Not By Faith Alone

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito:

SolaScriptura:

Let me also ask you this, when did Abraham receive his initial justification? Genesis 12, 15, 22 or at some other point?

From the texts we have, it would appear it was in Gen 12.

But how is that his initial justification when the Apostle is arguing in Romans 4 that Abraham was justified by not working, but trusting. According to your logic only initial justification is by trusting without working. To further prove this point, please tell me what work was Abraham doing in Gen. 15 for his subsequent justification after Genesis 12?

And while Abraham was not baptized, this is the new covenant. The Jews prior to Christ take part in salvation in a unique way.

Umm, no they don’t. That is the point the Apostle is making in Romans 4, that is we are justified in the same way as the father of our faith Abraham.

Romans 3:30
30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

Circumcised (i.e. Jews ) and uncircumcised( i.e. us ) are justified through the same faith, however you are arguing that the faith is different. There is more.

Romans 4:20-24
20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.

God credits righteousness to us the same as He credited righteousness to Abraham and it was through faith for both. And not to mention in Hebrews 3 and 4 where the author makes the point that both Jews in the wilderness and us today have the same Gospel preached to us and we need to combine the hearing with faith.

Redbandito:

You rightly say Abraham was baptized. But then again, Abraham also did not know Jesus Christ and have a “personal relationship” with Him in the way we do. So if you say baptism wasn’t a requirement of his justification, therefore it is not one for us, then you could also say that Abraham does not have to know Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to be in Heaven. For it was not yet revealed that God was Trinitarian.

Abraham knew of Jesus Christ in types and shadows. Abraham believed the promises in reference to the promised seed, which Paul tells us was Christ. So Abraham did have faith in the Messiah/Promised Seed just as we do. Types and shadows are not as clear as the revelation we have, but it points to the same Source nonetheless.

Redbandito:

Further, it is not circumcision, or the law of Moses that we follow, but the law of Christ. Baptism IS required for initial justification as the general rule in the New Covenant. Not in a legalistic sense. But rather Christ instituted this physical sign as a means of imparting His sanctifying grace in us, and for us. God created the sacraments, including baptism, for man, not man for the sacraments. Therefore, God is not obligated to save man through the sacraments. He does so for our sake, because we are not merely spiritual beings, but physical ones.

So we are saved in a different manner than the Jews in OT under your system, but as I showed above the Apostle Paul is arguing for the opposite. His point is that we are all saved in the same way and that is through the same faith.

Redbandito:

As Jn states, “You must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven.” In other words, through baptism in response to faith, I am justified. I receive the Spirit, and am therefore adopted into God’s family. This is not in opposition to faith. They work together. Baptism is not something I do. It is something God does to me.

Yeah, that is nice, but besides the point. I’m trying to understand how Paul says we are saved through the same faith(Rom. 3:30,4:16, etc), but you have defined faith completely different for both groups. That is why the Apostle Paul can argue for the justification of the Gentiles based on Abraham’s justification.

Redbandito:

This understanding helps me to make sense out of Rom 6:3-4 which states, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” The source of our life is Christ Jesus. We receive Christ Jesus through what? Being BAPTIZED. Of course this baptism must be accompanied by faith and repentance as the Scripture clearly teaches. Again, Paul states we must do this to have “new life.” What life is he speaking of, but eternal life?

I could quibble with you on the above, but it is really irrelevant until you explain the stuff above.

 

[Redbandito]

My comments are in regards to Salvation. The thread topic.

Yes, I understand the Catholic position of Infused Grace vs. Imputed Righteousness

Do you understand sanctifying grace as unmerited? How can it be? If works are needed to obtain, it no longer becomes unmerited.

Works are not needed to attain it INITIALLY. Works are needed to maintain it though. Big difference. It is much like the parable of the talents, we are given an unmerited gift and charged to do something with it. What happened to the guy who went and buried that gift?

I have already addressed that we receive sanctifying grace in our initial justification, which does not come through works. Therefore, you are absolutely correct to say we don’t merit sanctifying grace. In fact, Catholics believe this more than anyone, for we baptize infants. Who is less deserving of salvation based on “faith alone” than an infant who is incapable of having faith? Yet, Catholics believe God bestows this grace on them despite their unworthiness.

 

[Redbandito]

But how is that his initial justification when the Apostle is arguing in Romans 4 that Abraham was justified by not working, but trusting. According to your logic only initial justification is by trusting without working. To further prove this point, please tell me what work was Abraham doing in Gen. 15 for his subsequent justification after Genesis 12?.

Abraham did not do anything but continue to trust in God in Gen 15. I don’t dispute that. Yet, in Gen 22, Abraham put his trust and faith in God into action once again. James tells us he was justified for it.

As far as Romans 4, I have continued to dispute your exegesis. I have not agreed at any point, unlike some of the others in here, that Paul is referring to ALL works in Rom 4, but rather that he is specifically addressing circumcision, which makes more sense in context. Again, Paul is teaching that it was not Abraham’s circumcision that justified him, but his faith. Therefore, one need not be Jewish to be justified. That is Paul’s point, so your question does not apply.

Umm, no they don’t. That is the point the Apostle is making in Romans 4, that is we are justified in the same way as the father of our faith Abraham…

Umm, yeah they do. Are you going to deny there is a difference between Jews of the Old Covenant and Christians of the New and better Covenant? Are you going to say that Christ delivering us the fullness of divine revelation, and revealing God as Trinity is not unique? Abraham may have understood and believed that there would be a messiah, however how could he have possibly known God’s plan was to be the messiah Himself? This was revealed IN CHRIST! Thus, while we believe unto the Lord Jesus and are saved, Hebrews like Abraham believed in a future messiah. They trusted in God, and were justified for it. However, it is undeniable that this is different than what Christians are called to. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” Christians have been given everything. More is expected of us than our predecessors.

Romans 3:30
30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
SolaScriptura;1797042:

Circumcised (i.e. Jews ) and uncircumcised( i.e. us ) are justified through the same faith, however you are arguing that the faith is different. There is more…

No Buddy. You’re not following me here. The Jews Paul is speaking to are the Jews of HIS TIME. Paul takes Abraham as a lesson to these Jews. These Jews had the advantage of Christ’s revelation. This is completely different than the Jews who preceded Christ.

Romans 4:20-24

20Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead..

So, are you claiming that Paul means that Abraham believed that the messiah would be God, and that He would be raised from the dead? I don’t think so. Abraham believed what God told Him through revelation, and thus was declared righteous. Christ had not been “revealed” at this point. To the Jews Paul is writing, Christ had been revealed. Thus, they must apply this faith to the new revelation they have received. That is Paul’s point. Not that Abraham believed that God would become man, die, and rise from the dead.

God credits righteousness to us the same as He credited righteousness to Abraham and it was through faith for both. And not to mention in Hebrews 3 and 4 where the author makes the point that both Jews in the wilderness and us today have the same Gospel preached to us and we need to combine the hearing with faith…

By the same principles, but not in the same way. I just explained this, so I am not going to get into it again.

 

[Redbandito]

Abraham knew of Jesus Christ in types and shadows. Abraham believed the promises in reference to the promised seed, which Paul tells us was Christ. So Abraham did have faith in the Messiah/Promised Seed just as we do. Types and shadows are not as clear as the revelation we have, but it points to the same Source nonetheless…

So, Christians today have a relationship with a trinitarian God, which was revealed by the second person of the Trinity made flesh, Jesus Christ. Abraham had a relationship with a “promised seed?” No, Abraham trusted what God revealed to Him. He did not know Jesus Christ, who had not been revealed. But, like Christians, he had faith in what God told him. That is why he was justified.

I understand what you are saying though. I agree that it was Abraham’s faith in his promised seed that justified him. I just don’t believe that this is the same as having a “personal relationship” with Jesus Christ, our incarnate and risen Lord. can you see the distinction I am making, even if you don’t agree with it?

So we are saved in a different manner than the Jews in OT under your system, but as I showed above the Apostle Paul is arguing for the opposite. His point is that we are all saved in the same way and that is through the same faith…

You did not show this. You attempted to show this by prooftexting verses that I don’t believe support your claims. But again, I agree that it is trust in God (that justifies us). I believe that faith is what justified Abraham, as Paul says. What I reject is that there is nothing different between the faith of the “Chosen One’s” preceding Jesus, and those afterward. Otherwise, why did God need a better covenant?

Yeah, that is nice, but besides the point. I’m trying to understand how Paul says we are saved through the same faith(Rom. 3:30,4:16, etc), but you have defined faith completely different for both groups. That is why the Apostle Paul can argue for the justification of the Gentiles based on Abraham’s justification…

No, no, no. You completely misunderstood my point. Under the New Covenant, we all come to Christ the same way. How could you think I was saying that when I have consistently argued that Paul is instructing that Gentiles do not have to become Jewish to be Christian? Of course Paul is not teaching a double standard for Jews and Gentiles of the New Covenant. But then, Abraham wasn’t of this covenant, was he?

I could quibble with you on the above, but it is really irrelevant until you explain the stuff above.

Fair enough. I hope that I have explained things more clearly. I look forward to your next response.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito:

Abraham did not do anything but continue to trust in God in Gen 15. I don’t dispute that. Yet, in Gen 22, Abraham put his trust and faith in God into action once again. James tells us he was justified for it.

It seems to me you are stepping all over yourself. Let me see if I can explain how:

1. 
   *]You have argued that initial justification is it by faith alone, which includes baptism and repentance.
   *]Subsequent justifications after the initial one needs work of grace.
   *]However, you have stated Abraham received his initial justification at Genesis 12
   *]Therefore, Genesis 15 cannot be by faith alone, yet up above that is what you are saying.
   
   So if Genesis 12 is the initial justification then Genesis 15 cannot be it so there has to be grace infused works at Genesis 15 per your system
   

   Umm, yeah they do. Are you going to deny there is a difference between Jews of the Old Covenant and Christians of the New and better Covenant?

   No, there is no difference in reference to the Gospel and the means of faith for receiving justification. If you deny this you are disagreeing with the Apostle, because he says both.
   

   Are you going to say that Christ delivering us the fullness of divine revelation, and revealing God as Trinity is not unique?

   I’m not saying there is nothing unique in the fuller revelation of the NT, but instead I’m saying the OT saints and the NT saints were saved in the same way by the same Gospel.
   

   Abraham may have understood and believed that there would be a messiah, however how could he have possibly known God’s plan was to be the messiah Himself? This was revealed IN CHRIST! Thus, while we believe unto the Lord Jesus and are saved, Hebrews like Abraham believed in a future messiah. They trusted in God, and were justified for it. However, it is undeniable that this is different than what Christians are called to. “To whom much is given, much is expected.” Christians have been given everything. More is expected of us than our predecessors.

   You say it is a different Gospel the author of Hebrews 4:and the Apostle Paul says it was the same.
   
   Hebrews 4:2
   2For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.
   
   The “they” above are the Hebrews in the wilderness with Moses. The author explicitly say they were not saved because they didn’t believe the Gospel when it was preached to them as they did.
   
   Romans 1:1-3
   1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son …
   Paul says the gospel he was set apart for was promised by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures(i.e. OT ) regarding God’s Son. I think I will stick with inspired authors, sorry.
   "Redbandito:
   

   Romans 3:30

   30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
   
   No Buddy. You’re not following me here. The Jews Paul is speaking to are the Jews of HIS TIME. Paul takes Abraham as a lesson to these Jews. These Jews had the advantage of Christ’s revelation. This is completely different than the Jews who preceded Christ.

   This is an amazing response. Do you know of any reputable commentary, church father, or Catholic scholar that would make such an interpretation? It is clear in the first 3 chapters of Romans that Paul is speaking of all people throughout history and not just Jews living after Christ. As a matter of fact Romans 3 is loaded with quotes from the OT to show the Jews were under sin just like everyone else and needed faith in the Messiah to be saved.
   

   So, are you claiming that Paul means that Abraham believed that the messiah would be God, and that He would be raised from the dead? I don’t think so. Abraham believed what God told Him through revelation, and thus was declared righteous. Christ had not been “revealed” at this point. To the Jews Paul is writing, Christ had been revealed. Thus, they must apply this faith to the new revelation they have received. That is Paul’s point. Not that Abraham believed that God would become man, die, and rise from the dead.

   As I have already told you before, fuller revelation does not mean there is a difference in the Gospel. So of course the revelation is not exactly the same, but neither was it the same for all OT saints. Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering of the Messiah in taking on our sins. Previous OT saints didn’t have this revelation but that didn’t mean they were saved in different ways by a different Gospel. You are beginning to sound like a Dispensationalist
   

   By the same principles, but not in the same way. I just explained this, so I am not going to get into it again.

   If you are claiming the OT saints and NT saints are saved in different ways then you are not even an orthodox Catholic.

 

[The_Catholic]

The OT did have Christ, because it is impossible to be saved without Him. The OT had Christ in types and shadows, but nevertheless they had Him. The OT saints had the same Gospel we have as Hebrews 3 & 4 EXPLICITLY states:

Hebrews 4:2
For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.

Now if you read the end of Chapter 3 and 4 in context you will clearly see that the author is saying the Jews in the wilderness had the same Gospel preached to them as we do today.

I’ve been told over and over by Catholic apologists and Catholics more qualified then you that grace infused works are a necessary part of justification. You don’t seem to fully understand the distinctions that are involved in theology. Saying one is saved by grace alone and saying grace infused works are necessary for salvation are not necessarily contradictory.

Exactly, I am aware of that. But you seem to be implying that Catholics are saved by works.

I know I went out of the context of what you and Red were talking about, and I slighty changed the subject a bit. But my entire post was to show that the Catholic Church teaches we are saved by GRACE ALONE and NOT AT ALL of works. I said it because from (unless I misunderstood you) so many of your earlier posts you seemed to chant “catholic church teaches man is saved by grace plus works.” Did I misunderstand you? If so I apologize.

And I personaly know many christians who believe that you have to repent of your sins and accept Christ as your personal savior and boom you are now saved. Hey, if you lived your life with sincere faith then that is obvious that you are saved, as James talked about in his letter. But with these “christians” of whom I’m speaking about, they claim it’s alright if you continue living in sin, God will be upset, but God understands that we’re sinners, and as long as we accept Jesus it doesn’t matter if we continue in sin or not. How liberal, and unbiblical is this? Especialy these verses: 1 John 2:3-6 “And hearby we do know that we know him, if we KEEP HIS COMMANMENTS. He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him. But whoever keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hearby know we that are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to WALK, EVEN AS HE WALKED.” 1 Jon 3:9: Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him: he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

This is true faith, not some simple acknowledgement as many liberal christians (not saying that is you) believe whom I have fellowshipped with personaly.

You seem to understand that true faith is repenting of your sins and believing in Christ as God’s Son and Savior for man’s sins, things that we do, actions that we ourselves make stepping out toward God, and are both commandments of God just like any other commandment: Mark 1:15; Acts 17:30; 1 John 3:23, and then one becomes saved and shows this true faith by his holy actions, because of his faith in God. Is this how you believe?

To break it down simply and easily I said that Catholics believe that we are saved by grace alone, anotherwords by the blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ! I didn’t get complex with it (atual grace, infused grace, etc.). I just simply broke it down to the easiest matter. Just as repetence and belief are gifts that God bestows upon us, doing good, humble and heart-felt devoted works is because of God’s grace bestowed upon us. That is true faith as I see it. Simply put, giving you life to Jesus AND following him.

And when I said that the Jews didn’t have Christ I meant that no prophet came and told them to repent of their sins, believe in Jesus, and walk as He walked.

God bless you.

 

[The_Catholic]

OK, but here is the point. There are no such thing as “good works” before one is justified. This justification happens based on faith alone and then the good works come. So this is why we say one is justified by faith alone. James is talking about good works, because he is speaking of an already justified person… This is why he can talk about what Abraham did in Genesis 22 by offering up his son, when we know from Paul in Romans and Galatians that Abraham was justified in Genesis 15

I agree that 98% of the time good works come AFTER one believes in the Gospel. Usually that is the begining of Faith. It seems that in a sense, we both believe in the same thing…Grace alone. We just differ on how and when that Grace is applied.

God bless you.

 

[kaycee]

It seems to me you are stepping all over yourself. Let me see if I can explain how:

1. 
   *]You have argued that initial justification is it by faith alone, which includes baptism and repentance.
   *]Subsequent justifications after the initial one needs work of grace.
   *]However, you have stated Abraham received his initial justification at Genesis 12
   *]Therefore, Genesis 15 cannot be by faith alone, yet up above that is what you are saying.
   
   So if Genesis 12 is the initial justification then Genesis 15 cannot be it so there has to be grace infused works at Genesis 15 per your system
   
   No, there is no difference in reference to the Gospel and the means of faith for receiving justification. If you deny this you are disagreeing with the Apostle, because he says both.

1. 
   Hi Sola,
   
   I think the problem we have is based in our definitions. When we say Saving Faith, we mean trust in the complete and finished work of Christ as our substitutionary atonement.
   
   To a Roman Catholic, justifying faith is called dogmatic faith. This has to do with the doctrinal content of the faith necessary to be believed for salvation. Essentially it means intellectual assent to eveything the Church teaches. ***In order to be saved an individual must believe and hold to every doctrine dogmatically defined by the Roman Catholic Church. ***This entails not only the teaching of the Creed, the sacraments and justification but also the doctrines related to the **Papacy (papal rule and infallibility), Mary (immaculate conception and assumption), the canon of scripture and purgatory. **Vatican I states that it is necessary for salvation that an individual believe not only all that is revealed in Scripture but also everything defined and proposed by the Church. To reject anything officially taught by the Roman Church is to reject saving faith and to forfeit both justification and eternal life.
   
   As a result the Roman Catholic cannot openly discuss the content of Scripture and is forced to adopt the Roman position at all times or suffer the loss of salvation.

 

[kaycee]

Brother Sola.

Grace is also another term that has been redefined. I found this very succinct definition here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_grace

Rather than God’s property to be offered at His sole discretion, in Western Christianity at least, grace had become a sort of spiritual currency, and the Church was its banker. Believers acquired grace by participating in the Church’s sacraments. The sacraments were effective in conferring God’s grace by virtue of their being performed, provided that the liturgist was authorized by the Church to perform them. The grace offered through the sacraments enabled Christians to lead better lives and to deepen their faith. In addition to sanctifying grace, merit was earned by good works; by this merit, believers can earn the right to rewards from God.

Conversely, sins reduce one’s merit before God and incur a debt to Him in the divine economy. According to Catholicism, sufficiently serious sins not only remove merit, but also extinguish sanctifying grace in the baptized believer’s soul, which can be restored by the sacrament of penance. These sins are mortal sins or deadly sins. Less serious sins, venial sins, incur loss of merit. Believers whose accounts were overdrawn at the final accounting went to Hell; believers without enough merit for Heaven went to Purgatory, where they could work off the debt they owed to God.

Fortunately, some saints achieved so much merit in their lifetimes on Earth that they got into Heaven with some to spare. This surplus was called works of supererogation, the Church’s treasury of surplus merit. The Church can offer the excess merit in its treasury to be applied to the deficits in merit suffered by its penitent sinners. Pope Clement VI proclaimed this to be a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church in 1343.

I think before any meaningful dialogue can occur, the differences in the meanings of Faith and Grace must be dealt with.
<><

 

[SolaScriptura]

SolaScriptura:

OK, but here is the point. There are no such thing as “good works” before one is justified. This justification happens based on faith alone and then the good works come. So this is why we say one is justified by faith alone. James is talking about good works, because he is speaking of an already justified person… This is why he can talk about what Abraham did in Genesis 22 by offering up his son, when we know from Paul in Romans and Galatians that Abraham was justified in Genesis 15

I agree that 98% of the time good works come AFTER one believes in the Gospel. Usually that is the begining of Faith. It seems that in a sense, we both believe in the same thing…Grace alone. We just differ on how and when that Grace is applied.

God bless you.

Yes, the debate between Protestants and Catholics has never been on the affirmation of both sides claiming we are saved by grace alone. As kaycee has pointed we differ somewhat on the meaning of saying “grace alone”, but I’m not concerned about debating that right now. So if I used the Catholic terminology we agree that initial justification is by faith alone, even again as kaycee pointed out we differ on what faith is, but I really don’t want to debate that right now either.

So to recap, we agree salvation is by grace alone, and we agree that initial justification is by faith alone. Our disagreement therefore revolves around justification being a process or a one time event. I would think your classic example of the process is the life of Abraham. So we have 3 pivotal events in Abraham’s life that is mentioned in the NT. Could you tell me which justification was experienced in each event per the NT witness. I will list them for you:

1. 
   *]Abraham had faith in Genesis 12 when he left his hometown per Hebrews 11:8
   *]Abraham was justified in Genesis 15 as an ungodly man per Romans 4:1-5 and Gal. 3:6-8
   *]Abraham was justified in Genesis 22 for offering up his son per James 2:21-24
   
   So please tell me what kind of justification Abraham received in each of this event per your system and the cause of the justification
   
   Grace and Peace,
   S.S…

 

[SolaScriptura]

I’ve been told over and over by Catholic apologists and Catholics more qualified then you that grace infused works are a necessary part of justification. You don’t seem to fully understand the distinctions that are involved in theology. Saying one is saved by grace alone and saying grace infused works are necessary for salvation are not necessarily contradictory.

Exactly, I am aware of that. But you seem to be implying that Catholics are saved by works.

I know I went out of the context of what you and Red were talking about, and I slighty changed the subject a bit. But my entire post was to show that the Catholic Church teaches we are saved by GRACE ALONE and NOT AT ALL of works. I said it because from (unless I misunderstood you) so many of your earlier posts you seemed to chant “catholic church teaches man is saved by grace plus works.” Did I misunderstand you? If so I apologize.

And I personaly know many christians who believe that you have to repent of your sins and accept Christ as your personal savior and boom you are now saved. Hey, if you lived your life with sincere faith then that is obvious that you are saved, as James talked about in his letter. But with these “christians” of whom I’m speaking about, they claim it’s alright if you continue living in sin, God will be upset, but God understands that we’re sinners, and as long as we accept Jesus it doesn’t matter if we continue in sin or not. How liberal, and unbiblical is this? Especialy these verses: 1 John 2:3-6 “And hearby we do know that we know him, if we KEEP HIS COMMANMENTS. He that saith I know him and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him. But whoever keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hearby know we that are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to WALK, EVEN AS HE WALKED.” 1 Jon 3:9: Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him: he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

This is true faith, not some simple acknowledgement as many liberal christians (not saying that is you) believe whom I have fellowshipped with personaly.

You seem to understand that true faith is repenting of your sins and believing in Christ as God’s Son and Savior for man’s sins, things that we do, actions that we ourselves make stepping out toward God, and are both commandments of God just like any other commandment: Mark 1:15; Acts 17:30; 1 John 3:23, and then one becomes saved and shows this true faith by his holy actions, because of his faith in God. Is this how you believe?

To break it down simply and easily I said that Catholics believe that we are saved by grace alone, anotherwords by the blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ! I didn’t get complex with it (atual grace, infused grace, etc.). I just simply broke it down to the easiest matter. Just as repetence and belief are gifts that God bestows upon us, doing good, humble and heart-felt devoted works is because of God’s grace bestowed upon us. That is true faith as I see it. Simply put, giving you life to Jesus AND following him.

And when I said that the Jews didn’t have Christ I meant that no prophet came and told them to repent of their sins, believe in Jesus, and walk as He walked.

God bless you.

Hi The Catholic,

Thanks for the clarification. However, I would like to state if you look at all my discussion I never said Catholics believe we are “saved by works”. I’ve always said grace infused works, grace and works, faith and works, or something similar to that. Actually, Catholics themselves will say it more than I do when they start talking about James. However, I assumed they are talking about grace infused works, even though they are not careful to make that point and James never makes that point either.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[water]

Exactly, I am aware of that. But you seem to be implying that Catholics are saved by works…

We are saved by the Grace of God. Our works are never enough for our salvation. However, with both works and faith, we follow His Teachings and that makes Him pleased.

 

[Redbandito]

It seems to me you are stepping all over yourself. Let me see if I can explain how:

1. 
   *]You have argued that initial justification is it by faith alone, which includes baptism and repentance.
   *]Subsequent justifications after the initial one needs work of grace.
   *]However, you have stated Abraham received his initial justification at Genesis 12
   *]Therefore, Genesis 15 cannot be by faith alone, yet up above that is what you are saying…

1. 
   Sola, the problem we are having is that you continue to misrepresent my position. Maybe it is unintentional, but NOWHERE did I say “faith alone” which includes baptism and repentance. I stated, “Therefore, under the right conditions of how we define faith, faith alone could almost be acceptable phraseology. The problem is that there are multiple uses of the word faith, both Biblically and in today’s common practice that are confusing. Thus, I attempt to avoid confusing terminology that could keep someone from doing what is necessary.” Or in other words, I NEVER said faith alone, much less argued it. Nice try Slick.
   
   Second, you have misrepresented progressive justification. Understand the Catholic view of justification much like you do sanctification. I don’t get “sanctified” by every work of grace. But rather I do good because I am being sanctified. Catholics believe justification is happening simultaneously and in much the same way.
   
   Third, you are correct about Abraham receiving justification in Gen 12.
   
   Fourth, you have completely misunderstood the point I have been making. Maybe I am just not being clear enough. Although, I doubt that is the case, since I have had these conversations with several Protestants who have decided to become Catholic. However, if it is my poor explanation that is the problem, I will try to do better.
   
   Having faith, justifies us initially. After that, I am to add the love of Christ to my faith, made manifest in what I do (i.e. works). That does not mean that after my initial justification it is by works alone. It simply means I am to continue have faith and trust in God, and where I am called to act on this faith and trust. Nothing more. It does not mean that every subsequent time I am “justified” I have to have done a mighty deed.
   

   So if Genesis 12 is the initial justification then Genesis 15 cannot be it so there has to be grace infused works at Genesis 15 per your system

   I just addressed this above.
   

   No, there is no difference in reference to the Gospel and the means of faith for receiving justification. If you deny this you are disagreeing with the Apostle, because he says both.

   Okay, I’m not going to argue this with you. If you cannot see the difference between believing in Christ once He was revealed and believing in the promised messiah, there is nothing I can say. The Apostle Paul does not disagree with me. The Apostle Paul taught that Jews and Gentiles are saved in the very same way, faith in Jesus Christ. This is the New Covenant. However, in the Old Covenant, Jesus was not yet revealed. Thus, faith did not extend to the Second person of the Trinity, as it does now, but simply Yahweh as had been revealed to them. It’s quite simple actually. Please make the distinction.
   
   I
   

   ’m not saying there is nothing unique in the fuller revelation of the NT, but instead I’m saying the OT saints and the NT saints were saved in the same way by the same Gospel…

   So what are the differences SS? You admit there were differences. What were they?
   
   But they WEREN’T! They didn’t have the same Gospel! The Old Testament was not yet complete. I am not saying they were opposed, but simply that the Old had not yet been fully unveiled until the New. Both were saved by faith. But Abraham did not know Jesus, as Christians do today. How can you deny the difference?
   

   You say it is a different Gospel the author of Hebrews 4:and the Apostle Paul says it was the same.
   
   Hebrews 4:2
   2For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.
   
   The “they” above are the Hebrews in the wilderness with Moses. The author explicitly say they were not saved because they didn’t believe the Gospel when it was preached to them as they did.

   You are reaching desperately here. So what you are claiming is that the author of Hebrews (btw, it is widely assumed that Paul did not write Hebrews amongst scholars) was stating that Moses and the Israelites heard the Gospel that you preach? You’re saying that they were told that they were going to Hell unless they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior? Right. As my father is Jewish, and I see not even a hint of that in the OT, I am going to simply have to disagree. The Jews heard part of the Gospel, but not the fullness of it Bud. Sorry, I just disagree with you.

 

[Redbandito]

Romans 1:1-3
1Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3regarding his Son …
Paul says the gospel he was set apart for was promised by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures(i.e. OT ) regarding God’s Son. I think I will stick with inspired authors, sorry.

This is an amazing response. Do you know of any reputable commentary, church father, or Catholic scholar that would make such an interpretation? It is clear in the first 3 chapters of Romans that Paul is speaking of all people throughout history and not just Jews living after Christ. As a matter of fact Romans 3 is loaded with quotes from the OT to show the Jews were under sin just like everyone else and needed faith in the Messiah to be saved…

Maybe you’re not listening. I did not say that the Messiah wasn’t promised. Where did I say that? What I said was that it was not yet revealed that the Messiah would be GOD HIMSELF. And that believing in the Messiah really meant faith in the Incarnate God, Jesus Christ. Why are you having such a tough time distiguishing this? You can disagree with me, but I would like it if you would actually try to disagree with me, and not some strawman argument you concocted.

As I have already told you before, fuller revelation does not mean there is a difference in the Gospel. So of course the revelation is not exactly the same, but neither was it the same for all OT saints. Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering of the Messiah in taking on our sins. Previous OT saints didn’t have this revelation but that didn’t mean they were saved in different ways by a different Gospel. You are beginning to sound like a Dispensationalist…

That’s because you’re not paying attention. They weren’t different Gospels. The Old Covenant was incomplete. The New and better Covenant has replaced the Old. Dispensationalists believe both are equally valid. Nice try though. And while Is 53 does speak of the Messiah, can you point out where it tells us the Messiah will be GOD HIMSELF? Again, try to actually understand what I am saying before you attack me. You’re simply talking past me right now.

If you are claiming the OT saints and NT saints are saved in different ways then you are not even an orthodox Catholic.

Have you read anything I have said? Faith was the common denominator. But what they placed their faith in was a bit distinct since they had not yet had revealed what we do. I can’t help you to understand that if you won’t.

Try reading Gen 15. What was it that justified Abraham? “Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.” Abraham put his trust in what God revealed to him. That is why he was justified. It says it in black and white. Does the promise Abraham believed in Gen 15 say anything about Abraham accepting Jesus as His personal Lord and Savior? Since it clearly doesn’t, there is a difference, whether you admit it or not.

 

[mikeledes]

Well, I agree with those concepts Mike. I agree that neither the ceremonial or moral law justify us, apart from, or opposed to God’s grace. However, I do not think that is what Paul is specifically arguing in Rom 3-4.

The specific issue Paul is addressing in Romans 4 is the claim that Christians needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. But we also know from Acts 15 that circumcision entailed observance of the Mosaic Law. That is why Paul says that through observance of the law (Law of Moses) no man will be justified. Paul was condemning those who claimed that they were righteous before God , were members of His people, and had a claim on his mercy because they were biological descendants of Abraham, circumcised, and observed the law of Moses.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

The specific issue Paul is addressing in Romans 4 is the claim that Christians needed to be circumcised in order to be saved. But we also know from Acts 15 that circumcision entailed observance of the Mosaic Law. That is why Paul says that through observance of the law (Law of Moses) no man will be justified. Paul was condemning those who claimed that they were righteous before God , were members of His people, and had a claim on his mercy because they were biological descendants of Abraham, circumcised, and observed the law of Moses.

God Bless,
Michael

Even this Protestant will give that an, Amen. Of course that may not be a good thing

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito:

You are reaching desperately here. So what you are claiming is that the author of Hebrews (btw, it is widely assumed that Paul did not write Hebrews amongst scholars) was stating that Moses and the Israelites heard the Gospel that you preach?

First, I know most scholars don’t believe it was Paul, which is why I always say, “the author of Hebrews”, but when talking about Romans and Galatians I say the Apostle Paul.

Second, the author of Hebrews explicitly state they had the Gospel preached to them as we do. The we refers to those living after the death and resurrection of Christ. So the question is do you believe the inspired author or your own private interpretation ?

Here is the author of Hebrews in context:

Hebrews 3:16-4:2
16For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

4:1Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.

You went off on a tangent when I quoted Romans 1:3 about you not denying the Messiah would be God himself, but that is not required for them to have the same Gospel. This is an artificial requirement you have injected into the Gospel and not one the NT authors have stated. We have the same thing in Galatians 3 where the Apostle Paul states the following:

Galatians 3:8
8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

So you need to adjust your position based on the biblical witness.

Redbandito:

You’re saying that they were told that they were going to Hell unless they accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior?

Not in those same explicit words. As I told you before they had the same Gospel in types, shadows, sacrifices, and offerings. You are hung up on this literalism of repeating an exact formula which is not supported by the Scriptures.

Redbandito:

As my father is Jewish, and I see not even a hint of that in the OT, I am going to simply have to disagree. The Jews heard part of the Gospel, but not the fullness of it Bud. Sorry, I just disagree with you.

As I have shown above the NT authors never speak of them hearing only ”part of the Gospel, that is your interpretation. The Gospel is not this literalistic formula that has to be communicated in only one way. It was given to the Jews in types, shadows, sacrifices, offerings, and promises, but it was given nonetheless my friend.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sola, the problem we are having is that you continue to misrepresent my position. Maybe it is unintentional, but NOWHERE did I say “faith alone” which includes baptism and repentance. I stated, “Therefore, under the right conditions of how we define faith, faith alone could almost be acceptable phraseology. The problem is that there are multiple uses of the word faith, both Biblically and in today’s common practice that are confusing. Thus, I attempt to avoid confusing terminology that could keep someone from doing what is necessary.” Or in other words, I NEVER said faith alone, much less argued it. Nice try Slick.

You are shifting your position so often you seem to forget what you are saying. Here is where you said it:

I would say that I am initially justified by grace alone through faith. I just have a had time with saying faith alone, for two reasons. 1) The Scriptures clearly teach we are not justified by faith alone (Jam 2:24). 2) The Scripture teaches that this faith needs not to be alone, but accompanied by repentance and baptism (Jn 3:5, Acts 2:38).

So, if you were to say faith alone, but say that those two items are incorporated into this faith alone, I could go with it.

No here you state if we “say faith alone, with those two items” incorporated into it you could go along with it. The two items you are referring to are repentance and baptism. So contrary to your claim that you “NOWHERE” said it, you most definitely did, Slick

 

[Redbandito]

First, I know most scholars don’t believe it was Paul, which is why I always say, “the author of Hebrews”, but when talking about Romans and Galatians I say the Apostle Paul…

I stand corrected. I apologize.

Second, the author of Hebrews explicitly state they had the Gospel preached to them as we do. The we refers to those living after the death and resurrection of Christ. So the question is do you believe the inspired author or your own private interpretation ?

That is a false dichotomy, and also an entirely hypocritical question. I believe my interpretation OF the inspired author. The interesting fact to me is that you seem to assume that your interpretation is synonomous with what the author was trying to convey, not acknowledging that you too are “interpreting” the text. The question is never whether we are interpreting, but whether we are doing so correctly. It’s called exegesis. Why do you think there are so many denominations within Christianity all claiming to be the true Biblical Church?

Here is the author of Hebrews in context:

Hebrews 3:16-4:2
16For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.

4:1Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith.…

Apparently you want to continue to talk past me. I have already stated that the faith of Abraham is the same faith that is required of Christians. What I am disputing is what Abraham was putting his faith in. Please follow the discussion. Abraham believed God would bless the world through his line. Is that the full message of the Gospel? What is the Gospel to you? Please explain what the Good News is in your estimation.

You went off on a tangent when I quoted Romans 1:3 about you not denying the Messiah would be God himself, but that is not required for them to have the same Gospel. This is an artificial requirement you have injected into the Gospel and not one the NT authors have stated. We have the same thing in Galatians 3 where the Apostle Paul states the following:…

What tangent was that? You can’t even represent what I said correctly. What I said was that the people of the Old Covenant believed there would be a Messiah. What they did not have revealed to them, and therefore could not have believed, was that the Messiah would be God Himself. You dispute that, but have provided nothing to contradict it. You keep citing verses that show that the Gospel was preached to them. Great! I believe that! But you then assume that it was the Gospel in it’s fullness that was preached. That’s begging the question. For if the Jews had the fullness of divine revelation, and no more was necessary to be revealed for our salvation, why did Christ come?

And again, what is the Gospel SS? I believe the Good News is that God became man, suffered, died, was crucified, and resurrected so that we may have eternal life, if we believe in Him. Is that not the Gospel you preach?

 

[Redbandito]

Galatians 3:8
8The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” 9So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

So you need to adjust your position based on the biblical witness…

Still ignoring my argument, are we? So, you’re saying that Paul believed Abraham understood the full Gospel. Is that correct? That is not at all what this verse supports. This verse states that Abraham believed that it was through his line that the Gentiles would be blessed. Thus, his seed would ultimately bring forth the Messiah. Yet, in no way does this point to the full truth of the Gospel, which is that Jesus Christ is God incarnate and came to save us all from sin.

Not in those same explicit words. As I told you before they had the same Gospel in types, shadows, sacrifices, and offerings. You are hung up on this literalism of repeating an exact formula which is not supported by the Scriptures…

So then you just admitted there were differences. Shadows, types, sacrifices and offerings all stop short of the real thing. They point to the thing they are foreshadowing, but they are not the real thing. Furthermore, most don’t understand what is being foreshadowed until that which was being foreshadowed is revealed. In other words, it is only through the NT, that we can now point to these types and shadows in the OT.

So now taking the Bible literally is bad? Now a Protestant complains about a Catholic’s view on justification being too exact? The irony! I’ve heard it all now.

As I have shown above the NT authors never speak of them hearing only ”part of the Gospel, that is your interpretation. The Gospel is not this literalistic formula that has to be communicated in only one way. It was given to the Jews in types, shadows, sacrifices, offerings, and promises, but it was given nonetheless my friend.

Grace and Peace,
S.S.

So Jesus Christ was not necessary? That’s what you’re saying with this. If the Jews had the full Gospel, we should just throw out the NT. The NT is merely superfluous. Ridiculous!

One question, if what you’re saying is true, why did Jesus have to go preach “to the spirits in prison” (1 Pet 3:19)?