Not By Faith Alone

[hoosierdaddy]

I generally agree that usually faith, or belief in the gospel comes first. But I do not agree that it always comes first. I have biblical quotes for this, but as of now my stupid battery on my laptop is almost dead

Anyways, God bless you

That’s fine. To tell you the truth, I don’t believe this an issue to divide over. I believe that faith has to come first, because it seems you cannot love God if you don’t have faith first. God bless you too.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I generally agree that usually faith, or belief in the gospel comes first. But I do not agree that it always comes first. I have biblical quotes for this, but as of now my stupid battery on my laptop is almost dead

Anyways, God bless you

The Catholic-

I’ve been doing so much reading on so many topics, that I haven’t really assimilated everything, yet, so check my understanding.

At baptism, God grants an initial deposit of faith, hope and love. This is true even for the infant.

Over time, these things can be expanded (by “works” to use the shorthand) or lost (by sin). Since an infant can’t really do much in the way of works or sin, the initial deposit can remain essentially unchanged or unaffected for several years.

For anyone above the age of reason, concupisence tends to push one toward sin which drains the initial grace.

Reception of the sacraments (reconciliation first, then others especially the Eucharist) restores that grace which was lost.

Maybe, just maybe, the state of our souls is kind of like a rechargeable battery. If we sin, then we are draining our battery; if we do “good works”, then we are recharging and even increasing the capacity of our battery.

Mother Teresa, for example, had tremendous battery life. I have much less, but I could increase it by “excercising my faith formed by love”.

 

[Redbandito]

But faith comes first. How can one love that which one has no faith in? Even Hebrews teaches that God is a rewarder of those who have faith and who diligently seek Him. Faith comes first, then love.

Maybe ordinally, but not in importance. For God’s Word reveals, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13).

 

[Redbandito]

The Catholic-

I’ve been doing so much reading on so many topics, that I haven’t really assimilated everything, yet, so check my understanding.

At baptism, God grants an initial deposit of faith, hope and love. This is true even for the infant.

Over time, these things can be expanded (by “works” to use the shorthand) or lost (by sin). Since an infant can’t really do much in the way of works or sin, the initial deposit can remain essentially unchanged or unaffected for several years.

For anyone above the age of reason, concupisence tends to push one toward sin which drains the initial grace.

Reception of the sacraments (reconciliation first, then others especially the Eucharist) restores that grace which was lost.

Maybe, just maybe, the state of our souls is kind of like a rechargeable battery. If we sin, then we are draining our battery; if we do “good works”, then we are recharging and even increasing the capacity of our battery.

Mother Teresa, for example, had tremendous battery life. I have much less, but I could increase it by “excercising my faith formed by love”.

Randy, I would look at it like this. We all have life. This, we would refer to as the “quality.” Many share in this “quality” of life. Yet, some who share in the same quality of life will live life more “fully” than others.

Or in Catholic terms. We are declared divine sons, and we actually are divine sons of God. In being obedient to our Father, we are living out our vocation as divine sons more perfectly. Every act of love for our father brings us that much closer to Him.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/RIGHTEOU.htm

Thanks for the link. I did learn a few things about the Catholic position. In the article Mr. Akin says the following:
James Akin:

The Church was left with no choice but to prohibit the use of the phrase “faith alone.” It would have been grossly misunderstood by the common man (as the fact Protestantism has been plagued since its inception with a battle against internal antinomian factions).

Mr. Akins statement above proves a very important point that I have failed to mentioned. If your teaching on justification does not lead some to think you are teaching some form of antinomian then you are probably not teaching the biblical concept of justification. This is proven by the responses Paul expected when he taught justification by faith(i.e. alone)

Romans 6:1;15
*1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
*
So Paul’s anticipated response to his teaching is that living a holy life did not matter, because we are justified by faith and I would say by faith alone, otherwise the response doesn’t make sense. One thing you can be assured of and that is no one would respond this way when hearing the Catholic perspective on justification. Also it is odd that Mr. Akins think the phrase “faith alone” is so against the language of the bible, but many fathers definitely used and they used it on some of the same verses that Protestants would say it is taught.

The distinction between legal righteousness, behavioral, and actual righteousness was a distinction I had failed to fully understand from the Catholic position. However, in the end I don’t think the distinction between behavioral and actual righteousness makes a difference. It is only through the behavioral righteousness( sanctification) that the actual righteousness( progressive justification) increases, if I’m understanding correctly. If so, I agree with Robert Sungenis in his book, “Not By Faith Alone”, when he says of the Catholic position on justification and sanctification. :

In regard to sanctification, there is no appreciable difference between it and justification. In fact, the grace received at baptism is called *sanctifying * grace. This is the grace that sets the individual apart for God and makes him holy, and it is because of this ‘holiness’ that he becomes just or justified in the eyes of God, that is, because now he is intrinsically holy. ( “Not By Faith Alone”, Robert Sungenis, pg 223 )

That is the reason why Protestant will say Catholics confuse sanctification and justification, because actual righteousness and behavioral righteousness are based on our doing after initial justification, which is sanctification from the Protestant perspective. Mr. Akins states the following:
James Akin:

Even though when we first came to God we were made totally righteous in the sense that we became totally pure, we have not yet done any good works, for these are made possible only by God’s grace after justification. *The righteousness God have given us may be totally perfect in quality but it is not yet totally perfect in quantity *.

My question is how can we truly be righteous in God’s sight if we do not have any good works yet? God demands fulfillment of the law by doing, not just a neutral state of no sin, which is why Christ had to fulfill the law. For Protestants it is the righteousness of Christ( his sinlessness and good works), which is credited to our account. This is no legal fiction, because it is truly our righteousness. For example, if you credit money to my bank account as a gift it is actually mine’s even though I didn’t earn it.
One more interesting quote from Akins:

You don’t have to do a diddly-do-da thing after being justified by God in baptism in order to go to heaven. There is no magic level of works one needs to achieve in order to go to heaven. One is saved the moment one is initially justified. The only things one then does is good works because one loves God (the only kind which receive rewards) and not choose to cast out God’s grace by mortal sin.

Throw out the mortal sin and replace baptism with faith alone as the instrumental means of justification and I could agree with the rest. However, is it really true from a Catholic perspective that nothing else needs to be done after baptism and one is saved as long as they don’t destroy this justification by committing a mortal sin? Not only do I find this odd, but it also makes me wonder why Catholics are against assurance of salvation if this true? And this takes me to the rest of your post, but I will respond to that separately a little later.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Maybe ordinally, but not in importance. For God’s Word reveals, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor 13:13).

Oh I understand that. I guess this is one more case of we must define our terms. I was talking about chronological order the whole time.

 

[Redbandito]

Thanks for the link. I did learn a few things about the Catholic position. In the article Mr. Akin says the following:

Mr. Akins statement above proves a very important point that I have failed to mentioned. If your teaching on justification does not lead some to think you are teaching some form of antinomian then you are probably not teaching the biblical concept of justification. This is proven by the responses Paul expected when he taught justification by faith(i.e. alone).

I’m sorry SS, I strongly disagree with such an assertion. That entirely begs the question. Further, Paul was dealing with an entirely different group of people than us. He was dealing with Jews that were trying to make Gentiles be Jewish to follow Christ. It was natural that they would assume if he was telling them circumcision was not necessary, that they would assume they did not have to obey the moral law anymore. In fact, you make the same mistake in your exegesis. Yet Paul makes very clear that this is not what he is saying, as you rightly point out below.

Romans 6:1;15
1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?
15What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!.

Exactly!

So Paul’s anticipated response to his teaching is that living a holy life did not matter, because we are justified by faith and I would say by faith alone, otherwise the response doesn’t make sense. One thing you can be assured of and that is no one would respond this way when hearing the Catholic perspective on justification. Also it is odd that Mr. Akins think the phrase “faith alone” is so against the language of the bible, but many fathers definitely used and they used it on some of the same verses that Protestants would say it is taught…

The verse makes perfect sense in light of my interpretation, which is btw, the interpretation of BIBLICAL SCHOLARS (not apologists or even theologians) such as St. Jerome, Schoenborn, Scott Hahn, and Curtis Mitch.

Cite the Fathers that you claim made such statements please. And it is not odd that Mr. Akin thinks the phrase is against Biblical language, since you well know James states, “NOT BY faith alone.”

The distinction between legal righteousness, behavioral, and actual righteousness was a distinction I had failed to fully understand from the Catholic position. However, in the end I don’t think the distinction between behavioral and actual righteousness makes a difference. It is only through the behavioral righteousness( sanctification) that the actual righteousness( progressive justification) increases, if I’m understanding correctly. If so, I agree with Robert Sungenis in his book, “Not By Faith Alone”, when he says of the Catholic position on justification and sanctification. :.

Well that is exactly why Catholics say sanctification and justification are constantly working together, and simultaneously. However, from a Protestant perspective (mere imputation without infusion), one cannot believe justification can increase in any way. We are either legally righteous or not. And there is a huge distinction between, although the two are correlated, what I do and what I am. Who I am surely influences what I do, and what I do has a major impact on who I am. Yet, they are not one and the same.

Furthermore, while I cited Akin’s article to you, it was more for your ability to see Catholic doctrine from a Protestant perspective. Catholic soteriology is much less court-room based, and much more living-room based. Catholic soteriology is centered around the concept of Divine Sonship. So while we use this terminology in an attempt to clarify our understanding to Protestants on their playing field, the terms are imperfect precisely because they are playing on that field. Catholic soteriology mandates that we discuss justification as adoption. It is the point where, through faith and baptism, we receive the indelible mark of the HS on our soul’s. Thus, for those who cannot get past the legal, to the familial, the concept will remain difficult to understand and accept.

 

[Redbandito]

That is the reason why Protestant will say Catholics confuse sanctification and justification, because actual righteousness and behavioral righteousness are based on our doing after initial justification, which is sanctification from the Protestant perspective. Mr. Akins states the following:.

Through increasing in our sanctification, we increase in our justification. That does not make them one and the same. They’re correlated, but not the same. An analogy might be an actor. I become a better actor through practice (sanctification), yet the better actor I am, the more I will want to practice (justification).

My question is how can we truly be righteous in God’s sight if we do not have any good works yet? God demands fulfillment of the law by doing, not just a neutral state of no sin, which is why Christ had to fulfill the law. For Protestants it is the righteousness of Christ( his sinlessness and good works), which is credited to our account. This is no legal fiction, because it is truly our righteousness. For example, if you credit money to my bank account as a gift it is actually mine’s even though I didn’t earn it.
One more interesting quote from Akins:.

I don’t know. Ask Mother Theresa, Padre Pio, St. Francis, Maximillian Kolbe and the myriad of other saints who have been perfected by God’s love. And as far as your analogy of the bank account, it misses one thing. If I continue to sin, even though Christ’s righteousness is credited to me, then the real property of guilt resides in my soul. Thus, I am as Luther stated, “a pile of cowdung covered with snow.” The fact that I am covered does not make my nature change. Thus, I remain cowdung. My only reply to that is that while God loves us just the way we are, He also loves us too much to keep us that way.

Throw out the mortal sin and replace baptism with faith alone as the instrumental means of justification and I could agree with the rest. However, is it really true from a Catholic perspective that nothing else needs to be done after baptism and one is saved as long as they don’t destroy this justification by committing a mortal sin? Not only do I find this odd, but it also makes me wonder why Catholics are against assurance of salvation if this true? And this takes me to the rest of your post, but I will respond to that separately a little later.

But, if I throw those out, then I throw out the Bible. And as far as the Catholic having “nothing else (he) needs to (do),” it depends on what you mean. If I died at that moment, no. However, our gift of grace demands that we not reject it. If I resist my call to go forth and love my neighbor, then I will destroy my justification through mortal sin. The two go hand-in-hand.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito:

My response is simple. In no way does John say “know” as if it is a “metaphysical certainty.” He uses it in the sense of a “moral certainty.” An example of this would be studying for a test. I can study extremely hard, and be extremely confident that I am going to get an “A.” Heck, I might even tell someone, “I studied so hard, I just know I’m going to get an A on this test.” Yet, while the fact that I studied certainly gives me every reason to believe and be confident that I will get an “A,” it does not guarantee it.

I’m not arguing for an infallible certainty, and a metaphysical certainty does not have to be infallible. The Scriptures says we know because God has given us his Spirit. This is a metaphysical certainty. Catholic theology demands infallible certainty about other things so why is certainty of salvation restricted to moral certainty? Also in my last post James Akins stated after baptism one is saved as long as they don’t destroy their justification with a mortal sin. Why doesn’t this have more than moral certainty?

Redbandito:

… (1 Cor 4:3-5).

Thus, it does not appear to me that Paul believes we can have any metaphysical certainty (or absolute assurance). With this verse and dozens of other ones like it, I try to read verses like 1 Jn 4 in the context of the whole of the Scriptures. I cannot reconcile a metaphysical certainty to these, but I can reconcile “knowing” as a moral certainty.

The Scriptures talks a lot about being deceived and false teachers in the church. Does this mean you only have moral certainty of Rome’s infallibility? This seems logically consistent with your argument above. Furthermore, Paul equally states those whom God justifies he will glorify.

Redbandito:

My faith is not perfect and neither is your’s. We must ultimately trust in God’s mercy to accept our brokenness. Yet, the fact that we trust in God to have mercy shows their is not an ABSOLUTE assurance, for God will be merciful to those who SHOW MERCY.

Yes, neither of our faith is perfect, but our assurance is not based on perfect faith, but on God’s word and promises. Your faith is perfect, but it doesn’t stop you from claiming to have infallible faith in things such as the canon, right?

Thus, in reading Rom 4, and citing it for your position, you ASSUME that it can be his only real justification, because your theology mandates it. That is called begging the question. And that is why you end up having to explain away passages in James that couldn’t be any clearer. All the same, I think you have done an excellent job of putting forth the best of the Protestant position. Thank you.

I don’t explain James away at all. I will put my interpretation up against yours any day for consistency with all of Scripture. Not only that, I know of church fathers that interpret James in almost exactly the same way as I do. Now if you are consistent you would charge them with “explaining away passages in James”.

So do you still contend that Genesis 12 was Abraham’s initial justification? If how do you explain the Apostle Paul’s comment in Roman 4? If you move his initial justification to Romans 4(i.e. Gen. 15 ) then that means we only have James 2( Gen. 22 ) left to see who can make it fit best with all of Scriptures. And be careful, I may pull a few fathers out to back up my exegesis

Redbandito:

SS, I appreciate your response. I think your explanation is reasonable after reading it. I just don’t agree with it, because I also believe that that is one of two reasonable explanations of the Scriptures in question.

And since I believe there are other Scriptures that support my explanation and contradict your’s, although reasonable, I believe the Catholic view is ultimately the correct Biblical view of justification and sanctification.

Shall we do James 2?

BTW, what do you do with this verse? “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11). This verse does not seem to support that justification occurs, and then sanctification takes over. How do you respond?

Protestant theology teaches 2 forms of sanctification. There is definitive sanctification and progressive sanctification. Definitive sanctification is concomitant with justification. Therefore, 1 Cor. 6:11 is speaking of definitive sanctification and I don’t think it is saying anything about temporal order. For example we have another similar verse in 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthian 1:30
He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our *righteousness and sanctification and redemption. *.

Now, I don’t believe this verse is saying anything about the temporal order of these three things.

 

[Redbandito]

I’m not arguing for an infallible certainty, and a metaphysical certainty does not have to be infallible. The Scriptures says we know because God has given us his Spirit. This is a metaphysical certainty. Catholic theology demands infallible certainty about other things so why is certainty of salvation restricted to moral certainty? Also in my last post James Akins stated after baptism one is saved as long as they don’t destroy their justification with a mortal sin. Why doesn’t this have more than moral certainty?.

I think you just argued for a moral certainty.

The Scriptures talks a lot about being deceived and false teachers in the church. Does this mean you only have moral certainty of Rome’s infallibility? This seems logically consistent with your argument above. Furthermore, Paul equally states those whom God justifies he will glorify…

Absolutely! I am not infallible. Reason mandates that I COULD be wrong on Rome. Just as it mandates I COULD be wrong about Jesus.

And as for the Scripture of God “glorifies those whom He justifies,” I agree. What is missing from this verse is an assertion either that justification is a one-time event, or that all those God justifies initially receive the grace of perserverance.

Yes, neither of our faith is perfect, but our assurance is not based on perfect faith, but on God’s word and promises. Your faith is perfect, but it doesn’t stop you from claiming to have infallible faith in things such as the canon, right?.

Faith (Now faith is the (A)assurance of things ((“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=heb 11:1;&version=49;#cen-NASB-30174B”))hoped for, the conviction of (C)things not seen" Heb 11:1**.), by it’s very nature, cannot be infallible. If Jesus existed, and He was God, and He indeed taught 12 men called Apostles, and then inspired them to preach the Word of God and commit it in some way to writing, then however we receive this Word of God (by word of mouth or by letter) is infallible (meaning uncapable of error). That does NOT mean that I am not required to put faith in it. And that does not mean that I couldn’t be wrong in putting my faith in something. Again, I COULD be wrong that Jesus is God. But if I am right, what does that mean for what Jesus taught?

I don’t explain James away at all. I will put my interpretation up against yours any day for consistency with all of Scripture. Not only that, I know of church fathers that interpret James in almost exactly the same way as I do. Now if you are consistent you would charge them with “explaining away passages in James”…

Go for it.

 

[Redbandito]

So do you still contend that Genesis 12 was Abraham’s initial justification? If how do you explain the Apostle Paul’s comment in Roman 4? If you move his initial justification to Romans 4(i.e. Gen. 15 ) then that means we only have James 2( Gen. 22 ) left to see who can make it fit best with all of Scriptures. And be careful, I may pull a few fathers out to back up my exegesis .

“I will make you into a great nation
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.”

Was it not your contention that the Gospel can be preached and believed in many ways? Does not this verse prophecy the Gospel Paul is preaching that Jew and Gentile will be blessed through Abraham? Is this not a prophecy about the salvation of the world? Does Abraham believe it, and even obey because of this promise?

So, yes I do. (Actually, it is possible it was earlier and simply not recorded since Abram could have been walking with God before then) In fact, Rom 4, makes my point better than any other chapter in ALL of the Scripture. Paul states that circumcision did not justify Abraham, but his faith. Thus, Abraham was justified BEFORE his circumcision. Why does Paul think this is important? He summarizes the argument a few verses down.

Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.”
How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised;and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them,
and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

What point is Paul clearly making here? He is stating that Abraham’s justification preceded circumcision. Circumcision, and the rest of the ceremonial law, was distinctily JEWISH. His point is that it was not their ethnicity or Jewishness that justified them, but their faith. THUS, Abraham is Father of the JEWS AND GENTILES. Why can this not be talking about the moral law? The moral law was and is required of all of us. We all have it written on our hearts. As Paul makes clear:

(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.(Rom 2:14-15).

Thus, Paul CANNOT be talking about the moral law, since that did not distinguish the Jews and the Gentiles. He is clearly talking about the ceremonial law, of which CIRCUMCISION is the sign.

Shall we do James 2?.

I would very much like to. And while I hate to take away from our focus on Paul, James clears up misunderstandings people get from taking Paul out of context. The reality is, James does not say works are “proof of our justification” or anything of the sort. He says we are justified by works. That is as clear as day. If you would like to explain to me why James does not really mean what he says, I would love to hear it.

Protestant theology teaches 2 forms of sanctification. There is definitive sanctification and progressive sanctification. Definitive sanctification is concomitant with justification. Therefore, 1 Cor. 6:11 is speaking of definitive sanctification and I don’t think it is saying anything about temporal order. For example we have another similar verse in 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthian 1:30
He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our *righteousness and sanctification and redemption. *.

Now, I don’t believe this verse is saying anything about the temporal order of these three things.

That’s fine that you deny that. What reason do you have based on that verse other than it does not fit your theology?

 

[SolaScriptura]

I’m sorry SS, I strongly disagree with such an assertion. That entirely begs the question. Further, Paul was dealing with an entirely different group of people than us. He was dealing with Jews that were trying to make Gentiles be Jewish to follow Christ. It was natural that they would assume if he was telling them circumcision was not necessary, that they would assume they did not have to obey the moral law anymore. In fact, you make the same mistake in your exegesis. Yet Paul makes very clear that this is not what he is saying, as you rightly point out below.

Probably one of the greatest biblical expositors of the Scriptures was ole Golden Mouth( i.e. St John Chrystom ). Notice he agrees exactly with my interpretation that Paul is teaching justification by faith alone, he is teaching that works of the law means more than circumcision, and that is why people came to the erroneous conclusion that good works do not matter.
St John Chrsystom:

That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. “This is a faithful saying,” he says, “and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had mis-spent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, “It is a saying to be believed.” But some not only disbelieved but even objected, as the Greeks do now. “Let us then do evil, that good may come.” This was the consequence they drew in derision of our faith, from his words, “Where sin abounded grace did much more abound.” (Rom. 3:8, and 5:20) ( HOMILY IV. Saint John Chrysostom 1 Timothy 1:15, 16)

Wow, one quote from the greatest expositor of all the fathers refutes 3 of your premises. Now that is an efficient quote

The verse makes perfect sense in light of my interpretation, which is btw, the interpretation of BIBLICAL SCHOLARS (not apologists or even theologians) such as St. Jerome, Schoenborn, Scott Hahn, and Curtis Mitch.

The verses make not sense in light of Catholic interpretation, because if Paul was not teaching justification by faith alone then no one could arrive at the conclusion that living holy was not needed. Furthermore, even when Paul had the chance to correct their misunderstanding you will notice he doesn’t mention that grace infused works( per Catholic interpretation of James 2) is needed.

Cite the Fathers that you claim made such statements please. And it is not odd that Mr. Akin thinks the phrase is against Biblical language, since you well know James states, “NOT BY faith alone.”

Of course that is arguing like a fundamentalist, which is my point The bible also says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so will you say Mary’s Immaculate Conception is against the Biblical language?

Well that is exactly why Catholics say sanctification and justification are constantly working together, and simultaneously. However, from a Protestant perspective (mere imputation without infusion), one cannot believe justification can increase in any way. We are either legally righteous or not.

It’s not that we don’t believe in infused righteousness, but that this infusion is sanctification and doesn’t justify us before God.

And there is a huge distinction between, although the two are correlated, what I do and what I am. Who I am surely influences what I do, and what I do has a major impact on who I am. Yet, they are not one and the same.

I agree.

Furthermore, while I cited Akin’s article to you, it was more for your ability to see Catholic doctrine from a Protestant perspective. Catholic soteriology is much less court-room based, and much more living-room based. Catholic soteriology is centered around the concept of Divine Sonship. So while we use this terminology in an attempt to clarify our understanding to Protestants on their playing field, the terms are imperfect precisely because they are playing on that field. Catholic soteriology mandates that we discuss justification as adoption. It is the point where, through faith and baptism, we receive the indelible mark of the HS on our soul’s. Thus, for those who cannot get past the legal, to the familial, the concept will remain difficult to understand and accept.

Protestantism has familial(sanctification) and courtroom(justification).

 

[SolaScriptura]

I think you just argued for a moral certainty.

Slow down and follow the argument. Our having the Holy Spirit as a factor for our assurance is not based on moral certainty.( 1 John 4:13)

Redbandito:

Absolutely! I am not infallible. Reason mandates that I COULD be wrong on Rome. Just as it mandates I COULD be wrong about Jesus.

Exactly. So that is my point about certainty. We are not saying we have infallible certainty, but we can be just as sure about our salvation as we are about Jesus. By the was do you have infallible certainty that you have the right books in the canon?

And as for the Scripture of God “glorifies those whom He justifies,” I agree. What is missing from this verse is an assertion either that justification is a one-time event, or that all those God justifies initially receive the grace of perserverance.

Don’t mix apples and oranges. I quoted this verse in reference to assurance, and it does implicitly state the gift of perseverance is given. Check it out:

Romans 8:30
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

There is no hole in this logic. Those whom he justifies he also glorifies.

Again, I COULD be wrong that Jesus is God. But if I am right, what does that mean for what Jesus taught?

It would only mean that Jesus is infallible, but your understanding of what he taught could still be wrong on many other things. In the end it seems like we are in the same boat contrary to the constant Catholic claim about an infallible church

Go for it.

Paul and James are speaking of justification in two different senses. Paul is speaking of how one comes into a right relationship with God. He is talking about God justifying the ungodly. James is speaking of how the godly one(already justified) will produce works. If you don’t produce works then we should not count your faith as real faith. That is why he makes the following statements:

1. 
   *]“faith without works is dead”(v. 17)
   *]“faith without deeds is useless”(v.20),
   *]show me your faith without the works”(v.18 ),
   *]”I will show you my faith by my works”(v. 18 )
   *] “even demons believe and shudder”(v. 19)
   
   It is after these verses that James appeals to Abraham in Gen 22 to show that a real faith produces works. Do you think Abraham’s faith was useless until he performed the work in Gen 22? Of course not, his point is that Abraham justifies (i.e. vindicates) his faith by his work. Now you will argue this is progressive justification. I don’t have a problem with this being Abraham’s behavioral righteousness and therefore also his actual righteousness. Where I would disagree is if this you contend that this actual righteousness is in some sense the basis of Abraham’s going to heaven.

 

[Redbandito]

Probably one of the greatest biblical expositors of the Scriptures was ole Golden Mouth( i.e. St John Chrystom ). Notice he agrees exactly with my interpretation that Paul is teaching justification by faith alone, he is teaching that works of the law means more than circumcision, and that is why people came to the erroneous conclusion that good works do not matter.).

I’ll respond to this quote in a little bit. I have a little more reading to do, but I’ll get there.

Wow, one quote from the greatest expositor of all the fathers refutes 3 of your premises. Now that is an efficient quote ).

Actually, the fact that he distinguishes between being “justified by the law” AND “by works” shows he is making the distinction. You are not. Thus, he supports at least one premise of mine.

The verses make not sense in light of Catholic interpretation, because if Paul was not teaching justification by faith alone then no one could arrive at the conclusion that living holy was not needed. Furthermore, even when Paul had the chance to correct their misunderstanding you will notice he doesn’t mention that grace infused works( per Catholic interpretation of James 2) is needed.).

Sure it does. I have already explained this.

Paul states we will be judged by “works” or by what we do, in Rom 2. So ultimately, works will play a part in our judgement and salvation. This cannot simply be referring to sanctification.

Of course that is arguing like a fundamentalist, which is my point The bible also says all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so will you say Mary’s Immaculate Conception is against the Biblical language?

SS, please do not misrepresent the argument. Are you saying that “not by faith alone” is a hyperbole? If not, your argument does not follow.

It’s not that we don’t believe in infused righteousness, but that this infusion is sanctification and doesn’t justify us before God.

I agree.

Protestantism has familial(sanctification) and courtroom(justification).

Okay, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification. I still disagree. The Scripture shows clear passages where our ultimate salvation will have some dependence upon what we do. Sanctification alone does not make sense of these passages.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Actually, the fact that he distinguishes between being “justified by the law” AND “by works” shows he is making the distinction. You are not. Thus, he supports at least one premise of mine.

What??? Here is the quote again:

Chrysostom:

That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. “This is a faithful saying,” he says, “and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had mis-spent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, “It is a saying to be believed.” But some not only disbelieved but even objected, as the Greeks do now. “Let us then do evil, that good may come.” This was the consequence they drew in derision of our faith, from his words, “Where sin abounded grace did much more abound.” (Rom. 3:8, and 5:20) ( HOMILY IV. Saint John Chrysostom 1 Timothy 1:15, 16)

How you can say this supports your premise is beyond me. Your argument has been that Paul when speak of “works” or “works of the law” in Romans he is speaking of the ceremonial law only. Chrysostom is arguing as I was that Paul’s argument encompasses all works and not just the ceremonial law. He uses both phrases to make that point clear. The rest of his context makes it clear that he is talking about moral laws. Notice he doesn’t contrast their being saved by faith to ceremonial law, but instead moral law(i.e. vain and wicked actions). This fits with God justifying the ungodly. Here is another one for you:
Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384):

Paul backs this up by the example of the prophet David, who says that those are blessed of whom God has decreed that, without work or any keeping of the law, they are justified before God by faith alone. Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 113.

 

[Redbandito]

What??? Here is the quote again:

How you can say this supports your premise is beyond me. Your argument has been that Paul when speak of “works” or “works of the law” in Romans he is speaking of the ceremonial law only. Chrysostom is arguing as I was that Paul’s argument encompasses all works and not just the ceremonial law. He uses both phrases to make that point clear. The rest of his context makes it clear that he is talking about moral laws. Notice he doesn’t contrast their being saved by faith to ceremonial law, but instead moral law(i.e. vain and wicked actions). This fits with God justifying the ungodly. Here is another one for you:

I read the quote. Why does John say “neither justified by the law, nor by works” if there is no difference? Wouldn’t that be a bit redundant?

 

[SolaScriptura]

I read the quote. Why does John say “neither justified by the law, nor by works” if there is no difference? Wouldn’t that be a bit redundant?

Ummm, because the Apostle Paul says both. Remember he is explaining his argument. Furthermore, it means not only the Jewish specific law, but any good works.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Paul and James are speaking of justification in two different senses. Paul is speaking of how one comes into a right relationship with God. He is talking about God justifying the ungodly. James is speaking of how the godly one(already justified) will produce works. If you don’t produce works then we should not count your faith as real faith. That is why he makes the following statements:

1. 
   *]“faith without works is dead”(v. 17)
   *]“faith without deeds is useless”(v.20),
   *]show me your faith without the works”(v.18 ),
   *]”I will show you my faith by my works”(v. 18 )
   *]“even demons believe and shudder”(v. 19)
   It is after these verses that James appeals to Abraham in Gen 22 to show that a real faith produces works. Do you think Abraham’s faith was useless until he performed the work in Gen 22? Of course not, his point is that Abraham justifies (i.e. vindicates) his faith by his work. Now you will argue this is progressive justification. I don’t have a problem with this being Abraham’s behavioral righteousness and therefore also his actual righteousness. Where I would disagree is if this you contend that this actual righteousness is in some sense the basis of Abraham’s going to heaven.

1. 
   Redbandito-
   
   Jimmy Akin refuted the “two different types of faith” argument in several articles as well as in his book, The Salvation Controversy.
   
   Additionally, he points out that James and Paul were speaking of the same faith because they both quoted to the same passage concerning Abraham and emphasizes the justification process as found in the life of Abraham.
   
   Interestingly, the Presbyterian convert, Scott Hahn, who was steeped in Luther’s theology, abandoned sola fide even before he had graduated from seminary.
   
   I’ve been working through all of this, but I recognize my current limitations. SolaScriptura has spent far more time studying this, so I will not be able to go toe-to-toe with him adequately, but I’ll be following along.
   
   One key may be to clarify your terms; otherwise, you may be simply talking past one another. Protestants and Catholics use the same words but they have different meanings which adds to the confusion.
   
   Good luck!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I believe what St. John Chrysostom taught in the quoted text above ought to be understood in the context of the rest of his teachings, no?

For instance, St. John Chrysostom also taught…

"He that believes in the Son has everlasting life" [John 3:36]… ‘Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,’ someone will say, “in order to have everlasting life?” BY NO MEANS! Listen to Christ declare this Himself when He says, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven” [Matt 7:21]; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man BELIEVE rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not LIVE RIGHTLY, his faith will avail him NOTHING TOWARD SALVATION. (Homilies on John 31:1)

"not through believing only cometh your salvation, but also through the suffering and enduring the same things with us." (Homily on the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 277)

For, “think not,” saith he, "because ye have believed, that this is sufficient for your salvation: since if to me neither preaching nor teaching nor bringing over innumerable persons, is enough for salvation unless I exhibit my own conduct also unblameable, much less to you. (Homily 23, NPNF1: Volume 12, page 133)

(Galatians 5) Verse 6 "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith working through love." What is the meaning of "working through love?" Here he gives them a hard blow, by showing that this error had crept in because the love of Christ had not been rooted within them. For to believe is not all that is required, but also to abide in love. (Commentary on Galatians 5, NPNF1: Volume 13, page 37)

I believe what St. John Chrysostom affirms, in the context of the rest of his teaching is a “faith alone” that connotes what Catholic scholars have consistently described as “fide formata” or formed faith. This is in contrast to what is called “fide informi” or unformed faith. Thus, it is formed faith alone which is justfying faith, which is a faith that can never be de-coupled from charity and hope, and not be “alone” in the strict sense of the word.

This Catholic understanding of salvation by formed faith was refuted by Martin Luther’s version of “faith alone,” which is why Catholicism has condemned it.

Martin Luther wrote:

[Catholics] say that we must believe in Christ and that faith is the foundation of salvation, but they say that this faith does not justify unless it is “formed by love.” This is not the truth of the Gospel; it is a falsehood and pretense … For faith that takes hold of Christ, the Son of God, and is adorned by Him is the faith that justifies, not a faith that includes love. … we refuse to concede … that faith formed by love justifies. (LW 26, 88-90, emphasis added)

Luther was wrong.

Luther’s novel idea of “faith alone” is clearly contrary to St. John Chrysostom’s very Catholic view. Luther’s view seems also contrary to the *current *Lutheran understanding as described in the Joint Declaration on Justification, which states in accord with the Catholic view:

When persons come by faith to share in Christ … the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love. (22)

[They] place their trust in God’s gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. (25)

Faith formed by love indeed justifies, and the works of charity must follow and are necessary according to the commandment of God.

See more here:

Justication by Faith Alone
by Jimmy Akin

 

[SolaScriptura]

I believe what St. John Chrysostom taught in the quoted text above ought to be understood in the context of the rest of his teachings, no?

Of course.

For instance, St. John Chrysostom also taught…

I believe what St. John Chrysostom affirms, in the context of the rest of his teaching is a “faith alone” that connotes what Catholic scholars have consistently described as “fide formata” or formed faith. This is in contrast to what is called “fide informi” or unformed faith. Thus, it is formed faith alone which is justfying faith, which is a faith that can never be de-coupled from charity and hope, and not be “alone” in the strict sense of the word.

At the most I think you can only prove that Chrysostom was sometimes inconsistent. Out of your 4 quotes above he never mentions hope, and only mentions love in one. The one in which he mentions love is where it states “faith working through love”, which it seems to me is a faith that produces good works through love. So how you think this proves he equates faith alone with the Catholic concept of formed faith is beyond me.

This Catholic understanding of salvation by formed faith was refuted by Martin Luther’s version of “faith alone,” which is why Catholicism has condemned it.

Martin Luther wrote:

[Catholics] say that we must believe in Christ and that faith is the foundation of salvation, but they say that this faith does not justify unless it is “formed by love.” This is not the truth of the Gospel; it is a falsehood and pretense … For faith that takes hold of Christ, the Son of God, and is adorned by Him is the faith that justifies, not a faith that includes love. … we refuse to concede … that faith formed by love justifies. (LW 26, 88-90, emphasis added)

Luther was wrong.

Saying Luther is wrong, doesn’t prove Luther is wrong. Assertion without an argument.

Luther’s novel idea of “faith alone” is clearly contrary to St. John Chrysostom’s very Catholic view.

Hopefully, you don’t think you have proved anything. You guys think strongly asserting things make them so.

Luther’s view seems also contrary to the *current *Lutheran understanding as described in the Joint Declaration on Justification, which states in accord with the Catholic view:

The Joint Declaration of Justification doesn’t speak for official Lutheranism, it is the Book of Concord.

Faith formed by love indeed justifies, and the works of charity must follow and are necessary according to the commandment of God.

An assertion is not an argument my friend. If the Scriptures meant a faith formed by love then they should have said we are justified by faith and love. The apostle Paul definitely understood the distinction between the three as shown elsewhere.

However, I’m not saying hope and love does not accompany justifying faith, but instead it faith is the lone means of justification. As a matter of fact there could be a lot of other things that accompany faith, but neither do those justify.