Non-Catholics and James 2:18-26

[chrisg93]

I am also confused by many of these posts. I humbly offer my following lowly opinion…

Love is much more important than Faith. Some Protestants forget that Paul says that “faith, working thru love” is the key. Faith fails, but love never fails.

Jesus death and ressurection is the ultimate “work”. Therefore “works” must be necessary for us also.

Thank You.

 

[inJESUS]

to those who believe in faith only, what if i believe in Jesus’ sacrifice for me yet kill and robb?? it doesnt make sense! when you believe someone you follow him…so work is a consequence.

 

[sandusky]

Robert in SD:

Contradiction only arises where one reads Paul as teaching that a person is justified by faith alone. But, of course, Paul NEVER states faith *alone * saves. Instead, he teaches that works done without faith do not save - a profoundly different statement. Catholics readily accept both Paul’s teaching and James’s teaching because they are consistent. Works without faith cannot save. Faith without works cannot save. Faith and works are both required by God for salvation. (In a nutshell)

BTW - If James were really referring to “sanctification” as opposed to “salvation” why did he not make that distinction? I don’t think it was James that was confused here. Rather, it was those who came 1500 years later who were confused.

-Peace.

See my post #4 above. (From your argument it seems as though either you haven’t read it, or you are dismissing it out of hand.)

 

[sandusky]

sandusky:

See my post #4 above. (From your argument it seems as though either you haven’t read it, or you are dismissing it out of hand.)

Sorry Robert, I see you did read that post, and find it to be incorrect.

In fact, Paul does teach that justification is by faith alone, and so does the RCC.

The RCC refers to it as “initial justification,” and that is, in her statements, by faith alone.

If you re-read my post, I believe that you will find that James can only be talking about sanctification, as stated in the post about one having been “actually” (previously) justified.

 

[tdandh26]

Contarini,
I am not out to prove or disprove your personal unerstanding. Rather I am attempting to give biblical evidence that certain protestant held beliefs are not biblical. Yes there may be one or two verses that might suggest a certain notion when taken out of context or given to some hypothosis that is based on personal desire rather than truth. I really in all honesty desire to see the protest stop.
I do know what sola fide and sola scriptura are I have read and learned much about them. I do know for instance that in many cases the protestant idea behind faith alone is that good works operate through faith. This is also slightly misguided based on scripture. Since it has a tendency to eliminate the concept of free will.
I must say that I do find the idea of sola fide sad at best. It tends to eliminate personal responsibility to follow Christ. But rather seem to say simply believe Jesus was God and Savior and your in. This concept also seems to say that if you have faith you cannot but help to do good works. Hmm, I do believe a desire to live your faith must precede the good works. Again free will must be capable of being applied. We do not become robotic belief systems once we receive faith.

 

[tdandh26]

sandusky:

Sorry Robert, I see you did read that post, and find it to be incorrect.

In fact, Paul does teach that justification is by faith alone, and so does the RCC.

The RCC refers to it as “initial justification,” and that is, in her statements, by faith alone.

If you re-read my post, I believe that you will find that James can only be talking about sanctification, as stated in the post about one having been “actually” (previously) justified.

No it does not. It teaches that we are saved by grace alone. Not faith alone. The Catholic Church teaches by both faith and works.

Jesus never ever ever taught this ever. Protestants somehow seem to forget that it was the Catholic Church which gave us the Bible. Do you think that if there was some sort of conspiracy that they would have allowed texts to be placed within it that spoke against their beliefs? People are so puffed up in believing that their new ideas are somehow new. All these protestant theories were at one time or another defeated heresies, which Luther, Calvin, and Zwinglie(sp) reintroduced with the power of certain immoral princes and kings to support them. Otherwise these also would have quickly fulttered. But their concept that easy salvation was very enticing to many who desired to maintain their sinful lifestyle while maintaining that they were still Christians. I am not saying that this is the idea of people today but rather it is the initial reason that is did spread at all.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello sandusky;

I did not dismiss your argument out of hand. I just disagree with it, and was trying to be brief in my response. I’ll try to elaborate…

sandusky:

… But an exegetical analysis of James’ teaching will disclose that in James’ teaching the accent falls upon the probative character of good works, whereas in the Pauline polemic the accent falls without question upon the judicially constitutive and declarative character of justification. Paul and James clearly mean something different by their use of the words “justified,” ‘faith,” and “works,” and they turn to different places in Genesis and thus to different events in Abraham’s life to support their respective applications of Gen 15:6. This much should be denied by no one.

I’m afraid I am going to have to disagree with your conclusion. James is not teaching that good works are proof of saving faith. James is teaching that one who has faith is obligated to do good works under God’s grace. The good works that flow from the grace imparted to one by their faith are not merely probative of one’s justification, but a necessary component to one’s salvation. Hence, Paul declares that we must work out our salvation in fear and trembling. (Phil. 2:13-13 - another stumbling block for sola fide)

Only if one approaches Scripture with the preconception that faith ALONE saves does one perceive the appearance of contradiction arising from James as compared with Paul. Protestant theologians create the controversy by implicitly inserting the word “alone” into Paul’s text. Without the Lutheran preconception, one can see that Paul declares faith is necessary for salvation and James adds that good works are also necessary.

sandusky:

Whereas Paul intends by “justified” the actual act on God’s part whereby He pardons and imputes righteousness to the ungodly, James intends by “justified” the verdict which God declares when the actually (previously) justified man has demonstrated his actual righteous state by obedience and good works.

Again, this is a good rationale for Protestant theology, but it is not supported by the text. Both James and Paul use the term justification to mean the same thing. Protestant theology pulls the term apart and redefines it to mean “sanctification” (a process allegedly occurring only after one secures their salvation) where the authors of scripture clearly intend to speak of justification in the salvific sense. Your analysis imposes new meaning on the text that was never intended by James.

sandusky:

Whereas Paul intends by “faith” trustful repose in the merits of Christ alone for pardon and righteousness, James is addressing those whose “faith” was tending toward, if it had not already become, a cold, orthodox intellectualism …

No. Both are refering to faith in the same sense. Again, I find it interesting that protestants who cling to a literal interpretation of scripture find it necessary to say “faith” means one thing when Paul says it, but another when James uses the same term. It is an artificial distinction unsupported by the text.

sandusky:

Whereas Paul, when he repudiates “works,” intends by “works” “the works of the law,” that is, any and every work of whatever kind done for the sake of acquiring merit, James intends by “works” acts of kindness toward those in need performed as the fruit and evidence of a true and vital faith and the actual justified state. (2:14-17).

Yes, Paul is telling his audience that the works of the law alone will not merit salvation. To which Catholics reply AMEN! James, on the other hand, is telling his audience that faith must be a living faith that is filled with good works. Again Catholics say AMEN. No contradiction here.

sandusky:

Whereas Paul is concerned with the question, how may a man achieve right standing before God, and turns to Gen 15:6 to find his answer, James is concerned with the question, how is a man to demonstrate that he has true faith and is therefore actually justified before God turns to Gen 22:9-10, as the probative “fulfillment” of Gen 15:6 (see Gen 22:12), to find his answer (2:21). Note his deixon, “show me”, and deixo, “I will show you" in 2:18; his blepeis, “you see” in 2:22 and his horate, “you see” at the beginning of 2:24—the very verse under discussion: “You see that a man is justified by [his] works, and not by [his said] faith (cf v14) alone.”

This is not supported. You are approaching these passages from the assumption that faith *alone * is what is required for salvation. That is contrary to a faithful reading of Scripture.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

sandusky:

Sorry Robert, I see you did read that post, and find it to be incorrect.

In fact, Paul does teach that justification is by faith alone, and so does the RCC.

The RCC refers to it as “initial justification,” and that is, in her statements, by faith alone.

If you re-read my post, I believe that you will find that James can only be talking about sanctification, as stated in the post about one having been “actually” (previously) justified.

There is a great distinction between the initial justification that one receives by faith through grace, on the one hand, and salvation on the other hand. The Catholic concept of justification is not synonymous with the protestant concept of being “saved.”

Justification - in Catholic terms - speaks of a right relationship with God - restored by Christ’s sacrifice and freely given, not earned. It is received by faith, through grace, but it does not assure our ultimate salvation. Rather, we are obligated to respond to that grace by living an active life of faith that includes keeping the commandments and doing good works as James teaches his audience.

James is speaking about the necessity of good works in addition to faith - as the necessary accompaniment of faith - the “response” in effect to faith that will fill us with God’s grace and lead us to salvation. James does not speak of “sanctification” as a separate process that occurs after one is first “saved.” James acknowledges salvation as the process that begins with one’s initial justification and continues to the point of death. There is no artificial point of acheiving salvation in James text. James does not say to his readers “you are already saved, but you have to do good works.” He clearly calls into question the state of his audience’s salvation - because he understands - as to faithful Catholics - that salvation depends upon keeping that right relationship with God.

(NOTE: I am not saying that anything we can merits that right relationship. Catholic doctrine teaches that it is God’s grace within us that allows our good works to have any salvific effect, so that He alone is responsible for our salvation - “lest any man should boast.”)

 

[sandusky]

Robert,

Thanks for your responses, they are very instructive.

I have some questions.

Before that, I must say that preconceptions cut both ways.

With that said, you list the Lutheran preconception as one that people who believe in justification/salvation by faith alone have, are there any others?

In response to a statement I made in my original post on this thread concerning my contention that James was talking about works probatively, that is, as proof, or as evidence of faith, you disagreed with me saying:

James is not teaching that good works are proof of saving faith.

Later in my post I say the same thing:

Sandusky:

James intends by “works” acts of kindness toward those in need performed as the fruit and evidence of a true and vital faith and the actual justified state. (2:14-17).

To which you reply:

Yes, Paul is telling his audience that the works of the law alone will not merit salvation. To which Catholics reply AMEN! James, on the other hand, is telling his audience that faith must be a living faith that is filled with good works. Again Catholics say AMEN. No contradiction here.

I don’t understand that.

First you say that I am wrong, that James is not teaching that good works are “proof” of saving faith, and then you agree with me, and say that James is indeed teaching that good works are “evidence of a true and vital faith and the actual justified state.”

Proof is evidence, and evidence is proof, isn’t that correct?

So I must ask you directly, are good works “proof” of saving faith, or not?

You also say:

I am not saying that anything we can merits that right relationship. Catholic doctrine teaches that it is God’s grace within us that allows our good works to have any salvific effect, so that He alone is responsible for our salvation - “lest any man should boast.”)

It seems to me that you are making a distinction between a “right relationship” with God, and salvation. If you are not, correct me, and if you are, will you explain that distinction?

 

[Contarini]

tdandh26:

Contarini,
I am attempting to give biblical evidence that certain protestant held beliefs are not biblical.

But you need to establish which Protestants you are talking about. It seems to me that you are working with a bit of a caricature. Sure, there are Protestants who actually fit the caricature–just as there are Catholics who don’t know anything about the Bible, etc. Caricatures die hard because you can always find examples in the real world to support them.

I do know for instance that in many cases the protestant idea behind faith alone is that good works operate through faith. This is also slightly misguided based on scripture.

Whether or not this accusation is correct, you did not reflect your knowledge of the classic Protestant position in your earlier post. You spoke as if Protestants gave works no role in salvation at all–and depending on which Protestants we are talking about and what we mean by salvation, that may be true or false. But on the whole I think it’s a highly misleading way of putting it.

Since it has a tendency to eliminate the concept of free will.

No, I don’t think that’s a convincing criticism. If your doctrine of free will entails a disconnect between inner disposition and outward action, then I would suggest that you have a faulty idea of free will (perhaps this understanding of free will can be supported by certain late medieval Catholic theologians, but it’s certainly not the mainstream of the Catholic tradition, at least not before the 14th century).

When I tell my wife that I love her, she has a right to expect that I will behave in a certain way. If I didn’t show my love by my actions, she would be right to question if I really loved her. That wouldn’t cast doubt on my “free will.” Certain dispositions will lead to certain actions.

The real question between Catholics and Protestants is not the relationship between inner disposition (faith formed by love) and works, but the relationship between faith and love. Protestants believe that faith-formed-by-love is indivisible, so that if faith exists without love it is something fundamentally different from the Christian virtue of faith. They further believe that within this indivisible compound of faith and love it is faith that provides the basis for justification rather than love. (I think the first of these affirmations is both true and important–the second is true of initial justification–as I think Catholics would actually agree–but not anywhere near as important as Protestants since Luther have claimed.) This has nothing whatever to do with free will.

A further question is whether the relationship between disposition and outward works is one-way or two-way. In other words, can a person choose not to do the works that naturally flow from the outward disposition, and thus lose the disposition. This may be where the “free will” question comes in. But I still don’t think you have a valid objection. Do you think we will lack free will in heaven (in which our disposition will be fixed so that we will not engage in actions incompatible with it)? Believers in eternal security anticipate heaven a bit too soon, in one respect at least. That’s an error, but it hardly denies free will. “Free will” is a lot more complicated than most people think.

However, many Protestants do not believe in eternal security. They believe, just as Catholics do, that a failure to live out one’s faith/love will result in the loss of faith/love and hence (unless one repents) final damnation. Even Luther indicated as much in his commentary on Galatians (though Luther’s position is complex and paradoxical). I don’t see how the “free will” accusation applies here at all.

I must say that I do find the idea of sola fide sad at best. It tends to eliminate personal responsibility to follow Christ.

This is a rather bizarre accusation, and I can’t see that it has much relationship to the reality of Protestantism.

But rather seem to say simply believe Jesus was God and Savior and your in.

No, that is not what “faith” means for Protestants historically. There are some modern evangelicals who may think this–I once heard someone claiming on the Moody Broadcast Network that something like 80% of Americans were “saved” because they said in response to polls that they believed Jesus was the Son of God. But Luther insisted that mere “historical” faith will not do, and this is the mainstream position of Protestantism throughout the past 500 years. I understand how you could be misled by the shallow nonsense being purveyed in some evangelical quarters. Just as I can see how Protestants can get confused by the silly things many Catholics say. But we need to get beyond that on both sides.

Edwin

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Daniel Marsh:

Hi Jabronie, protestants see good works as part of santification, thus that text is not a problem for us because we understand good works is a sign of true faith. Read Eph 2:10.

I like this best Daniel short and to the point, its all about after deciding that Christ is who He is and did what He did, the rest is all about growth.

Not forgetting some in this world dont have the leisure and time to grow in Christ or work on too much. Just acknowledging Christ as their Lord and God is about as far as they get.

 

[tdandh26]

Contarini,
I in no way claimed that our outward actions are seperate from inward feelings. I really am not sure why you even claimed this since I made no claim at all concerning this.
I am at a loss though since your ideas seem to be very Catholic, what is it that keeps you from coming fully into the Church?

One other question if I may, from your post you seem to really have a high regard for Martin Luther. Isnt he one of those people who Christ was refering to in Matt. 24 v.11?

 

[sandusky]

tdandh26:

One other question if I may, from your post you seem to really have a high regard for Martin Luther. Isnt he one of those people who Christ was refering to in Matt. 24 v.11?

No. V3 makes it clear that Christ is talking about the time immediate to his second coming
(cf Mt 24:3). There are three things that are important to proper interpretation:

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

There are other verses more appropriate to your thesis.

Sandusky

 

[tdandh26]

sandusky:

No. V3 makes it clear that Christ is talking about the time immediate to his second coming
(cf Mt 24:3). There are three things that are important to proper interpretation:

1. Context
2. Context
3. Context

There are other verses more appropriate to your thesis.

Sandusky

What is it that makes you think that? It is clear to me that when He is warning us to not be fooled by schimatics that there must be one Church from which people could be drawn away from. You can deny this but you need to read according to what is going on. Jesus clearly talks first about the destruction of the temple by the Romans then proceeds to discuss the time up till His second coming without giving any hint of the time period involved. Therefore we are to take it as beware at all times from now til then.

 

[Contarini]

tdandh26:

Contarini,
I in no way claimed that our outward actions are seperate from inward feelings. I really am not sure why you even claimed this since I made no claim at all concerning this.

You objected to the claim that faith will necessarily produce works. If faith does not necessarily produce certain actions, then you are saying that the inward disposition of faith can exist without producing corresponding actions. Or am I missing something?

I am at a loss though since your ideas seem to be very Catholic, what is it that keeps you from coming fully into the Church?

Well, the flippant answer is that if I became Catholic there would be one fewer person to make life complicated for people on this board who want to stereotype and caricature Protestants.

The more serious answer is that I believe I am in the Church. I was baptized in the name of the Trinity and I am not willingly in schism from any other Trinitarian Christian. If the Catholic Church would allow me to continue to receive communion with Protestants, I would enter into full communion with Rome tomorrow.

A further answer is that just because my theology is closer to Catholicism than that of many Protestants does not mean that I agree with everything the See of Rome teaches. In fact, most of what I’ve said on this thread is the common teaching of many Protestant traditions–the various branches of the Wesleyan tradition for one, the Anabaptists for another, and most Anglicans as well. If this is what it means to be Catholic, then the real question is not why we don’t “enter fully into the Church” but why the Church refuses to recognize us.

But of course there are many issues other than justification that divide Catholics and Protestants. And even on justification I remain Protestant on one significant point–the identification of faith-formed-by-love as an indivisible unity rather than two separate things that must be put together by an act of will. This is a nuanced point, but an important one–it makes it much harder for Catholics to call people to faith in Christ in the way that evangelical Protestants do. I don’t think the two positions are diametrically opposed to each other–there are probably ways to reach an agreement that maintains what is true in both positions. But I think this is a significant point on which Protestants have maintained a truth that Catholics (at best) find it hard to proclaim as clearly. And that is one of a number of such points, which in my opinion makes the separate existence of Protestantism an unfortunate necessity so far. If we could find a way to proclaim the truths delivered to us within the Roman Communion, I for one would be delighted to do so. And I think it may well be possible–but it must be a communal decision rather than an individual one.

One other question if I may, from your post you seem to really have a high regard for Martin Luther. Isnt he one of those people who Christ was refering to in Matt. 24 v.11?

It’s hard to read this question as other than a gratuitous insult. As a matter of fact, I have a “high regard” for Martin Luther in the sense that I find him rather lovable and think that he had a lot of good insights. But I look on him rather as I would a dear but exasperating old uncle who used to take me fishing but who had the habit of breaking up family reunions by getting drunk and throwing things at people (this is a purely fictional analogy, I hasten to add–I have only one uncle, he lives in Australia, and I haven’t seen him since I was five).

Still, the old chap is a friend of sorts, and if you want to call him a false prophet, you need to make a serious argument. In the absence of any such argument, your rhetorical question is very rude and doesn’t further the cause of truth and love in any way whatsoever.

Edwin

 

[tdandh26]

Contarini:

You objected to the claim that faith will necessarily produce works. If faith does not necessarily produce certain actions, then you are saying that the inward disposition of faith can exist without producing corresponding actions. Or am I missing something?

Ill answer if I may by asking a question. Is it possible for a person to truely believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and the Savior of the world, and yet reject His teachings as being corrupted by humans? Also could a person be a murder and still believe that Jesus was the Son of God? My reason for asking this is that it is the Catholic position that simply because one says they believe, it is not enough, they must live the faith that they claim.

Well, the flippant answer is that if I became Catholic there would be one fewer person to make life complicated for people on this board who want to stereotype and caricature Protestants

Thanks for that.

The more serious answer is that I believe I am in the Church. I was baptized in the name of the Trinity and I am not willingly in schism from any other Trinitarian Christian. If the Catholic Church would allow me to continue to receive communion with Protestants, I would enter into full communion with Rome tomorrow.

I agree and I am so glad that we both belong to the one Body of Christ. Isn’t it sad though that many have rejected the head which guides us in all truth.

A further answer is that just because my theology is closer to Catholicism than that of many Protestants does not mean that I agree with everything the See of Rome teaches. In fact, most of what I’ve said on this thread is the common teaching of many Protestant traditions–the various branches of the Wesleyan tradition for one, the Anabaptists for another, and most Anglicans as well. If this is what it means to be Catholic, then the real question is not why we don’t “enter fully into the Church” but why the Church refuses to recognize us.

I guess one of my difficulties with this is that how is it that so many protestant churches teach different things on the same subject. I realize that there are catholics who dissent from the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church, but the Chruch itself has always taught the same thing. The issue with many people is that they see apparently new doctrines appear throughout history. But, the truth is that when people promote heresy or dissent the Chruch defines the teaching which is being attacked in a more authoritative way. Therefore the Church does not promote new doctrine but defines certain doctrines more definitively, which christianity as a whole has accepted without need for a definition up to the point at which a certain teaching was questioned.

 

[tdandh26]

But of course there are many issues other than justification that divide Catholics and Protestants. And even on justification I remain Protestant on one significant point–the identification of faith-formed-by-love as an indivisible unity rather than two separate things that must be put together by an act of will. This is a nuanced point, but an important one–it makes it much harder for Catholics to call people to faith in Christ in the way that evangelical Protestants do. I don’t think the two positions are diametrically opposed to each other–there are probably ways to reach an agreement that maintains what is true in both positions. But I think this is a significant point on which Protestants have maintained a truth that Catholics (at best) find it hard to proclaim as clearly. And that is one of a number of such points, which in my opinion makes the separate existence of Protestantism an unfortunate necessity so far. If we could find a way to proclaim the truths delivered to us within the Roman Communion, I for one would be delighted to do so. And I think it may well be possible–but it must be a communal decision rather than an individual one

.

I agree with you that faith is at its most beautiful when it is formed by love. But, if a person who fears eternal damnation has and lives their faith out of fear, it is better than someone who does not have faith at all. I dissagree that somehow we can necessarily disect the Body of Christ as if we have that authority. If that were the case then why did the apostles hold the council of Jerusilem to come to terms on the teachings of circumcision? They did it to keep the unity which Christ intended.

It’s hard to read this question as other than a gratuitous insult. As a matter of fact, I have a “high regard” for Martin Luther in the sense that I find him rather lovable and think that he had a lot of good insights. But I look on him rather as I would a dear but exasperating old uncle who used to take me fishing but who had the habit of breaking up family reunions by getting drunk and throwing things at people (this is a purely fictional analogy, I hasten to add–I have only one uncle, he lives in Australia, and I haven’t seen him since I was five).

My point was that Luther, Calvin, and Zwinglie caused division. Thus seperating the Body of Christ. God does not cause disunity, but Satan does. Jesus said “how can a kingdom divided against itself stand?” Did not these 3 cause division to that which Christ promised would prevail to the end?
I do agree with the idea that many of our differing understandings are probably based more on the word used than the definition which we understand it to be. For example if I say lollypop and you say sucker, we are still refering to the same piece of candy.

 

[davy39]

Pjs2ejs:

It’s amazing the further time passes, the “more accurate” the interpretations get. It’s amazing that 2000 years after the author put it to paper, and around 1600 years since canon was approved, there is a “new” perspective.

And guys, the word exegesis doesn’t impress me too much. My church got the bible from the authors. Yours borrowed it from us.

I think we all need to take a chill pill on our wonderful interpretations of God’s word. I am frankly humbled by scripture. I’ll let the guys Jesus wanted to interpret scripture do the interpreting - the Catholic Church.

I agree! Not everybody is a bible expert, as some here seem to be. The Bible, at best, is a very difficult book to read for the average person. It can be interpreted so many ways. That’s why the Catholic church explains it to me. It is the expert in the matter.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

sandusky:

Robert,

Thanks…

You’re welcome.

sandusky:

I have … questions.

OK.

sandusky:

Before that, I must say that preconceptions cut both ways.

True.

sandusky:

With that said, you list the Lutheran preconception as one that people who believe in justification/salvation by faith alone have, are there any others?

Yes. But I was generally trying to speak to the overall doctrine of sola fide, not to any one denomination’s particulars. Variations on the doctrine include - Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) and there are others. However, I think a categorization of the permutations in sola fide is beyond this thread.

sandusky:

In response to a statement I made … concerning my contention that James was talking about works probatively, that is, as proof, or as evidence of faith, you disagreed with me saying:

Later in my post I say the same thing:To which you reply:

I don’t understand that.

First you say that I am wrong, that James is not teaching that good works are “proof” of saving faith, and then you agree with me, and say that James is indeed teaching that good works are “evidence of a true and vital faith and the actual justified state.”

Proof is evidence, and evidence is proof, isn’t that correct?

My point is that - to the Catholic’s understanding - good works are more than merely evidence (or proof) of “saving faith.” They are a necessary requirement for a person’s ultimate salvation.

Let’s stop here for a moment and make a distinction between Catholic and Protestant salvation doctrine. (Again, running the risk of my preconceptions getting the better of me. )

My understanding is that when you say “saving faith” you mean one’s individual salvation as a completed act - a one time act of imputation of Christ’s righteousness. For example, an evangelical fundamentalist might be heard to say something like “I remember I was saved on July 4, 2005, when I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart as my personal Lord and Savior on the banks of the Mississippi on a glorious summer morning.” He understands that on July 4, 2005 - by his act of faith - he was absolutely assured that he was going to be with the Lord Jesus Christ in Heaven for eternity when he died. He understands that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to him by his act of faith, covering all of his sins (past, present, and future) and that no matter what sins he committed after July 4, 2005, he was forgiven by way of Christ’s sacrifice. He could not lose his salvation. This is very different from the Catholic view of salvation.

To Catholic understanding salvation can only be determined at the time of death. Catholics believe one is initially justified (or placed in a right relationship with God) at baptism. By this we believe that Original sin is washed away. Thereafter, we must - through the grace of God - maintain that right relationship It can be lost through the commission of serious (mortal) sin. But it can also be reestablished by way of our repenting and seeking forgiveness (normatively through the sacrament of reconciliation). The state of this relationship between the individual and God at the point of death determines one’s salvation. So, from a Catholic perspective there is no one moment during life that we attain an assurance of our ultimate salvation. We have a moral assurance that if we follow Jesus Christ we ultimately will be saved. But, again, one’s ultimate salvation depends upon the state of the soul at the point of death.

Catholics maintain a state of grace by responding to Christ’s call for faith, hope, and charity. We live our lives in Christ, with the hope for salvation and the moral assurance that Jesus Christ will ultimately save us as he promises. Stated another way, for Catholics the term “saving faith” speaks to a lifetime whereas for Protestants the term speaks to a moment.

sandusky:

So I must ask you directly, are good works “proof” of saving faith, or not?

No. I do not believe that good works are “proof” of saving faith because your concept of saving faith is not compatible with my Catholic understanding of justification and salvation. However, our works can only be “good” if they are works performed in a state of grace (i.e. a right relationship with God). If one is not in a state of grace their works merit nothing. If one does works in a state of grace, then it is Gods actions through that person that merits the grace. So, good works require faith, but they are not “evidence” of faith.

sandusky:

You also say:

It seems to me that you are making a distinction between a “right relationship” with God, and salvation. … ?

Yes! Salvation is determined at the point of death. One’s relationship with God speaks to the present moment.

 

[Contarini]

tdandh26:

Ill answer if I may by asking a question. Is it possible for a person to truely believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and the Savior of the world, and yet reject His teachings as being corrupted by humans?

That’s a matter of semantics. Of course one can consistently hold in one’s mind the propositions “Jesus Christ was the Son of God and Savior of the world” and “the only teachings of his that we have are corrupted by humans.” Would that be “true” faith? Well, it wouldn’t be orthodox faith (not if the person thought the corruption was serious and pervasive). Would it be saving faith? The Protestant claim (at least historically) is that no amount of “faith that” constitutes saving faith. Of course Catholics agree. The basic difference between us is that Catholics think that “faith that” becomes saving faith by the addition of love, whereas Protestants think that the kind of faith that can exist without love is called “faith” only equivocally. It is not the same kind of thing as the faith that exists together with love, and it is not a supernatural gift of God. It is just another opinion.

Also could a person be a murder and still believe that Jesus was the Son of God?

Again, of course one can believe “that” anything and still commit murder or any other sin. Mere “belief that” does not save you. This is not the point of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. Saving faith is “belief in,” not just “belief that.”

Could one commit murder and still have saving faith? In the legal sense in which “murder” requires premeditation, I would say no. Perhaps in some extreme case, such as a father killing the man who raped and murdered his daughter (though even there this would depend on the disposition of the father–to what extent was he acting out of hatred and revenge and to what extent was he trying to ensure that this would never happen to anyone else?) I do think that someone could commit a serious sin in a moment of passion without losing saving faith. But such a person would immediately feel remorseful and would sincerely repent. If they did not so so, then they would lose their faith (in the sense of saving trust in Christ). Luther, BTW, says basically this in his Galatians commentary, though as his treatment of the story of David and Bathsheba shows, he’s way too lenient in just how long a believer could go before repenting!

My reason for asking this is that it is the Catholic position that simply because one says they believe, it is not enough, they must live the faith that they claim.

If you really think that this is a matter of controversy between Catholics and Protestants, then you do not in fact understand sola fide, however much you may claim to. There are Protestants who think that you can have saving faith without expressing it in your actions. They are heretics, and they do not represent historic Protestantism (no, not even Luther would agree with them).