Justified by Faith Alone cf. James 2:24

[lanman87]

So I would agree faith alone saves if faith means accepting Christ as your Savior and obeying all that He teaches. Apparently that’s not the definition I’m seeing from tggodsway.

You know it is funny to me how the word faith has been thrown around on this thread. I’ve actually pondered what exactly is faith as I’ve written many post on this thread. Apparently my definition of faith and what I’ve been taught is different from many other folks definition. I must admit I’ve struggled to put into words exactly what I mean when I use the term “faith”.

Your post, for some reason, brought to mind a song we used to sing in the church I was raised in. Anyway, the Song is called “I Surrender All” This song pretty much sums up what I consider faith to be. Maybe this is why I have such a hard time understanding the objection to being saved by faith alone.

Here are some of the lyrics:

All to Jesus I surrender
All to Him I freely give
I will ever love and trust Him
In His presence daily live

All to Jesus I surrender
Humbly at His feet I bow
Worldly pleasures all forsaken
Take me Jesus take me now

I surrender all
I surrender all
All to Thee my blessed Saviour
I surrender all

All to Jesus I surrender
Make me Saviour wholly Thine
Let me feel the Holy Spirit
Truly know that Thou art mine

All to Jesus I surrender
Lord I give myself to Thee
Fill me with Thy love and power
Let Thy blessings fall on me

 

[Cathoholic]

I agree that faith has a human aspect and a divine aspect. But I’ve learned that the divine aspect is way bigger and way more powerful that I ever imagined.

I think this is great! But have you learned what St. Paul teaches in 2nd Corinthians 6:1.

Where YOU MUST cooperate with Him working IN YOU?

And if you don’t cooperate, will you be saved anyway?

Or will you possibly receive this grace IN VAIN?

 

[Cathoholic]

You may not agree, but I am in the Kingdom.

Actually in a spiritual sense . . . I affirm you ARE in the Kingdom (albeit imperfectly).

**But Christ calls us to a more radical transformation than merely spiritual. **

Jesus calls us to eat His flesh and drink His blood too.

And from your own words here you have not yet been given the graces (for whatever reason) to believe Jesus in this humanly impossible sphere.

To radically believe Jesus that Jesus is REALLY and substantially present body, blood, soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist.

Thus you have not received the Eucharist in the manner called for by our Lord.

Jesus wants our Spirits AND bodies transformed.

And the reception of Jesus in the Eucharist helps our spirits AND our bodies.

Our bodies are involved also

Not just our Spirits but our bodies are involved with this whole process too.

(In sort of an “anti-example”)

That’s WHY St. Paul can warn the Corinthians that if they receive the Eucharist in a state of unbelief or grave sin their BODIES are affected too (“that is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died”).

1st CORINTHIANS 11:27-30 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

“He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him”—Jesus the Messiah.

It is in this sense, I was referring to.

 

[rcwitness]

What does breaking bread together mean to you? Scripture talks of the early church continuing to meet together and continuing with the breaking of bread. My understanding of breaking bread together is Communion that Jesus instituted as a memorial remembrance of Him and what He did.

That’s a huge question! And one that moves away from this thread. His Eucharist is Jesus Himself in the form of real food. It is a Sacrament of faith, never to be proven. Receiving His Eucharist means receiving the very means which the Father and Holy Spirit used to give life to the world! Yes, Scripture tells us the first Christians devoted themselves to Breaking Bread. And Paul explains it is a participation in the Body and Blood of Jesus, even His sacrifice!

I would think the RCC bases the Eucharist in scripture, however, is there a mention of the word anywhere? I am intrigued by your statement that it is harder for His Eucharist to be twisted. Not sure what you are proclaiming. Was the breaking of bread in the early church the exact same Eucharist you have today? Do you really see evidence in Scripture that it is supposed to be the summit and climax of the Christian experience? If you can address all these questions it may be helpful to me.

Eucharist quickly became a term (not the only one) to signify the Bread and Cup of Lord’s Supper. Specifically, it refers to the significance of giving thanks to our Lord for His sacrifice.
Yes, what we receive at Mass is the same substance as that at the Last Supper and throughout the ages.
Yes, I do see evidence from Scripture that, in a singular act, partaking of the Lord’s Supper, we are receiving the life of Christ and giving the Father thanks for feeding us through His Son. We also venerate Scripture in a similar way.

I don’t think I am anxious but I am confused somewhat! If the Eucharist is more important than scripture and is the summit of our faith, why bother with scripture? It seems logical to just go partake of the Eucharist as much as you can. Oh wait, it just suddenly occurs to me this may be what you Catholics have been saying all the time?

Scripture is the Lord coming to feed us in a different form. Not in substance, but language, word and message. We were given the Eucharist even before Scripture, but we were given the content of Scripture (the Revelation of Jesus) before it was written down. And we were given the Lord’s Body and Blood at the Incarnation in Mary!
Frequent reception of His Eucharist is good. But the important thing is ALWAYS to receive in a worthy manner. Receiving in a worthy manner takes Baptism (first) and obedience to our conscience, His Holy Spirit, and the law of Christ (based on His love and known in Scripture/Tradition).

Sorry I neglected your questions. It was more because it is off topic.

 

[Wannano]

That’s a huge question! And one that moves away from this thread. His Eucharist is Jesus Himself in the form of real food. It is a Sacrament of faith, never to be proven. Receiving His Eucharist means receiving the very means which the Father and Holy Spirit used to give life to the world! Yes, Scripture tells us the first Christians devoted themselves to Breaking Bread. And Paul explains it is a participation in the Body and Blood of Jesus, even His sacrifice!

Eucharist quickly became a term (not the only one) to signify the Bread and Cup of Lord’s Supper. Specifically, it refers to the significance of giving thanks to our Lord for His sacrifice.
Yes, what we receive at Mass is the same substance as that at the Last Supper and throughout the ages.
Yes, I do see evidence from Scripture that, in a singular act, partaking of the Lord’s Supper, we are receiving the life of Christ and giving the Father thanks for feeding us through His Son. We also venerate Scripture in a similar way.
Scripture is the Lord coming to feed us in a different form. Not in substance, but language, word and message. We were given the Eucharist even before Scripture, but we were given the content of Scripture (the Revelation of Jesus) before it was written down. And we were given the Lord’s Body and Blood at the Incarnation in Mary!
Frequent reception of His Eucharist is good. But the important thing is ALWAYS to receive in a worthy manner. Receiving in a worthy manner takes Baptism (first) and obedience to our conscience, His Holy Spirit, and the law of Christ (based on His love and known in Scripture/Tradition).

Sorry I neglected your questions. It was more because it is off topic.

I appreciate that you replied. I could ask more but like you say it is off topic. I find it hard to stay on one topic because to me concepts intersect each other so often.

 

[spina1953]

Faith it seems to me a belief in something. I can have faith that God exists even though I can not prove God actually exists. I can have faith that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, yet I can not prove it. Faith then is a belief a believing. People have faith a lot of things not just religious beliefs. I have faith in Jesus the Christ being the Son of God and the Son of Man simply because the Apostles believed; they had faith that Jesus was who He said He was.

I think it really depends on how one uses the words faith and belief or believing. I think one can believe in something without having any faith about it one way or the other. On the other hand if one has faith in what Jesus the Christ said taught and did as who He is one then has to believe it true about Jesus the Christ.

One can have faith in the promise that through Christ one can be saved. One can have faith that God has justified one. But in the end, unless one acts on that faith, that is doing something that shows one indeed has faith, faith becomes meaningless if all one says is I have faith but does nothing to show that faith.

Faith a virtue is a gift from God; its a free gift God grants to one. yet, when God grants faith to someone does that mean that one need not do anything with it other than to say I have faith? it seems to me that God expects one to do something the faith than has been given. otherwise its just lip service.

I can say I have faith, but if I don’t show faith in action what good is that? all I have done is to say I have faith but did nothing with it. Anyone say they have faith, but if they doing nothing then that faith is useless and means nothing other than lip service. Its like saying I have this job but i don’t do anything with it, no work, I just have this job.it then its meaningless and is just some lip service in saying one has a job but does nothing with the job. That is how faith is if one does nothing. faith is action on believing and in this context believing in God, and in Jesus the Christ and doing as Jesus taught us to do by the examples He set.

All one has to do is look at the Apostles and those who believed in Jesus, they were doing showing how faith works, They were not just saying it nor did they say I now have faith so need not do anything I am saved and justified. No they set the same example Christ did but showing faith in action.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I cannot be Justified by Faith alone as James records from his letter.

One example given to us in sacred scripture is Peter. Peter who professed his faith publicly that Jesus is the Son of the Living God. Whom Jesus gave singularly the keys to the kingdom of heaven with the authority to bind and loose. Denied his faith in Jesus Christ not once but thrice times. Peter’s faith alone could never justify himself.

What is interesting, Jesus foretold of Peter’s thrice (faith) denial in Him, just as scripture reveals we have all sinned before God. Faith alone cannot justify us. Jesus also promised Peter after his denial, when Peter repented and came back to the Lord. Peter is to bring back all his brethren who left Jesus alone during his passion and death.

The Works that Peter did after he thrice failed Jesus in faith, built up the lost faith of his brethren in the Lord.

An action that moves oneself towards the Lord is the work that reveals faith from works. When faith alone cannot justify oneself apart from a work.

Work is (action) walking in love, in Christ, that can love his/her enemies, that exposes faith possessing the mind of Christ, that can move mountains. Yet without Works = action= Love, Faith alone is nothing.

Peace be with you all

 

[mackbrislawn]

And as Bernard of Clairvaux says:

Or, as Anselm notes in his commentary on Romans 9:14:

Finally, as Aquinas notes in his Summa Theologica:

Einstein said, “God does not play dice.” But maybe He does, after all. Or perhaps darts.

 

[mackbrislawn]

There is a practical difference, in the first, we must cooperate with the grace we receive and persevere in our walk with Christ. We can stumble in this one.

In the second, we cannot fail and will persevere because of grace.

It seems to me the practical difference is that for the second, the believer in the second instance will tend to have more of a prideful and self-assured stance to himself.

The believer in the first instance, since he can stumble, would be more humble and aware of his own frailties and that of others.

A question, for the advocates of double predestination, are the elect aware of their election? And, if so, are the reprobate then also aware of their state?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Faith it seems to me a belief in something. I can have faith that God exists even though I can not prove God actually exists. I can have faith that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, yet I can not prove it. Faith then is a belief a believing. People have faith a lot of things not just religious beliefs. I have faith in Jesus the Christ being the Son of God and the Son of Man simply because the Apostles believed; they had faith that Jesus was who He said He was.

I think it really depends on how one uses the words faith and belief or believing. I think one can believe in something without having any faith about it one way or the other. On the other hand if one has faith in what Jesus the Christ said taught and did as who He is one then has to believe it true about Jesus the Christ.

One can have faith in the promise that through Christ one can be saved. One can have faith that God has justified one. But in the end, unless one acts on that faith, that is doing something that shows one indeed has faith, faith becomes meaningless if all one says is I have faith but does nothing to show that faith.

Faith a virtue is a gift from God; its a free gift God grants to one. yet, when God grants faith to someone does that mean that one need not do anything with it other than to say I have faith? it seems to me that God expects one to do something the faith than has been given. otherwise its just lip service.

I can say I have faith, but if I don’t show faith in action what good is that? all I have done is to say I have faith but did nothing with it. Anyone say they have faith, but if they doing nothing then that faith is useless and means nothing other than lip service. Its like saying I have this job but i don’t do anything with it, no work, I just have this job.it then its meaningless and is just some lip service in saying one has a job but does nothing with the job. That is how faith is if one does nothing. faith is action on believing and in this context believing in God, and in Jesus the Christ and doing as Jesus taught us to do by the examples He set.

All one has to do is look at the Apostles and those who believed in Jesus, they were doing showing how faith works, They were not just saying it nor did they say I now have faith so need not do anything I am saved and justified. No they set the same example Christ did but showing faith in action.

I sure agree!
We have to act upon our faith. For example, the woman who was bleeding acted upon her faith. Her faith was, if I can only touch the tassel on his cloak, I’ll be healed. If she had simply believed and not acted, she would not have been healed. But her faith saved her because it was strong enough to make her touch Jesus’ cloak. That’s how our faith saves us.
And the ones who listened to Peter’s speech and came to believe, asked, what should we do? (In other words, now that we have faith, what next?) Peter replied, Repent, turn away from your sins, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit.
Notice their sins weren’t forgiven until they were baptized, even though they already had faith.

 

[spina1953]

I sure agree!
We have to act upon our faith. For example, the woman who was bleeding acted upon her faith. Her faith was, if I can only touch the tassel on his cloak, I’ll be healed. If she had simply believed and not acted, she would not have been healed. But her faith saved her because it was strong enough to make her touch Jesus’ cloak. That’s how our faith saves us.
And the ones who listened to Peter’s speech and came to believe, asked, what should we do? (In other words, now that we have faith, what next?) Peter replied, Repent, turn away from your sins, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so your sins will be forgiven. Then you will be given the Holy Spirit.
Notice their sins weren’t forgiven until they were baptized, even though they already had faith.

Hi mackbrislawn, Thanks for your comment! I agree with what you said and it says a lot in showing how faith works when the woman who was bleeding said “if I just touch the garment of Jesus i will be healed.” She did act on the faith that jesus could truly heal her. it was not blind faith or a faith that did noting but a faith in action. it was not a weak faith but a strong faith because she did something with it.and that is what saved her. Otherwise had she just said I have faith but did not try to touch the garment of Jesus to be healed would she have been healed? Maybe maybe not we can not know for sure but since it was written into the Gospels, there must have a reason as to why this story was told and to me that is showing how faith works that it is faith working not a faith that did nothing…

All one needs to do is look at the Gospels to see Jesus is asking to have faith . Did he not say "you with so little faith, if you had faith you could move mountains?"or something like that? Time and time again we see that faith in the Gospels show action, its not just some words to say. In any of the Epistles we read we also see Faith in action by what is being told to us as to how we are to live.

How can anyone say they are justified if they don’t do anything to be justified? Can one say they are justified in their faith if they do nothing with that faith? if it were so that all one needed to be justified is faith and nothing more and need not do anything because one says well Jesus did all for me. Why do I need to do anything with my faith did not Jesus already do everything do me so I don’t have to do anything with my faith?That is what it really sounds like when someone says they have faith but says good works and deeds will not save anyone only faith is needed nothing more no works or deeds just faith.

That’s like the state saying I promise to pay you if you win the lottery, but you don’t buy a ticket to play but expect the state to pay you anyway because the state promised to pay if you win because you picked the right numbers but did not buy the ticket.is the state going to pay you? the answer is no! its the same with saying i am justified because I have faith but I don’t do anything with it but I know I am saved just the same because I claim to have faith.

I think I remember reading in the Gospels Jesus saying something to the effect about people wanting to easy way, which to me many these days seem to be saying when they say they have faith but are not willing to do anything any good work or deed because good works and deeds do not save.

You are correct is saying those who said they have faith that their sins were not forgiven till they were Baptized so faith alone is not the answer.

 

[James248]

You know it is funny to me how the word faith has been thrown around on this thread. I’ve actually pondered what exactly is faith as I’ve written many post on this thread. Apparently my definition of faith and what I’ve been taught is different from many other folks definition. I must admit I’ve struggled to put into words exactly what I mean when I use the term “faith”.

Your post, for some reason, brought to mind a song we used to sing in the church I was raised in. Anyway, the Song is called “I Surrender All” This song pretty much sums up what I consider faith to be. Maybe this is why I have such a hard time understanding the objection to being saved by faith alone.

Here are some of the lyrics:

All to Jesus I surrender
All to Him I freely give
I will ever love and trust Him
In His presence daily live

All to Jesus I surrender
Humbly at His feet I bow
Worldly pleasures all forsaken
Take me Jesus take me now

I surrender all
I surrender all
All to Thee my blessed Saviour
I surrender all

All to Jesus I surrender
Make me Saviour wholly Thine
Let me feel the Holy Spirit
Truly know that Thou art mine

All to Jesus I surrender
Lord I give myself to Thee
Fill me with Thy love and power
Let Thy blessings fall on me

My mom and dad sang this to me when I was little.

 

[tgGodsway]

Can’t reply here. No room but I have my reply to Cathoholic’s post on a word doc.

 

[ajcstr]

I would think the RCC bases the Eucharist in scripture, however, is there a mention of the word anywhere? I am intrigued by your statement that it is harder for His Eucharist to be twisted. Not sure what you are proclaiming. Was the breaking of bread in the early church the exact same Eucharist you have today? Do you really see evidence in Scripture that it is supposed to be the summit and climax of the Christian experience? If you can address all these questions it may be helpful to me.

From wiki…followed up with an article connecting the dots

The Greek noun εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning “thanksgiving”, is not used in the New Testament as a name for the rite; however, the related verb is found in New Testament accounts of the Last Supper, including the earliest such account:

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks (εὐχαριστήσας), he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me”. (1 Corinthians 11:23-24)”

This article :

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/from-jewish-passover-to-christian-eucharist-the-story-of-the-todah.html

 

[tgGodsway]

-]/-]

It is , and I will try to be nice.

What does breaking bread together mean to you? Scripture talks of the early church continuing to meet together and continuing with the breaking of bread. My understanding of breaking bread together is Communion that Jesus instituted as a memorial remembrance of Him and what He did.

I would think the RCC bases the Eucharist in scripture, however, is there a mention of the word anywhere? I am intrigued by your statement that it is harder for His Eucharist to be twisted. Not sure what you are proclaiming. Was the breaking of bread in the early church the exact same Eucharist you have today? Do you really see evidence in Scripture that it is supposed to be the summit and climax of the Christian experience? If you can address all these questions it may be helpful to me.

Please explain.

I don’t think I am anxious but I am confused somewhat! If the Eucharist is more important than scripture and is the summit of our faith, why bother with scripture? It seems logical to just go partake of the Eucharist as much as you can. Oh wait, it just suddenly occurs to me this may be what you Catholics have been saying all the time?

 

[James248]

tgGodsway:
Rcwitness answered those.

 

[ajcstr]

I don’t think I am anxious but I am confused somewhat! If the Eucharist is more important than scripture and is the summit of our faith, why bother with scripture?

I think you were the one (though it may have been lanman) who described Protestantism as being binary (ie saved/not saved). This is another example of this. Why does one have to be higher than the other, why can’t they both be important.

It seems logical to just go partake of the Eucharist as much as you can. Oh wait, it just suddenly occurs to me this may be what you Catholics have been saying all the time?

Based on how Catholics read John 6:51-58, how can you expect anything else from us.

 

[tgGodsway]

I have now posted a response to Catholic twice on this thread and it is still not here. Is someone controlling it behind the scenes?

 

[tgGodsway]

From wiki…followed up with an article connecting the dots

The Greek noun εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning “thanksgiving”, is not used in the New Testament as a name for the rite; however, the related verb is found in New Testament accounts of the Last Supper, including the earliest such account:

“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks (εὐχαριστήσας), he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me”. (1 Corinthians 11:23-24)”

This article :

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/from-jewish-passover-to-christian-eucharist-the-story-of-the-todah.html

Yeah, in the same way that his body was preparing to be broken in terms of the cross, he broke the literal bread. This is my body… Prophetically proclaiming his death. It was an object lesson to which he wanted us to memorialize. Nothing more and nothing less. It certainly did not become some kind of perpetual bloodless sacrifice, suggesting the cross was not enough. Jesus said it is finished! The sin debt is paid in full. Hallelujah good news!

 

[Peter_J]

I haven’t forgotten y’all BTW. This is just one of those threads that makes me think "Hmmm, I should post something here that is better than what has already been said by theologians and councils of bishops, so … "