True Church, either.
Jon
R
rcwitness
Guest
This is a powerful passage regarding salvation/justification from Paul.
Titus 3
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. The saying is sure.
I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.*But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
Here, St Paul relates things the best, in my opinion. He speaks of Christ’s mercy saving all and justifying through His grace, NOT because of good deeds done by us. So then, the believer must set himself to do good works if he lives by this grace. Notice when he speaks of being “heirs” in hope of eternal life.
Here is another passage where Paul places a condition on eternal life:
Romans 8
It is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
We can see that Paul does Teach against a faith without works. Or this passage to Timothy:
Command this, so that they may be without reproach. If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
This is precisely what James was Teaching! And it is also what the Church means when condemning a faith without works.
Here is another relative passage.
And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
Those who “do what is right” are acceptable to Him! It doesn’t mean we can do good apart from knowing it is His grace that brought mercy and life to us. He saves, He justifies, He Wills us to do what is right.
Now, Paul separates faith from hope and charity to remind us that God gives these along with knowing the Gospel:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
Titus 3
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all men. For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. The saying is sure.
I desire you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to apply themselves to good deeds; these are excellent and profitable to men.*But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile. As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.
Here, St Paul relates things the best, in my opinion. He speaks of Christ’s mercy saving all and justifying through His grace, NOT because of good deeds done by us. So then, the believer must set himself to do good works if he lives by this grace. Notice when he speaks of being “heirs” in hope of eternal life.
Here is another passage where Paul places a condition on eternal life:
Romans 8
It is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
We can see that Paul does Teach against a faith without works. Or this passage to Timothy:
Command this, so that they may be without reproach. If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
This is precisely what James was Teaching! And it is also what the Church means when condemning a faith without works.
Here is another relative passage.
And Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.
Those who “do what is right” are acceptable to Him! It doesn’t mean we can do good apart from knowing it is His grace that brought mercy and life to us. He saves, He justifies, He Wills us to do what is right.
Now, Paul separates faith from hope and charity to remind us that God gives these along with knowing the Gospel:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
- Status