Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Hear, hear - agree completely!
- Status
B
benjohnson
Guest
?!?!
I’m probably mis-understanding you, but from what I can see, the saints are all over the map - some were even murderers before coming to Christ.
A modern example of a saintly person having troubles is how Blessed Teresa of Calcutta went through a prolonged crisis of faith - the dark night of the soul for years.
We should draw strength in this! That God loves His people even when they fail to be consistent.
C
Contarini
Guest
Why?
Indulgences were just the match that set off the explosion. But fundamentally I agree. That’s the reason I have the alias I do..
Edwin
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Exactly, but the improvement in behavior is expected after an epiphany, not necessarily before as with Saul/Paul. Faith is carrying on even without the benefit of feeling good about it. Luther had at least two instances when he had a fit beyond his control.
Reading James’ “Varieties of Religious Experience” sheds some light on the matter.
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Excuse me, but didn’t Jesus say what comes out of a mouth or a person makes clean or unclean? (not what goes in)
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
We would say it doesn’t contradict James 2:24, because James is not addressing the basis on which we are justified *before God *, but rather, is discussing the manner by which we show that our faith is genuine. James is basically saying, “You can see then that a person is right with God by how they act, and not only by their profession to believe, since any false believer can make a profession of faith.”
St. Paul, however, says that we receive the promises of the gospel and are justifie only through faith, and not by works. Promises are received by believing them, not by working for them, since they are a gift. It is in this sense that we say works have nothing to do with justification.
R
rcwitness
Guest
And I would say that is manipulating James´ words. He is talking about Faith which saves. He is not concerned about being justified before men. What good is that? Would that be wisdom from above? Men cannot save anyone.
St Paul is talking about the Grace of justification. He is bringing men out of the old covenant and the mentality that works earn justification. James is distinguishing the difference between a mere faith which does not cooperate with Jesus and faith that men obey out of love which God has first shared with them.
One passage that I think gets overlooked in this discussion is Romans 8:16,17
“The Spirit Himself bears 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.”
The Church won´t argue that faith is necessary to do good works. So faith is the initial and free gift. Then it is said that faith is completed by good works. This takes the cooperation, by means of suffering and submitting ourselves in order for Christ to live. This work is not taking away from God´s grace or His glory, but a necessary act of faith which God gives glory back to his worker.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Or what about this statement by Paul…
1 Timothy 5
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Here, he is talking about a Christian who entered the faith and believes, yet did not do the work which the faith requires.
1 Timothy 5
“But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Here, he is talking about a Christian who entered the faith and believes, yet did not do the work which the faith requires.
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
I never stated that James is saying justification before men. Rather, what I stated is that James is addressing how we can recognize true faith from a false profession in other believers. That is the entire context of the chapter.
H
hn160
Guest
But the Council of Trent is still in effect.I used to dismiss the JDDJ as a typical “ecumenical” document, full of doublespeak and essentially worthless. After all, the Catholic Church’s soteriological point of view was clearly just a poorly-disguised form of Works Righteousness, and the Magisterium was simply benefiting from its centuries-long “reaching God through guilt” campaign.
That was, until I stumbled across Pope Benedict’s wonderful, clear words of Gospel. Blot out the name, and the words spoken at that audience could just as easily have been written by a Preus. Turns out today’s Catholicism doesn’t teach a single ounce of Works Righteousness, the Magisterium preaches Gospel, not guilt, and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI might just be a crypto-Lutheran.
In all seriousness, I still have my issues with the JDDJ, but Benedict’s words have forced me to reconsider that document’s value and given me hope that corporate reunion, Holy Spirit willing, might not be impossible.
K
KjetilK
Guest
I don’t particularly like either. First, ‘Protestant’ is a name that was given to the (vastly different) Reformational movements during the 16th and 17th century, and it doesn’t really fit, in my opinion. Second, I’m not ‘non-Catholic.’
M
MaryT777
Guest
What would be a better term for Catholics to use regarding non Catholic religions. You can’t just say Lutheran because we have posters here posting from varied Synods such as LCMS, Wels, etc. I agree it’s a difficult issue because then you have the Lutherans broken down by synod, the LCMS with the Pope/Office is the Anti Christ, didn’t sign the JDDJ, the ELCA which did sign the JDDJ, ordains women, homosexual clergy etc.
This is a small example of the predicament Catholics are In when discussing non Catholic religions. There is no way a Catholic could keep up on all the even mainstream religions with their liberal/conservative variations and then the non denominations.
What are we supposed to do when addressing non Catholics?. To me if you are not Catholic you are NON Catholic and that’s probably the best we can do. I have come to understand protestant is an “umbrella” no one wants to be under anymore and not all religions unlike the Lutherans ’ Protest Rome’ as a way to define their own religion.
Open to a better solution.
Mary.
K
KjetilK
Guest
But ‘Catholic’ is NOT a confessional term. I AM Catholic.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes but non it Communion with the Pope of Rome right?
I
Indifferently
Guest
The Creed of St Athanasius defines a Catholic as someone who professes catholic faith in the Holy Trinity. The Pope of Rome is not mentioned.
I for one am fine being called Protestant. In fact it’s a label I gleefully use.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Ok… still, i´m not sure this is his point. James is talking about what matters to God and how we are justified in the faith… how our faith is completed. And there is no getting around the very blunt statement that, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
It does have to do with the false concept of Once Saved Always Saved. James is recognizing a basic faith which can have belief and recieve the initial gifts of justification, such as Baptismal forgiveness and acceptance into the body of Christ. This then is not a final judgment which determines where we will be at the end of our life. We still have the trials and temptations which test our faith. James then uses the works of a person who walks by faith as a part or participation in our continual justification. This is most consistant with Christ´s Teachings that He himself, both man and God, will judge men according to their works.
Now, the important thing for us Catholics to believe in order to be doing God´s will is that this is not out of ourselves, but we have been lifted out of the old nature and given grace from Jesus in order to cooperate.
Paul is very determined to instill this on believers, so that they do not fall back into the old trap that we are able to keep the Law and Commandments without the assisting grace which only came at the price of the suffering of the One who did keep all the Law… and more, since He applied our consequence on Himself. And He did this because He Himself is good and we are unable to keep the Law without this merited grace.
So James reveals that saving faith will be determined by its works, whom Christ will demand and judge.
I
Indifferently
Guest
Can someone please point me to a text where John Calvin uses the phrase “once saved always saved”?
Can we please dissociate this clumsy phrase from the Reformed doctrine of eternal security? “Once saved always saved” is a doctrine commonly associated with hyper-Arminian and Pelagian concepts of faith-salvation, where saying the “sinner’s prayer” once gets you “saved”, regardless of how you live.
In Reformed theology (and this is a point upon which Lutherans diverge from the Reformed) a key doctrine is that of definite (or limited) atonement - that Jesus Christ died for his elect only. In a sense, these were once “saved” by his redeeming work and will be infallibly guaranteed a place in heaven. Those for whom Christ did not die are not and can never be saved.
However, the application of this salvation, or justification, which is wrought by the Holy Spirit and received by faith alone (according to the Reformed view) is something that the elect receive and cannot lose. R. C. Sproul prefers “once in grace, always in grace.”
Can we please dissociate this clumsy phrase from the Reformed doctrine of eternal security? “Once saved always saved” is a doctrine commonly associated with hyper-Arminian and Pelagian concepts of faith-salvation, where saying the “sinner’s prayer” once gets you “saved”, regardless of how you live.
In Reformed theology (and this is a point upon which Lutherans diverge from the Reformed) a key doctrine is that of definite (or limited) atonement - that Jesus Christ died for his elect only. In a sense, these were once “saved” by his redeeming work and will be infallibly guaranteed a place in heaven. Those for whom Christ did not die are not and can never be saved.
However, the application of this salvation, or justification, which is wrought by the Holy Spirit and received by faith alone (according to the Reformed view) is something that the elect receive and cannot lose. R. C. Sproul prefers “once in grace, always in grace.”
P
Per_Crucem
Guest
And to us, the problem with reading “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” as “God forgives and justifies sinners based on what they do and not by faith alone” completely ignores the previous context that James is discussing. Not once does James address how a sinner is forgiven and righteous before God in the entire chapter. So that isn’t what he is talking about. Rather, what James means is “You can see that a person is right with God by how they behave and not only going by what they say.” This is why Abraham and Rahab are mentioned as well; their faith in God manifested itself in their works and as such, their righteousness was demonstrated.
The huge problem, imo, with bringing James into the discussion is that it is used to systematically undo what Paul teaches; when Paul’s epistles that address justification are far more relevant and systematic in their treatment of the doctrine of justification. We don’t judge a major writing by a minor writing, especially one that isn’t even addressing the same subject.
R
rcwitness
Guest
Sorry I can´t offer what you asked for, but maybe all Traditions have some sort of concept of the elect. Didn´t St. Augustine teach about the existence of predestined ones, which had something to do with an irresistable grace?
K
KjetilK
Guest
No, and neither is the Patriarch of Constantinople.
- Status