Perplexed Protestant

[Matt16_18]

Socrates4Jesus:

If our faith does not result in good works, then that is good evidence that our faith is not genuine.

The protestant teachers to whom i’ve listened, however, point out that the good works Christians do do not cause them to receive the gift of eternal life. Rather, the good deeds are only the consequence of receiving that gift. They are not the reason for eternal life, they are only the result of it.

Catholics believe that the good deeds that we do that are wholly pleasing to God are works that were performed by cooperating with the supernatural grace that God gives to the justified. Since we can’t do the spiritual and corporal works of mercy without supernatural grace, we can’t take credit for those works of charity by claiming that we accomplished them out of our own self-effort apart from grace.

The problem with many “faith alone” Protestants, is no matter how the deny it, when they separate sanctification from justification, they are butchering Paul’s understanding of faith. For many “faith alone” Protestants, justification is a legal fiction, a white snow that covers the dung pile. Faith is merely the intellectual assent to a series of theological propositions about Jesus and his expiation for sin by death on the cross.

This extreme legalistic concept of forensic justification through intellectual assent to theological propositions has erupted into the Lordship Controversy among Protestants.

Some Protestants are appalled at the OSAS doctrine that teaches that a “saved” person is free to commit any sin they feel like committing with a guaranteed place in heaven. The antinomian flavor of OSAS explicitly teaches that once a person is “saved”, there is no sin that could be possibly committed that would make a Christian become damned. That false doctrine implicitly teaches that a Christian has “eternal security", and he can die unrepentant for Satan worshipping, rape, murder, child molesting, genocide, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, etc.

There are sane Protestants that gag at the thought of an unrepentant Satan worshipping child molester in heaven. They instinctively know that the Gospel teaches no such rubbish. But they are unable to provide an argument against this blasphemy when they believe in Luther’s faulty “faith alone” theology of forensic justification themselves.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Socrates4Jesus:

Yes, i agree it would be authoritative. One might say that St. Paul’s words in Acts are a very early example of oral tradition, as they are the words he spoke which Luke recorded.

I’d want to be careful when looking to the oral tradition of St. Paul, however, because it would be much easier to make a mistake in accurately giving his words from one generation to the next. The manuscript copies of the letters he wrote, however, are so great in number that the mistakes are easily recognized & removed by scholars.

That is why I pointed out the “infallible” part…I don’t trust things being past down from just anyone, but the fact that this authority was past from Christ to his Church which he built on Peter (Caephas, Petros, Rock) and gave him the power to bind and loose the things of this world into the next, and with the guidence of the Holy Spirit that Christ promised his Church, the teachings, whether written or oral, would be kept free from error…etc.

Socrates4Jesus:

But are you making these points because the teaching that good works are required may only be found in the writings of the early church fathers & not in the New Testament?

No, that was not my point…but you do bring up another point, the writings of the early Church Fathers and what they held to be true…if you haven’t read them, I would highly recommend it!

 

[Socrates]

Socrates4Jesus -

(Cool name by the way. )

There’s a tape set of three episodes of Catholic Answers Live where Dr. Scott Hahn was the guest. The title is “Faith Alone: Is it Justifiable?” One tape explains the protestant view of justification that Hahn held as a Presbyterian, another explains the Catholic view, and the third compares and contrasts the two.

It’s a pretty interesting treatment of the topic. It may not answer every question someone might have but it’s a good start. Check it out if you get a chance.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Matt16_18:

Catholics believe that the good deeds that we do that are wholly pleasing to God are works that were performed by cooperating with the supernatural grace that God gives to the justified. Since we can’t do the spiritual and corporal works of mercy without supernatural grace, we can’t take credit for those works of charity by claiming that we accomplished them out of our own self-effort apart from grace.

The problem with many “faith alone” Protestants, is no matter how the deny it, when they separate sanctification from justification, they are butchering Paul’s understanding of faith. For many “faith alone” Protestants, justification is a legal fiction, a white snow that covers the dung pile. Faith is merely the intellectual assent to a series of theological propositions about Jesus and his expiation for sin by death on the cross.
…

There are sane Protestants that gag at the thought of an unrepentant Satan worshipping child molester in heaven. They instinctively know that the Gospel teaches no such rubbish. But they are unable to provide an argument against this blasphemy when they believe in Luther’s faulty “faith alone” theology of forensic justification themselves.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Socrates4Jesus:

I am praying, EENS; pray for me too.

There is nothing I’d rather do!

 

[Matt16_18]

Socrates4Jesus:

It IS God’s grace (which means His undeserved favor) alone that saves us.

Perhaps you have an inadequate understanding of saving grace, and that is causing you problems in understanding Catholic doctrine.

Sure, all grace is God’s undeserved favor, but that is hardly an acceptable definition of saving grace. Our very existence as fallen human beings in need of a Savior is an undeserved favor from God. God sends rain to the unjust as undeserved favor:
…for [God] makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust…
Matt. 5:45
Obviously the scriptures speak about saving grace as something more than just an undeserved favor from God.

Why don’t you tell us what you believe what constitutes the grace that saves, and then we can see what you believe, and perhaps help you to understand the Catholic doctines of grace. Also, it would be extremely helpful for you to explain to us where you stand in the Lordship Controversy, and how you think this controversy should be settled.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Matt16_18:

Catholics believe that the good deeds that we do that are wholly pleasing to God are works that were performed by cooperating with the supernatural grace that God gives to the justified. Since we can’t do the spiritual and corporal works of mercy without supernatural grace, we can’t take credit for those works of charity by claiming that we accomplished them out of our own self-effort apart from grace.

The problem with many “faith alone” Protestants, is no matter how the deny it, when they separate sanctification from justification, they are butchering Paul’s understanding of faith. For many “faith alone” Protestants, justification is a legal fiction, a white snow that covers the dung pile. Faith is merely the intellectual assent to a series of theological propositions about Jesus and his expiation for sin by death on the cross.
…
There are sane Protestants that gag at the thought of an unrepentant Satan worshipping child molester in heaven. They instinctively know that the Gospel teaches no such rubbish. But they are unable to provide an argument against this blasphemy when they believe in Luther’s faulty “faith alone” theology of forensic justification themselves.

I suppose i’m one of the sane ones? I believe that repentance & faith are two sides of the same steak. The good works are the steak sauce!



I agree that, as Jesus said, “apart from me you can do nothing” which i take to mean that we cannot please God without faith (or trust & dependence on Him) to produce the good works in us. Which might be why St. Paul refers to them as the fruit of the Spirit.

The snow covered dung idea comes from a quote by Martin Luther (funny!) & i’m familiar with the Protestant idea of God declaring us to be righteous, good & perfect as a judge might declare a guilty criminal innocent of the crime he committed.

I’d have to disagree with the idea that all Protestants consider faith as mere intellectual assent. The Protestant teachers to whom i’ve listened say it is much more than that, that is, it is complete trust in the sacrificial death of Christ to provide forgiveness for their sins.

I’m not sure if we’re getting off the specific subject, though. I’m trying to determine what evidence there is that the good works are somehow a cause of receiving eternal life. Or, perhaps, how the passages i quoted above support Catholic theology.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

E.E.N.S.:

There is nothing I’d rather do!

Thanks, EENS!

 

[p90]

Psalm45:9:

Circumcision, eating only Kosher foods, doing nothing on the Sabbath, making sin offerings when they have become useless.

I don’t understand your response to my question. I was asking, in light of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:34, if there are any works which can justify man before God. Are you saying that these types of works can justify man before God?

~Matt

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Have a look at Robert Sungenis, catholic apologist his wgsite has good article I believe on “WORKS of the LAW”

catholicintl.com/epologetics/Works_of_the_Law.htm

 

[p90]

Socrates4Jesus:

Yeah, i’m trying to figure out just what St. Paul meant by “works of the Law.”

Have you considered that in Romans 4:5 Paul contrasts working with having faith? He says that the man who does not work at all is justified by faith. Whatever you conclude about what works Paul is including, remember to keep this passage in consideration.

~Matt

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Matt16_18:

Perhaps you have an inadequate understanding of saving grace, and that is causing you problems in understanding Catholic doctrine.
…

Obviously the scriptures speak about saving grace as something more than just an undeserved favor from God.

…

That’s interesting, Matt16; i never considered that i had the wrong definition of grace. I’ll have to look that one up in my Greek-Hebrew Study Bible.

In answer to your question, i consider grace this way:

• Justice = Getting what one deserves (for example, we all justly deserve to be punished for our sins against God).
• Mercy = Not getting what one deserves (for example, God forgiving us for our sins when we confess them).
• Grace = Getting what one does not deserve (for example, all the wonders of heaven & eternity face-to-face with the Savior who shed His blood for us).

Hence, i understand grace to be a love that overwhelms me, one that is beyond comprehension.

What’s your understanding of grace?

 

[Steve_M]

Pauls theology is frequently misunderstood. Some of the comments here have done a pretty good job of explaining it, but I’ll my two cents. When Paul is talking about not being justified by the work of the law, he’s being legalistic. The law is a contract. If we could keep the law 100% perfect, God would be obligated to give us salvation. If, however, we deviate from it, even one tiny bit, then he has no obligation to give us salvation. Since we’re all human, we’re not capable of following the law 100%, thus God is not under any obligation to us. Where good works comes in is when they are performed because of our faith in Christ. We have faith that, if we live our life the way He tells us to, he will give us salvation. Because of our faith, we help others, we worship God, we treat others well, we try to follow the ten commandments, and we generally live a Christian life. By doing the works, we show that we really are serious about loving Christ. This is where grace comes in. As established earlier, God has no obligation to provide us salvation. Salvation is absolutely a gift. If we do our best, because of our faith, then Gods gracious gift is salvation. That’s my quick explaination.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

p90:

Have you considered that in Romans 4:5 Paul contrasts working with having faith? He says that the man who does not work at all is justified by faith. Whatever you conclude about what works Paul is including, remember to keep this passage in consideration.

~Matt

Yeah, P90. That is one of the passages of Scripture i’m asking folks here to help me figure out.

 

[p90]

Socrates4Jesus:

Yeah, P90. That is one of the passages of Scripture i’m asking folks here to help me figure out.

Sorry, that’s my mistake. I should’ve read more carefully.

~Matt

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Steve M:

…We have faith that, if we live our life the way He tells us to, he will give us salvation. …

That’s fascinating, Steve. You see, i’ve been taught that my faith should be only in what Christ did for me. I’ve been warned that putting my faith in His sacrifice & the good works He produces in me may put my eternal destiny in jeopardy.

Can you think of any Scriptures that demonstrate your view is the correct?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

No prob., P90, i’ve been thinking the same thing.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Steve,

Are you saying i should understand the passages i quoted to mean this?

“Now when a man works [apart from faith], his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work [apart from faith] but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:4-5)

and

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works [apart from faith], so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

and

“… God … has saved us and called us to a holy life–not because of anything we have done [apart from faith] but because of his own purpose and grace. …” (2 Timothy 1:8-9)

and

"… God our Savior … saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done [apart from faith], but because of his mercy… " (Titus 3:5)

Hence, the words “apart from faith” should be understood when interpreting each passage. Is this what you mean?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

What do you think, Greg or EENS?

 

[Steve_M]

Socrates4Jesus:

Steve,

Are you saying i should understand the passages i quoted to mean this?

“Now when a man works [apart from faith], his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work [apart from faith] but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:4-5)

and

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works [apart from faith], so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9)

and

“… God … has saved us and called us to a holy life–not because of anything we have done [apart from faith] but because of his own purpose and grace. …” (2 Timothy 1:8-9)

and

"… God our Savior … saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done [apart from faith], but because of his mercy… " (Titus 3:5)

Hence, the words “apart from faith” should be understood when interpreting each passage. Is this what you mean?

That’s what I mean. Notice Paul talks about obligation in the first verse. He’s contrasting the obligation with the gift. The gift is available to all, but we have to live accordingly. Are we going to be perfect? Absolutely not, but God knows our heart. If you read the next verse in the Ephesians passage it says man is created for good works. Jesus tells the rich young man he has to follow the commandments. James 2:24 says were justified by our works and not by faith alone. The works of Jesus, and his sacrifice provide initial justification. Without that, we’d all be doomed. His sacrifice opens up our access to the grace of God. That’s my understanding of it. Hope that helps.