Not By Faith Alone

[SolaScriptura]

Amen Dave. This is an excellent point. SS, while I respect your opinion, and have found them extremely solid, I do not agree that these are “traditional Protestant” teachings. There is no such thing, in fact. Every denomination is autonomous, and the further away from Luther one gets on sola fide, the further one gets from any type of Scriptural definition of faith.

Redbandito,

Don’t let Dave drive you over the edge. The “traditional” Protestant view is documented in the confession and catechism of confessional Protestants churches.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hi Philthy,

I’m not ignoring you. You seem like a reasonable person so far. The problem is that I don’t have enough time to respond to everyone and most of your posts I have read so far would take a good bit of time to respond to. My extended dialogues have been relegated to Redbandito and Michael.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito,

Catholics get very upset when Protestant accuse them in believing salvation by works, but this post of your is why the charge is often made. I’m not about to try and respond to the pages of stuff you cut-n-paste, but I think the very first one clearly demonstrates two points. 1) The Protestant charge that Catholics believe in salvation by works comes from discussion with Catholics. 2) Catholics are so confident the fathers agree with them on everything that they will twist them to no end to say what they have been taught by Rome.

Redbandito:

Ver. 4. "For to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt."
Then is not this last the greatest? he means. By no means: for it is to the believer that it is reckoned. ****But it would not have been reckoned, unless there were something that he contributed himself. ****And so he too hath God for his debtor, and debtor too for no common things, but great and high ones. For to show his high-mindedness and spiritual understanding, he does not say “to him that believeth” merely, but
Ver. 5. "To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly."

For reflect how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have full confidence that**** God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only, but even to make him just,****and to count him worthy of those immortal honors. NPNF1: Vol. XI, **Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans,**Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2., p. 386

Thus, St. Chrysostom even sees God as a debtor.

Not only is this a misrepresentation of Chrysostom, but it is a heretical position and worthy of every charge that is levied against you for believing in salvation by work. Do you see what you are affirming? You are affirming that God is a debtor to sinful men!! When the point of Romans 4:4 is saying exactly the opposite!

Romans 4:4
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

So this verse is teaching that it is not a debt and God is not our debtor, but instead it is of grace. However, you approvingly quote someone or yourself who is arguing that it is a debt which God owes and logically therefore not grace!! This is unbelievable my friend.
Chrysostom is making the opposite point if you read him a bit more closely. Notice how he starts off:

• “Then is not this last[debt] the greatest? he means[hypothetical question]. By no means: for it is to the believer that it is reckoned[by no means for the believer is the answer]. But it would not have been reckoned, unless there were something that he contributed himself. And so he too hath God for his debtor…”*

Now this translation of Chrysostom is not extremely clear, but if you keep reading him in context it becomes obvious he is not saying what you are trying to impute to him, and thank God he isn’t. I’m more surprised that you claim this is the Catholic view!

 

[Redbandito]

Redbandito,

Don’t let Dave drive you over the edge. The “traditional” Protestant view is documented in the confession and catechism of confessional Protestants churches.

Oh really? So, which do you consider to be the traditional, “confessional Protestant churches?” I will grant you Lutherans. However, Calvinists (Presbyterians), Anglicans, Anabaptists, and Swiss Reformed were all products of division occurring due to the Reformation. Do all five of these agree on their confessions on justification? You’ll have a tough time arguing this in the affirmative for the Anabaptists most especially. If you intend to make such statements though, please provide links for the confession of each denomination mentioned.

And btw, don’t write Dave off just because he has put you on the hot seat. Dave has made good points so far. He is quite educated. In fact, he is one of the best apologists on this site, Protestants included. For you to act like he is merely “firing up the home team” is both uncharitable and untrue. I expect more from you. We have had a great dialogue to this point. You have kept it very positive despite disagreeing. Why did you turn on Dave so fast? You are a solid Christian man. Nobody is questioning that. But the fact that we disagree with your theology does not make us unworthy to discuss why. Fair enough?

God Bless,
Josh

 

[Redbandito]

Redbandito,
Not only is this a misrepresentation of Chrysostom, but it is a heretical position and worthy of every charge that is levied against you for believing in salvation by work. Do you see what you are affirming? You are affirming that God is a debtor to sinful men!! When the point of Romans 4:4 is saying exactly the opposite!

Romans 4:4
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

So this verse is teaching that it is not a debt and God is not our debtor, but instead it is of grace. However, you approvingly quote someone or yourself who is arguing that it is a debt which God owes and logically therefore not grace!! This is unbelievable my friend.
Chrysostom is making the opposite point if you read him a bit more closely. Notice how he starts off:

“Then is not this last[debt] the greatest? he means[hypothetical question]. By no means: for it is to the believer that it is reckoned[by no means for the believer is the answer]. But it would not have been reckoned, unless there were something that he contributed himself. And so he too hath God for his debtor…”

Now this translation of Chrysostom is not extremely clear, but if you keep reading him in context it becomes obvious he is not saying what you are trying to impute to him, and thank God he isn’t. I’m more surprised that you claim this is the Catholic view!

You missed Chrysostom’s WHOLE point! For starters, you claim it is a heretical view, yet YOU are the one that felt Chrysostom was a credible enough source to use in support of your position in the first place. Now, when he disagrees with your theology, you write him off as a heretic. Questionable tactics in my book.

Second, his point is precisely that “**God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only, but even to make him just,**and to count him worthy of those immortal honors.” In other words, Chrysostom is arguing INFUSION (the justification kind). And in this sense, God becomes a “debtor” to these works. Or in other words, God becomes a debtor to Himself, since they are His works, and His promise.

Furthermore, I already gave you that paper on merit. The Catholic definition of merit, and therefore debt, is one of reward, not strict contractual payment. Thus, your concerns do not apply. The Scripture is full of references to God “rewarding” us for doing good. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the HS.

 

[Redbandito]

Now this translation of Chrysostom is not extremely clear, but if you keep reading him in context it becomes obvious he is not saying what you are trying to impute to him, and thank God he isn’t. I’m more surprised that you claim this is the Catholic view!

So this quote is “not extremely clear” on the one hand, but in some way it proves your point in an “obvious” fashion if only we read it “in context?” I’m not seeing it. I do not personally see how you arrived at your interpretation of that passage.

 

[SolaScriptura]

You missed Chrysostom’s WHOLE point! For starters, you claim it is a heretical view, yet YOU are the one that felt Chrysostom was a credible enough source to use in support of your position in the first place. Now, when he disagrees with your theology, you write him off as a heretic. Questionable tactics in my book.

Redbandito,

We can deal with the second point later, because I want to get this straight on the first one. Here is the text Chrysostom is commenting on. Here is the verse again:

Romans 4:4
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

You are telling me that Chrysostom, you, and the Catholic position is that the reward is reckoned of debt and not of grace

How many other Catholics on the board agrees with this?

 

[SolaScriptura]

So this quote is “not extremely clear” on the one hand, but in some way it proves your point in an “obvious” fashion if only we read it “in context?” I’m not seeing it. I do not personally see how you arrived at your interpretation of that passage.

I meant the wording is not real clear, so I could see why you might make that mistake. However, something should give you pause from going with that interpretation and if you read more of the commentary you see he is making the opposite point. But if you want to defend that interpretation that it is not of grace, but a debt then by all means go ahead

Isn’t it obvious that the Apostle is giving you a choice? Either it is reckoned by grace or as a debt. You are saying it is a debt. I’m dumbfounded.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Oh really? So, which do you consider to be the traditional, “confessional Protestant churches?” I will grant you Lutherans. However, Calvinists (Presbyterians), Anglicans, Anabaptists, and Swiss Reformed were all products of division occurring due to the Reformation. Do all five of these agree on their confessions on justification?

I said all traditional confessional churches. If I remember correctly Anabaptists are not confessional, but the rest of the above are and a number more denominations such as Reformed Baptists who hold to the London Baptist Confession of 1689, CRC and URC denominations which hold to the 3 Forms of Unity.

You’ll have a tough time arguing this in the affirmative for the Anabaptists most especially. If you intend to make such statements though, please provide links for the confession of each denomination mentioned.

If you and Dave are going to make the charges then you should at least be familiar with what you are attempting to critique. You can easily use google to verify it.

And btw, don’t write Dave off just because he has put you on the hot seat.

The hot seat is the last thing Dave has put me on. Dave has been so far off base and that is why I’m about to write him off. My time is limited and I’m not about to waste it on someone who is not even the ballpark with his comments. Every post of his so far has had some statement in it that was way off the mark. His misrepresentation of what I have said has been way off the mark. For example, here is what he said about my quoting Chrysostom:
"Dave:

However, if you think you’ve convinced anybody here by your assertions that St. John Chrysostom was some kind of Proto-Protestant who taught Protestant soteriology, then you’ve failed. The apologists who rip the early fathers out of context often do.

As I pointed out to him in the reply he totally misrepresented me. Furthermore, his last sentence has no merit. It rallies the home team, but he had done nothing to prove this. I responded to the four or five quotes he provided from Chrysostom that he provided.

Dave has made good points so far.

Yeah? Which ones?

He is quite educated.

Education has nothing to do with it.

In fact, he is one of the best apologists on this site, Protestants included.

Maybe so. I’ve only posted on 3 threads and interacted with a small subset of the people so I can’t say for sure.

For you to act like he is merely “firing up the home team” is both uncharitable and untrue.

No, it is true. There are certain buzz words and phrases that Catholics use to rally the home team. I’ve dialogue and read enough on the internet to learn this. His statement about “rip the fathers out of context” is one of those statements. It is like dumping chum in a pool full of sharks.

I expect more from you.

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not going to waste my time on what I’ve seen so far.

We have had a great dialogue to this point. You have kept it very positive despite disagreeing.

And I thought Dave was another candidate. I was willing to forgive his first two post, but it is starting to seem like a pattern to me.

Why did you turn on Dave so fast? You are a solid Christian man. Nobody is questioning that. But the fact that we disagree with your theology does not make us unworthy to discuss why. Fair enough?

Time is limited. You and Michael keep me busy enough. Occasionally I may respond to other posters, but I’m not going to spend significant time on someone who is not making reasonable posts. Those who constantly parrot out talking points and greatly misinterpret my posts demonstrate they are not about a serious dialogue. Like I said, I hadn’t written Dave completely off, but it was moving in that direction. If he shows me that he is capable of serious and honest dialogue then I will gladly engage him.

 

[SolaScriptura]

No one responded to my question before.

Romans 4:4
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Is it standard Catholic teaching to say the reward is reckoned because God is in debt to us? Or is it heretical salvation by works?

 

[Redbandito]

I meant the wording is not real clear, so I could see why you might make that mistake. However, something should give you pause from going with that interpretation and if you read more of the commentary you see he is making the opposite point. But if you want to defend that interpretation that it is not of grace, but a debt then by all means go ahead

Isn’t it obvious that the Apostle is giving you a choice? Either it is reckoned by grace or as a debt. You are saying it is a debt. I’m dumbfounded.

I am not going to go back and forth with you SS. Either you will actually listen to what I say, or you won’t. You know darn well I wasn’t arguing “it is not of grace.” You claim to know the Catholic position, but you keep posing grace and works against each other, when Catholics say it’s grace infused works that God rewards. In other words, it’s not either/or, it’s both/and. God rewards His own work. This shows we have come full circle.

 

[Redbandito]

No one responded to my question before.

Romans 4:4
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Is it standard Catholic teaching to say the reward is reckoned because God is in debt to us? Or is it heretical salvation by works?

SS, this question was answered several times earlier, and in the James Akin article. Our justification is neither earned in a “strict sense” by our faith or our works. Rather, our faith and later, our works, are gifts from God that He rewards based on His promise. Thus, God is in debt in the sense of His promise and the reward that comes from that. Not in the strict sense of contractual obligation.

 

[mikeledes]

Believing that Baptism is the event where one receives justification by faith alone is not a contradiction of justification by faith alone. The Reformed and Luther were united on justification by faith alone.

There are plenty of Protestants who see baptismal regeneration as contradicting justification by faith alone:

This is from carm.org, a major anti-Catholic website:

Baptism and justification

 How is justification obtained?  Is it by faith alone or is it by faith and something else?  Is it by faith and baptism, faith and works, faith and the manifestation of our good works? 
 In the context of those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation, a person cannot be saved by faith alone.  He must be saved by faith and baptism.  This would mean that a person on his deathbed who is visited by a hospital chaplain who heard the gospel preached, trusted in Christ by faith, received Christ, believe that he is God in flesh who died and physically resurrected, would go to hell if he died before being baptized.  This is the logical conclusion in the position that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

I am not going to go back and forth with you SS. Either you will actually listen to what I say, or you won’t. You know darn well I wasn’t arguing “it is not of grace.” You claim to know the Catholic position, but you keep posing grace and works against each other, when Catholics say it’s grace infused works that God rewards. In other words, it’s not either/or, it’s both/and. God rewards His own work. This shows we have come full circle.

Josh, you are right I understand the Catholic position and that is why I’m making the point that your interpretation of Chrysostom is not the Catholic position and neither is it Chrysostom’s position. You are misreading him. In context Chrysostom is providing a commentary on Romans 4:4 where it makes the point of righteousness being reckoned of works and therefore it is debt, or not of works and it is reckoned because of grace. You said Chrysostom was arguing it was a debt and this was the Catholic position. Do you affirm based on Romans 4:4 that God is our debtor? Yes or No.

 

[SolaScriptura]

There are plenty of Protestants who see baptismal regeneration as contradicting justification by faith alone:

This is from carm.org, a major anti-Catholic website:

God Bless,
Michael

Michael, we are failing to communicate here. Of course there are Protestants who see baptismal regeneration as contradicting sola fide. However, that doesn’t mean there is no unity, just because there are differences.

 

[mikeledes]

Michael, we are failing to communicate here. Of course there are Protestants who see baptismal regeneration as contradicting sola fide. However, that doesn’t mean there is no unity, just because there are differences.

The issue in question is the fact that justification by faith alone means different things to different Protestants. Lutherans believe that justification is conferred in baptism. Other Protestants believe that this contradicts justification by faith alone. There are Protestants who believe that justification by faith alone means eternal security. Anything other than that would be reverting to a gospel of works. There are others, however, who believe that salvation can be lost and yet uphold justification by faith alone (Pentecostals and Seventh Day Adventists). So you share common terminology, but that means very little when you don’t have a common definition. Trinitarian Protestants and Oneness Pentecostals, for example, believe in one God and both use the term God. However, it is in their definition of God where they differ.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

The issue in question is the fact that justification by faith alone means different things to different Protestants.

Maybe in some cases, but not the ones you are talking about now.

Lutherans believe that justification is conferred in baptism.

Yes, but they still believe it is because of faith alone. So this is not a difference in faith alone. Faith alone is the means by which one comes into a right relationship with God. The timing of when it happens says nothing about the doctrine. You are failing to make distinctions. By the way, you didn’t answer my question on the other board. Are both baptism and the Trinity equal essentials? Would you consider someone who denied baptismal regeneration as a brother? What about the Trinity?

Other Protestants believe that this contradicts justification by faith alone. There are Protestants who believe that justification by faith alone means eternal security. Anything other than that would be reverting to a gospel of works.

Sure there are some who believe these things, but so what? There are Catholics who believe the Scriptures contain errors, there are some who don’t. There are Catholics who believe in Thomistic predestination, but others who don’t. There are Catholics who believe God is a debtor to us, do you? There are Catholics who believe the Scriptures are materially sufficient, others who don’t. Catholics disagree on when and how many times the Pope have spoken ex cathedra, Catholics disagree on Mary’s role as co-redemptrix, Catholics disagree on the infallibility of Vatican II. Catholics left the Catholic church, because they disagreed with Papal infallibility. Catholics disagree on who can be saved outside the Catholic church. Robert Sungenis disagrees with Dave Armstrong who disagrees with Shawn McIlhenny, who disagrees with Robert Sungenis. And on and on I could go.

There are others, however, who believe that salvation can be lost and yet uphold justification by faith alone (Pentecostals and Seventh Day Adventists). So you share common terminology, but that means very little when you don’t have a common definition. Trinitarian Protestants and Oneness Pentecostals, for example, believe in one God and both use the term God. However, it is in their definition of God where they differ.

No, for most of the above the definition is the same. What you are doing is talking about related doctrines and not justification proper. You are dealing with perseverance and salvation. As you should know in theology most doctrines are interrelated. So until you start making proper distinctions you will continue to beat wind, but you are not touch the central point I have made now about 5 times to you. It is starting to get old my friend.

 

[mikeledes]

Maybe in some cases, but not the ones you are talking about now.

Yes, but they still believe it is because of faith alone. So this is not a difference in faith alone. Faith alone is the means by which one comes into a right relationship with God. The timing of when it happens says nothing about the doctrine. You are failing to make distinctions. By the way, you didn’t answer my question on the other board. Are both baptism and the Trinity equal essentials? Would you consider someone who denied baptismal regeneration as a brother? What about the Trinity?

Sure there are some who believe these things, but so what? There are Catholics who believe the Scriptures contain errors, there are some who don’t. There are Catholics who believe in Thomistic predestination, but others who don’t. There are Catholics who believe God is a debtor to us, do you? There are Catholics who believe the Scriptures are materially sufficient, others who don’t. Catholics disagree on when and how many times the Pope have spoken ex cathedra, Catholics disagree on Mary’s role as co-redemptrix, Catholics disagree on the infallibility of Vatican II. Catholics left the Catholic church, because they disagreed with Papal infallibility. Catholics disagree on who can be saved outside the Catholic church. Robert Sungenis disagrees with Dave Armstrong who disagrees with Shawn McIlhenny, who disagrees with Robert Sungenis. And on and on I could go.

No, for most of the above the definition is the same. What you are doing is talking about related doctrines and not justification proper. You are dealing with perseverance and salvation. As you should know in theology most doctrines are interrelated. So until you start making proper distinctions you will continue to beat wind, but you are not touch the central point I have made now about 5 times to you. It is starting to get old my friend.

I repeat. For you, there is no contradiction between faith alone and baptismal regeneration. Your definition of faith alone can allow for that. For many others, baptismal regeneration contradicts faith alone and is incompatible with justification.

Can you please give me examples of Catholics who believe God is a debtor and others who don’t? Anything that has been formally defined by the Church is to be believed as true. Anything that has not been formally defined is still open to discussion. If a doctrine is consistently part of the ordinary teaching of the Magisterium, it is infallible. You don’t need an ex cathedra statement from the Pope for that. There will always be Catholics that disagree with the teachings of the Church, but you don’t have many splinter groups forming their own churches (i.e. Protestantism).

The Trinity and trintarian baptism are the key issues that determine whether a Protestant is validly baptized in Catholic eyes. Who established this standard? The Church. This, however, does not mean that we overlook our differences or that a Protestant no longer needs to join the Catholic Church. In other words, that all churches are equal and it doesn’t matter which one you belong to.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

Can you please give me examples of Catholics who believe God is a debtor and others who don’t?

Before I answer the rest of your post, answer this question. Do you believe God is a debtor to us for justification in anyway?

 

[SolaScriptura]

No one responded to my question before.

Romans 4:4
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Is it standard Catholic teaching to say the reward is reckoned because God is in debt to us? Or is it heretical salvation by works?

Normally I get pounded, but now everyone has went silent? Can I get a few answers to my question?