D
dcana
Guest
see Grace, especially Part II, Sanctifying Grace
and also
Justification
for two great articles on the subject
and also
Justification
for two great articles on the subject
- Status
Ok, but it seems the comment, “Only works done in a state of grace (already in friendship with God) can avail us any merit (and then only because God has promised reward to those who serve him)”, made by PulvisEtCinis makes it kind of sound like we merit. Perhaps it is the “language barrier” between our communions.That is not the Catholic belief. While it is true that there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man (CCC 2007)
Filial adoption, making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us co-heirs with Christ and worthy of obtaining “the promised inheritance of eternal life.” (CCC2009)
For this reason is the Virgin Mary exalted above all of the Saints, for the merits she won, by grace. For this reason are all the Saints also exalted. We too can earn merit in God’s economy of grace. In fact we are CALLED to a life of holiness (merit) in grace. This holiness will be increased (by grace) through our meritorious works.
Either way, if we agree that our good works only result because of the Spirit’s work in and through us, we are perhaps closer than we think.
Jon
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I am not too sure we can agree here either. You seem reluctant to use the word grace working in us. We DO have free will. We CAN CHOOSE to do good (by God’s grace), and thereby merit further grace to do yet more. Unless I am mistaken, I don’t think you are with us on this point. Although, I will grant you, that God’s sanctifying grace is given to us by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (our Justification.)
P
PulvisEtCinis
Guest
Begging your pardon, but I did read it. I believe there is a disagreement and a divergence, but I think we are talking past each-other. Let me see if I can clarify what I mean.
The reason that I say that you are “conflating” these virtues is because you are saying, essentially, that a ‘false’ faith lacks hope, trust, love etc, but a ‘true faith’ contains these virtues as if there are two different ‘faiths’. If when you say ‘we are saved by faith alone’ and yet ‘faith’ is meant to signify, or contain, ‘belief, trust, hope, love etc’ at the same time. I do not see how this is not a conflation of these ideas.
We do not see a difference between ‘dead faith’ and ‘faith which saves’ when the faith itself is considered. So, like I said above, it is possible to have ‘true faith’ but not be in a state of grace. Losing charity (and with it, justification) in the will through mortal sin does not cause a loss of ‘true faith’ unless the sin is against faith as well (heresy, apostasy etc).
We see faith primarily as a habitual assent of the will, as St. Thomas Aquinas says: “Now the act of faith is to believe” and further, “Now the act of believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command of the will moved by the grace of God” See here and here for further reference. Faith, i.e. assent of the intellect, does not include within itself charity or hope, because they are separate virtues and can be lost without the faith changing at all. We do believe that faith justifies in the sense that the Council of Trent puts it “we are therefore said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God” (Sixth Session, Chapter 8) but more is required than faith alone, again as the Council of Trent puts it; “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.” (Sixth Session, Chapter 7)
There is no difference whatever between ‘dead faith’ and ‘living faith’ except for the presence of charity in the will – the divine virtue of love for God and neighbor (a completely different virtue in addition to the faith) – dead faith and living faith are, when considered in themselves, the same habitual virtue in every way. So, again, if I commit mortal sin, I do not lose any element of faith itself but rather I lose charity leaving faith and hope (again, unless the sin were against one of those virtues as well) fully intact, yet they do not profit and are not saving because charity (agape) is lacking and thus faith does not ‘work through charity’. So, it is possible, to have a true and ‘sincere’ faith without being in a state of grace. This is what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 13, Gal 5:6 et al. I do not see Paul here, or anywhere, talking about ‘true faith’ as distinguished from ‘false faith’ I see him as saying that faith alone is not enough. If a person has faith but doesn’t have charity/agape/love (something in addition to faith, not a different kind of faith) he is not in a state of justification, nor can he be. He isn’t saying ‘this faith is a different kind of faith’ but that ‘faith needs something else in addition: to work through agape.’ Likewise, works (circumcision for example) without faith, hope and charity is also equally dead as faith without charity. James is also talking about this same idea ‘faith which worketh through charity’ in his epistle: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the scriptures was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James’ whole epistle, to me, is a complete repudiation of any ‘faith alone’ notion, because he is saying exactly that ‘faith alone’ doesn’t justify; it must be completed by works, again as Paul would say it, ‘faith which worketh through charity’ and faith cannot ‘work through charity’ unless one also possesses charity in addition to faith. Therefore, justification is not, in any way conceivable, by ‘faith alone’ no matter how sincere the faith is.
Now, back to what you said previously about being in agreement (and perhaps you will agree with some of what I have already written): Here is the point of my contention with the Reformed/Lutheran doctrine of ‘faith alone:’ When someone says ‘justification is by faith alone’ and then turns around and starts saying that ‘faith must have love’ and ‘faith must have works’ ‘faith must have… (whatever)’ to be ‘true faith’. I see this as speaking (unintentionally no doubt) out of both sides of one’s mouth. Either it is a) by ‘faith alone’ that we are justified and united to Christ, and hope, love etc need not apply because ‘faith alone’ by logical necessity excludes those things as being actually required for salvation, or else b) these things are necessary as well as faith and therefore it cannot be said to be by ‘faith alone’. I don’t see that you can have it both ways.
Continued…
P
PulvisEtCinis
Guest
Yes, but it isn’t necessary to be ‘repeated, unrepented sin’ – one mortal sin is sufficient to cut one off from the life of God (charity) and make him an enemy of God, because a mortal sin is a turning from God to some created thing through action, and as I pointed out above, this doesn’t remove any element of faith itself, only charity. If one repents (ordinarily through the Sacrament of Penance, or at least desire for it, or perfect contrition alone if he is Invincibly Ignorant) he is restored to grace – i.e. a restoration of charity (in addition to the faith and hope that are already present).
Ah, Okay, I wasn’t sure. I am not quite sure how the Sacraments all plays out in Lutheran theology. As time allows I shall read further and see if I can understand your perspective better.
But, see, that’s just the thing. We DO merit, though, of course, not of ourselves alone. We merit in and through the grace of God. Works that we do in a state of grace are truly meritorious and grant to us an increase in justification. The Scriptures themselves speak of receiving reward for ‘works’. 1 Cor 3:14 is a clear example of this, also Luke 14:12-14, Romans 2:6-7, Hebrews 6:9-12 ‘God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love…’ etc, Matthew 24:14-30 parable of the talents, and other Scriptures in addition to these…
There are two types of merit. Firstly, there is congruous merit, in which it is fitting for God to reward the person but there is no equality between service and reward, i.e. God is not obligated to give a reward. Secondly there is condign merit, in which to not give a reward would be a violation of justice.
Man, under his natural power, cannot merit condign merit, because there is an infinite divide between man and God. But, he can merit congruous merit (such that it is fitting for God to reward the man). Condign merit can only be obtained when in a state of grace, through the working of Divine grace. As St. Thomas Aquinas says:
Whether a man may merit anything from God?
“Now it is clear that between God and man there is the greatest inequality: for they are infinitely apart, and all man’s good is from God. Hence there can be no justice of absolute equality between man and God, but only of a certain proportion, inasmuch as both operate after their own manner. Now the manner and measure of human virtue is in man from God. Hence man’s merit with God only exists on the presupposition of the Divine ordination, so that man obtains from God, as a reward of his operation, what God gave him the power of operation for, even as natural things by their proper movements and operations obtain that to which they were ordained by God; differently, indeed, since the rational creature moves itself to act by its free-will, hence its action has the character of merit, which is not so in other creatures.”
And again:
Whether man in grace can merit eternal life condignly?
*“Man’s meritorious work may be considered in two ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost. If it is considered as regards the substance of the work, and inasmuch as it springs from the free-will, there can be no condignity because of the very great inequality. But there is congruity, on account of an equality of proportion: for it would seem congruous that, if a man does what he can, God should reward him according to the excellence of his power.
If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting according to John 4:14: “Shall become in him a fount of water springing up into life everlasting.” And the worth of the work depends on the dignity of grace, whereby a man, being made a partaker of the Divine Nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom the inheritance is due by right of adoption, according to Romans 8:17: “If sons, heirs also.”*
We merit only in so far as we work through free-will in accord with Divine grace. In a work that is meritorious there is both the human working and Divine Grace working. One of the best ways that I have heard it put is this: imagine an artisan cutting a board. What does the artisan use to do this? A saw. Okay, so the saw has teeth which cut the board (let us say that we are the saw, the teeth on the saw are Habitual Grace given by God, the Artisan is God). So, the Artisan moves the saw, the saw is in co-operation with the Artisan – doing what is proportionate to it – and the teeth (Divine Grace) cut the board. So, by this analogy the work is fully synergistic, God does the work, but we also do the work. We co-operate with grace through free-will, yet the grace which we possess actually is what makes it condignly meritorious for eternal life. So, all of our good works are by and in and through Grace, and our bad works are us simply not co-operating with the grace given by God.
On the contrary, I am reluctant to *understate *the role of grace working in us, thus overvaluing our role. I do not deny our ability to reject grace (free will), but our ability to do His good work comes from Him, and the grace we receive.
Agreed, and this is the source of our willingness to cooperate in doing good works.
Is this contrary to what you believe?
Jon
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
It seems we agree then.
Your saying “Other than the idea that WE merit in any way, I have no disagreement with this.”
seemed to cut off any idea that we can merit IN ANY WAY.
J
JoeT777
Guest
I get the distinct impression from this and other posts that ‘grace’ is the purveyor of the theological virtues of faith, hope, or charity. Something akin to a gooey sticky substance covering the inherently evil nature of the soul allowing only the polarized rays of faith to shine through the tar-like substance.
JoeT
Hi Joe,
I certainly don’t think of grace that way. That said, grace is of course the source of faith. Further, grace, through faith, changes us. It converts us, regenerates us, frees us to do the good works (love our neighbor) that He intends us to do.
Grace isn’t a sticky substance that would slow us down, but instead frees us from sin, death, and the Devil, frees us from the old Adam.
Jon
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Good answer Jon! But if you recognize the importance of grace, do you also recognize the economy of that grace? IOW, some grace is actual grace, that helps one do the right thing irrespective of whether they belong to Christ’s Church with access to His Sacraments. So we see such grace in the family of Cornelius in Acts 10. But there is also sanctifying grace, that is promised with the reception of the Holy Sacraments in Christ’s Church. That grace is how we are justified and how we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You benefited from that grace at your baptism. Baptism alone, of all the sacraments can be administered outside of the Catholic Church by an infidel, and yet it has efficacy. But since your baptism, your need for grace has increased, not decreased. That is only ONE of the reasons accepting the true Church of Christ, with all of its Divine Sacraments, is so essential.
Other churches can set themselves up as “Catholic” and so they often have done going back to Apostolic times. But there is only one, visible, true, Catholic Church.
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
Faith alone is not enough.
The Devil believes in God. Will that be enough to save him? I doubt it.
The Devil believes in God. Will that be enough to save him? I doubt it.
Lutherans, also, recognize the grace we receive from the sacraments, as well as hearing the word. Since that day over 60 years ago when I was baptized, I have been blessed to receive the means of grace in His body and blood, as well as absolution through His ordained servants in the Church. As have you.Good answer Jon! But if you recognize the importance of grace, do you also recognize the economy of that grace? IOW, some grace is actual grace, that helps one do the right thing irrespective of whether they belong to Christ’s Church with access to His Sacraments. So we see such grace in the family of Cornelius in Acts 10. But there is also sanctifying grace, that is promised with the reception of the Holy Sacraments in Christ’s Church. That grace is how we are justified and how we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. You benefited from that grace at your baptism. Baptism alone, of all the sacraments can be administered outside of the Catholic Church by an infidel, and yet it has efficacy. But since your baptism, your need for grace has increased, not decreased. That is only ONE of the reasons accepting the true Church of Christ, with all of its Divine Sacraments, is so essential.
Other churches can set themselves up as “Catholic” and so they often have done going back to Apostolic times. But there is only one, visible, true, Catholic Church.
We probably won’t be able to resolve the issue between us regarding validity. I know without question that your priesthood and sacraments are valid, just as I know without the slightest doubt that ours are. I also know that your communion does not reciprocate in that way, but that’s ok.
We agree that there is one Holy Church that is eternal, and while we recognize that those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are a significant part of it, the Church is not only and exclusive in communion with him. We confess and are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as well.
Jon
J
JoeT777
Guest
Luther: “Therefore it is mere idle, extravagant talk when those fools, the Sophists [the scholastic theologians] chatter about the fides formata, i.e. a faith which is to take its true form and shape from love.” [Grisar, Hartmann, SJ, *Luther p. 308 c. Cp. Mohler, “Symbolik,” p. 156, n. 1 see also, Luther, Martin, The Large Catechism.]
We know that a virtuous faith is formed in charity. Movement in any virtuous act is directed to God’s goodness as a result of the will. An act of faith has its direction towards charity in God’s goodness. “Therefore,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “charity is called the form of faith in so far as the act of faith is perfected and formed by charity.” Charity quickens faith; every virtue that might precede faith is quickened by charity. Thus, says St. Paul, the greatest theological virtue is charity. We should find, like St. Thomas Aquinas, that grace can be viewed as a favor that provides light in the soul to enlighten the soul in allowing it to share in His Divine good in keeping with His love. An eternal love that “predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will” [Ephesians 1:5]
Luther, however, seems to contradict the meaning of grace making it a gooey substance of the an individual kingdom and the salvation of a single person. Faith is placed first, without formation in charity, an empty faith. Since it is faith that saves, then the grace of God is nothing more than knowing the BOOK. Faith alone Luther says, “which apprehends Christ by means of the Word” [ibid] Thus, I have concluded Luther’s religion is to read BOOK which in turn is a gooey grace, a kind of syrupy food nearly empty of Divine calories.
JoeT
p. 308 c. Cp. Mohler, “Symbolik,” p. 156, n. 1 see also, Luther, Martin, The Large Catechism.]
We know that a virtuous faith is formed in charity. Movement in any virtuous act is directed to God’s goodness as a result of the will. An act of faith has its direction towards charity in God’s goodness. “Therefore,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “charity is called the form of faith in so far as the act of faith is perfected and formed by charity.” Charity quickens faith; every virtue that might precede faith is quickened by charity. Thus, says St. Paul, the greatest theological virtue is charity. We should find, like St. Thomas Aquinas, that grace can be viewed as a favor that provides light in the soul to enlighten the soul in allowing it to share in His Divine good in keeping with His love. An eternal love that “predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will” [Ephesians 1:5]
Luther, however, seems to contradict the meaning of grace making it a gooey substance of the an individual kingdom and the salvation of a single person. Faith is placed first, without formation in charity, an empty faith. Since it is faith that saves, then the grace of God is nothing more than knowing the BOOK. Faith alone Luther says, “which apprehends Christ by means of the Word” [ibid] Thus, I have concluded Luther’s religion is to read BOOK which in turn is a gooey grace, a kind of syrupy food nearly empty of Divine calories.
JoeT
Hi Joe,
Two questions:
- how formed is the justifying faith of a newly baptized infant?
The issue between our traditions, I think, is not the importance of love, but the role it plays in the life of the regenerate, and in how we use the terms justification and sanctification. - other than what it “seems” to you, do you have evidence from Luther’s hand that he thought that faith came before grace?
As a cradle Lutheran, this contention is so far off the catechesis I have received all of my life.
"It is faith alone that apprehends Christ… ". By this he means grace, grace in its purest form, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
Grace is always first. Faith does not exist without grace.
J
JoeT777
Guest
Salvation comes through the salvific grace conferred in Baptism, and through faith of child’s parents, and through the child’s Church. Faith only ‘justifies’ when it is perfected making us adopted sons of God. Faith is perfected in charity; “see,” says St. James, “that faith wrought with his works, and that by works faith was perfected.” [James 2:22].
An infant baptized is saved through the faith of his parents and his Church. Those not baptized are saved by a merciful God, if they are indeed ‘saved’. Luther said that one is saved by ‘faith alone’. Therefore, under his system we can conclude that no child is ‘saved’ until he is baptized by faith which he confers on himself and which can occur only after the age of reason. Therefore the results according to Luther’s system death of the body prior to this age and prior to ‘receiving’ the child is doomed to a spiritual death as well.
Lutheranism made charity part of their ‘tradition’ removing its significance in scripture; it follows faith for what reason Luther makes unclear. Any act of charity is sin, and the faithful are to sin, sin mightily.
I didn’t say Luther thought faith came before grace, what I implied was that faith and grace were one and the same thing to Luther. We are saved by God’s grace which is ‘faith alone’.
Luther writes in “The Large Catechism”, “In the sight of God it is really faith that makes a person holy; faith alone serves him, while our works serve the people.”
The thread isn’t about your catechesis, rather about Luther’s new magisterium.
You as well as Luther say that faith alone saves, then turn to say it is grace alone by which we are saved. Since Luther declears “liberum arbitrium est mortuum,” then grace is imposed on the soul without regard to love. The imposed is the affections of an unwanted lover who imposes ‘faith;’ a faith that can only be read in a book. This is a faith in which there is no act of the will, hence nothing is merited, neither forgiveness nor is His merciful justice warranting everlasting life or death - automatons are not judged, they either run or not. And according to Luther only ‘faith’ justifies, thus it is an imposed justification on whoever is ‘chosen’. Conversely, Scripture only speaks of the chosen faithful’. There is a contradistinction that can’t stand when compared to bible alone.
In the religion of Luther we receive ‘grace’ on the whim of a pernicious God, this being He who creates good, as well as, evil. Faith and grace then are one and same thing forcing acts of hope and charity, are they not?
Another contradiction, Luther took all good works to be Idolatrae. This included the works of keeping the first commandment to love God and to love thy neighbor. In Luther’s philosophies, these things naturally became "justification by works.” In his book Luther and Lutheranism, Denefle rightly points out the inconsistency with his point of view:
From this point of view, too, Luther had to reject the Catholic ideal of life, namely, the most perfect fulfillment possible of the commandment of the love of God and of neighbor, since, according to him, the fulfillment of the love of God pertains to a work of law, and consequently stands in opposition to his gospel. He declared the fulfillment of that law to be simply an impossibility for us, and thereby took from all good works, whether done in the cloister or out of it, their root and their crown ; in other words, the religious state was thereby turned into a caricature. [Denifle, Heinrich, Luther and Lutheranism, p. 385.]
JoeT
No. this is not the teaching at all. Faith is not something one can “confer” upon oneself. Faith is something we receive, made available by grace, a gift.To say that one confers faith upon oneself is, essentially, no different than pelagianism.
On Baptism:
“Holy sacrament of Baptism”, Luther
And that is entirely your implication. Grace is accessed by faith alone. Grace is not faith alone.
And faith is a gift of grace.
True, but it also isn’t about your implications. I am happy to hear them, however, and I believe we can with charity speak to each other about your implications, and my catechesis as they relate to the topic.
Sola fide is shorthand. The fact is that Lutherans believe that we are saved by grace, and grace alone. We access this grace through faith. It is created and nurtured in us by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace - Baptism, Absolution, and the Eucharist, as well as by hearing the word.
All are chosen, Joe. We do not have the limited atonement of the Calvinists.
No, not forcing, but freeing.
[bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#IV. Good Works.)
Under grace.
Continued
M
MarcoPolo
Guest
Luther explains his motive in An Open Letter on Translating. I don’t have the link handy on my phone but if you search for that you’ll find it. I think it might be at archive.org iirc
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
From Luther’s letter:
…I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.
So in this last paragraph, I believe Luther felt he had justified his use of “only,” by assuming that Paul was using a German type of idiom, or at least that it was Paul’s intent. Of course it is not convincing nor does it justify his inserting of the word ‘alone.’ Especially when we realize how conveniently it supported his novel doctrines.
- Status