Peter Kreeft and Faith Alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter anonymousguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anonymousguy

Guest
**Hi,

I have a question, according to this article found at the ‘Christian Research Institute’ site ** “WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part One):
An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism”
**by Kenneth R. Samples found at ** equip.org/free/DC170-1.htm

"Kreeft, a prolific author whose books sell well among evangelical Protestants, describes himself as an "evangelical Roman Catholic."30 He made the following provocative comments in his book Fundamentals of the Faith:

How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed — indispensable to union between all sinners and God and union between God’s separated Catholic and Protestant children.

Much of the Catholic Church has not yet caught up with Luther; and for that matter, much of Protestantism has regressed from him. The churches are often found preaching one of two “other gospels”: the gospel of old-fashion legalism or the gospel of new-fangled humanism. The first means making points with God and earning your way into heaven, the second means being nice to everybody so that God will be nice to you. The churches, Protestant and Catholic, may also preach the true Christian gospel, but not often enough and not clearly enough and often watered down and mixed with one of these two other gospels. And the trouble with “other gospels” is simply that they are not true: they don’t work, they don’t unite man with God, they don’t justify.31

Kreeft is just one of an increasing number of Catholic scholars who see validity in the Reformation concept of justification by faith.32 Kreeft goes on to say: "Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can only be the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within, not laboriously, to buy into heaven.“33
…
30 Peter Kreeft, “The Catholic Market,” Bookstore Journal, February 1992, 28.
31 Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, 290.
32 See Carey, 44.
33 Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, 291.”

**1) When I read the above it was kind of weird, how can someone be Catholic and yet believe that Luther was correct on faith alone?
  1. Do many Catholics believe Luther was correct on faith alone?
  2. What do Catholics generally think of Kreeft, is he a good apologist? Are his books good?
  3. I was thinking of buying his book “Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics”, has anyone read it? If so, would you recommend it? I was thinking of buying this book but after reading the above quote i don’t think i will.**
 
I’m looking forward to replies to this. I came across that same article some time ago at that site, and it also made me wonder about Kreeft. He seems to have a good Catholic reputation.
 
I have a lecture of Dr. Peter Kreeft on cd from St. Joseph Communications entitled The 7 Reasons Why Everyone Should Be Catholic. In it he says that faith and works are not to be taken as two pieces separated (per Luther), it was not the Catholics who thought of these as an either/or but as an ‘and’.

As far as I know the man is orthodox. And he profess orthodoxy. I met him in Houston when he came down to speak about the Catholicity of The Lord of the Rings.

I don’t know how good the sources below are.

Thanks.
A.
 
On the basis of what a non Catholic has to say about a Catholic author you are not going to buy a book written by the Catholic author. Do you believe everything you read against Catholicism?

Have you checked to see the 1. if the excerpt is accurate or 2. what is the context of the quote assuming it is accurate?

Has the non Catholic emailed Peter Kreeft for a clarification of his position?

Have you emailed Peter Kreeft for a clarification of his position?
 
Let’s let Kreeft answer for us:
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html
When Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone, he meant by salvation only the initial step, justification, being put right with God. But when Trent said we are saved by good works as well as faith, they meant by salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, the works of love. The word faith was also used in two different senses. Luther used it in the broad sense of the person’s acceptance of God’s offer of salvation. It included repentance, faith, hope, and charity. This is the sense Saint Paul uses in Romans. But in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul uses it in a more specific sense, as just one of the three theological virtues, with hope and charity added to it. In this narrower sense faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, for hope and charity must be present also. That is the sense used by the old Baltimore Catechism too: faith is “an act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe what has been revealed on the grounds of the authority of God, who revealed it”.
Click to expand...
This “faith”, though prompted by the will, is an act of the intellect. Though necessary for salvation, it is not sufficient. Even the devils have this faith, as Saint James writes: “Do you believe that there is only one God? Good! The demons also believe — and tremble with fear” (James 2: 19). That is why James says, “it is by his actions that a person is put right with God, and not by his faith alone” (James 2:24). Luther, however, called James’ epistle “an epistle of straw”. He did not understand James’ point (applied to Abraham’s faith): “Can’t you see? His faith and his action worked together; his faith was made perfect through his actions” (James 2:2 2).
…
But many Catholics to this day have not learned the Catholic and biblical doctrine. They think we are saved by good intentions or being nice or sincere or trying a little harder or doing a sufficient number of good deeds. Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question: If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer? The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus!
…
The split of the Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic discovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book. It can end only when both Protestants and Catholics do the same thing today and understand what they are doing: discovering a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.
Click to expand...
If this interests you, you may also be interested in the Joint Declaration of Faith between Lutherans and Catholics:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
BUT DON’T FORGET THE 8 POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

God bless,
RyanL
 
anonymousguy said:
Hi,

**I have a question, according to this article found at the ‘Christian Research Institute’ site **“WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part One):
An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism”
**by Kenneth R. Samples found at **equip.org/free/DC170-1.htm

"Kreeft, a prolific author whose books sell well among evangelical Protestants, describes himself as an "evangelical Roman Catholic."30 He made the following provocative comments in his book Fundamentals of the Faith:

How do I resolve the Reformation? Is it faith alone that justifies, or is it faith and works? Very simple. No tricks. On this issue I believe Luther was simply right; and this issue is absolutely crucial. As a Catholic I feel guilt for the tragedy of Christian disunity because the church in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was failing to preach the gospel. Whatever theological mistakes Luther made, whatever indispensable truths about the Church he denied, here is an indispensable truth he affirmed — indispensable to union between all sinners and God and union between God’s separated Catholic and Protestant children.

Much of the Catholic Church has not yet caught up with Luther; and for that matter, much of Protestantism has regressed from him. The churches are often found preaching one of two “other gospels”: the gospel of old-fashion legalism or the gospel of new-fangled humanism. The first means making points with God and earning your way into heaven, the second means being nice to everybody so that God will be nice to you. The churches, Protestant and Catholic, may also preach the true Christian gospel, but not often enough and not clearly enough and often watered down and mixed with one of these two other gospels. And the trouble with “other gospels” is simply that they are not true: they don’t work, they don’t unite man with God, they don’t justify.31

Kreeft is just one of an increasing number of Catholic scholars who see validity in the Reformation concept of justification by faith.32 Kreeft goes on to say: "Catholicism as well as Protestantism affirms the utterly free, gratuitous gift of forgiving grace in Christ, free for the taking, which taking is faith. Good works can only be the fruit of faith, flowing freely as a response to the new life within, not laboriously, to buy into heaven.“33
…
30 Peter Kreeft, “The Catholic Market,” Bookstore Journal, February 1992, 28.
31 Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, 290.
32 See Carey, 44.
33 Kreeft, Fundamentals of the Faith, 291.”

1) When I read the above it was kind of weird, how can someone be Catholic and yet believe that Luther was correct on faith alone?

**2) Do many Catholics believe Luther was correct on faith alone? **

3) What do Catholics generally think of Kreeft, is he a good apologist? Are his books good?

4) I was thinking of buying his book “Fundamentals of the Faith: Essays in Christian Apologetics”, has anyone read it? If so, would you recommend it? I was thinking of buying this book but after reading the above quote i don’t think i will.
Click to expand...

Peter Kreeft has been in error for a number of years. He has many good things to say in his writings, but, unfortunately, his view of justification is no the Catholic view. He has at least two books where he explicitly states that we are justified by faith alone, and that Luther was in fact correct. In other words, he is agreeing with Luther, and disagreeing with the council of Trent.

In the book “Ecumenical Jihad” (which is a very bad book), he says that he does not believe the division between Protestants and Catholics will be resolved until the Church recognizes that Luther was in fact right.

Simply put, Peter Kreeft has not converted from his Protestant understanding of justification. Much of what he writes is admitedly very good, which makes his errors that much more dangerous, since they are mixed in with other very good teachings.

I know a person who confronted him with his errors on more than one occasion. He nevertheless held to his errors claiming that he was just repeating what John Paul II believed, then referred to the Joint Declation with the Lutherans. Personally, I don’t think John Paul II believed in the heresy of justification by faith alone, even though he did, unfortunately, sign that document. This shows how dangerous it is for a Pope to sign a document that gives the impression of teaching error.

There was an interesting debate on the Joint Declaration on these boards. Here is the link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=34604
 
40.png
MaryRose35:
Personally, I don’t think John Paul II believed in the heresy of justification by faith alone, even though he did, unfortunately, sign that document.
Click to expand...
Like I said in my last post, DON’T FORGET THE 8 POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:
vatican.va/roman_curia/p…atholic_en.html

These points of clarification were *specifically ordered *by John Paul the Great to ensure such confusion and error was not introduced.

From the link:
On some points the positions are, in fact, **still divergent. **
Click to expand...
So, on the basis of the agreement already reached on many aspects, the Catholic Church intends to contribute towards overcoming the divergencies that still exist by suggesting, below, in order of importance, a list of points that constitute still an obstacle to agreement between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation on all the fundamental truths concerning justification.[bold added]

God bless,
RyanL
 
40.png
RyanL:
Let’s let Kreeft answer for us:
catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

If this interests you, you may also be interested in the Joint Declaration of Faith between Lutherans and Catholics:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html
BUT DON’T FORGET THE 8 POINTS OF CLARIFICATION:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html

God bless,
RyanL
Click to expand...
Thanks for that clarification!

Peace
 
“Faith alone” is an idiotic concept. Works were far, far, far more important to Christ than “lip-service,” than “brain service” restricted to “belief” as opposed to works.

Christ, above all, maintained that “actions speak louder than words.”

Simple question: In the Parable of the Good Samaritan, who would have been most likely to make it to Heaven, had the world ended at the end of the parable?

The priest – selected by Christ because a priest is obviously a “believer” – who kept a wide space between himself and the mugging victim lying in the gutter?

The Levite, of the priestly tribe – selected by Christ because a Levite is obviously a “believer” – who kept a wide space between himself and the mugging victim lying in the gutter?

Or the Samaritan, of the tribe of overt NON-believers in Northern Israel – obviously chosen by Christ for Christ’s parable BECAUSE, contrasted with the priest and the Levite, Samaritans were NON-believers – who immediately went to the mugging victim, bandaged his wounds, took him to an inn, purchased time in a bed there for him, purchased food for him, and left money for him there in case he needed anything else?

Of the three, all other things being equal, who was saved, who was damned? What would St. Paul say about who was saved and who was damned in the Parable of the Good Samaritan?

So, Kreeft is an idiot.
 
I actually pulled Kreeft’s book, Fundamentals of the Faith off the shelf and looked up the passage in question.

If you read the surrounding pages (289-291), you may find that the quote is taken out of context. Kreeft gives an explanation of what “faith” means to Catholics and to what “faith” meant to Luther. His conclusion on those pages is that “faith” is not interpreted the same between Catholics and Luther.

Kreeft’s book is 300 pages long. It would seem inadequate to judge him based on one small excerpt, used by an anit-Catholic source.

Peace,

MilesJesu
 
MilesJesu:

You guys have a front page article in the National Catholic Register. Tell us more what the charism of MilesJesu is.

I highly doubt that a philosopher who operates with logic, a student of St. Thomas, will make a tragic mistep in thinking that faith alone saves. That doesn’t make sense as much as the subject in question.

Today is the Feast day of St. JoseMaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei—may we all find ways to holiness and intimacy with Christ in the ordinary daily run of our duties.

God Bless us all.
A.
 
40.png
MilesJesu:
I actually pulled Kreeft’s book, Fundamentals of the Faith off the shelf and looked up the passage in question.

If you read the surrounding pages (289-291), you may find that the quote is taken out of context. Kreeft gives an explanation of what “faith” means to Catholics and to what “faith” meant to Luther. His conclusion on those pages is that “faith” is not interpreted the same between Catholics and Luther.

Kreeft’s book is 300 pages long. It would seem inadequate to judge him based on one small excerpt, used by an anit-Catholic source.

Peace,

MilesJesu
Click to expand...
I quess my response to this is JPII’s declaration, squarely contradicting Luther: “Salvation is not by faith alone.”

Luther’s words “faith alone” don’t mean “faith alone” if they include “works,” since works are precisely what Luther was distinguishing-out-of “faith, alone.”

In other words, Luther’s mind was quite clear.

The question isn’t, “Do Lutherans and Catholics mean two different things?”

The question is, “Was Luther correct?”

No, Luther was not correct.
 
Kreeft believes that good works is en essential property of faith. Therefore, I don’t see the problem.

The fact is, the Fathers do speak of “faith alone,” but they used the word “faith” differently. Faith means a sacramental life rooted in baptism and the other sacraments such as confession and Eucharist.
 
As I was driving to mass this morning, I heard a Christian pastor say that while confession is good, only faith saves one…that when a person dies who has faith in Jesus’ justification, he/she goes right to heaven regardless of their sins. If this was so then that would mean that an abortionist who practiced his/her profession without repentance but had faith that through Jesus he/she would go to heaven! Absurd!!! This would also make Jesus a lier about seperating the sheep from the goats based on their actions towards others in need. Our Church believes in a living faith…one that gives rise to actions which profess the gospel!
 
Peter Kreeft explains himself quite well in the link supplied by RyanL. Lets’ not be accusing him of heresy without reading Kreeft’s explanation in his own words and in context.

In any discussion, the point is not so much the words used, but what the writer means by the words.
 
CRI is very good at quoting out of context and taking things out of context. Hank one day on the radio said that Pope Gelasius condemned the Assumption. They base this off of a document that was condemned, but which the text is nonexistant. The condemnation of the document says nothing about the Assumption being condemned. I’ve been emailing and recieving letters trying to get them to admit they are missusing their historical information and they just go on rants about Marian Doctrine and about faults of the Popes. They are as anti-catholic as can be. Hank gets that authoritative tone up every time he is asked about Catholics as if he is an expert and puts out the same rehashed distortions that we have heard so often. I’d give Kreft the benefit of a doudt. Sounds like it has been answered. By the way, faith alone in the context of a living working faith is not contrary to Catholic theology. It is faith working out in love that saves.
 
40.png
trailblazer:
As I was driving to mass this morning, I heard a Christian pastor say that while confession is good, only faith saves one…that when a person dies who has faith in Jesus’ justification, he/she goes right to heaven regardless of their sins. If this was so then that would mean that an abortionist who practiced his/her profession without repentance but had faith that through Jesus he/she would go to heaven! Absurd!!! This would also make Jesus a lier about seperating the sheep from the goats based on their actions towards others in need. Our Church believes in a living faith…one that gives rise to actions which profess the gospel!
Click to expand...
So true on that. It is pretty absurd to think that as long as someone confesses Jesus to be the Savior, then he goes to heaven regardless of his sins. This is directly an affront to Biblical teaching, and do these guys not know that they contradict the very Bible they purport to teach? “Bible-based” indeed! This is a lie Protestantism, by and large, has swallowed up and has no hope of coming out from. As for Peter Kreeft, I would agree to give him the benefit of the doubt. Some of our anti-Catholic friends have this penchant of taking Catholic sources out of context–which is another way of making a lie. Again, “Bible-based” indeed!
 
While we’re on Kreeft-has anyone here read The Snakebite Letters? It’s a followup on CS Lewis’ Screwtape Letters. It’s filled with insight.

Thanks.

yours in XT.
A
 
40.png
JimG:
Peter Kreeft explains himself quite well in the link supplied by RyanL. Lets’ not be accusing him of heresy without reading Kreeft’s explanation in his own words and in context.

In any discussion, the point is not so much the words used, but what the writer means by the words.
Click to expand...
Hi, JimG.

Here is Key Paragraph #1 in Kreeft’s analysis.

**When Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone, he meant by salvation only the initial step, justification, being put right with God. But when Trent said we are saved by good works as well as faith, they meant by salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, the works of love. **

His analysis actually contains the Lutheran error.

The Lutheran error is that there is some kind of ultimate distinction between faith and works.

There is not.

This, precisely, was Christ’s underlying point in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Christ’s “bad guys” in the Parable were those who would claim to be “believers” – a priest and a member of the priestly clan the Levites.

Christ’s “good guy” in the Parable was one about whom all of Christ’s listeners would say, “He is an unbeliever” – a Samaritan.

At the end of that Parable, if you asked Christ, “Who of the three has ‘faith’?,” what would Christ answer?

Obviously, obviously, obviously, Christ would say, “The two ‘believers’ don’t *really * ‘have faith.’”

Luther’s problem is that he affirmatively backed "works’’ out of the faith definition. This is philosophically impermissible, if “faith” is to be applied to the real world.

Diehard Lutherans try to get around this distinction by saying that works will naturally and inevitably follow true faith.

The problem with that distinction is that the Holy Spirit, on no occasion in the history of history, has dispensed a grace of faith which does not have the “works engine” in the person’s psyche turned on, warmed-up, in gear and ready to go. IT IS PART OF THE ESSENTIAL PHILOSOPHICAL DEFINITION OF FAITH.

Faith somehow critically distinguished from works is an artificial construct bearing no relationship to the real world.

Believing in it is heresy.

This is so true, philosophically, that all listening to the Parable of the Good Samaritan jump to the conclusion that the ostensible believers “don’t really have faith.”

“Works” are OF THE ESSENCE OF FAITH. They are SO much of the essence that
(1) people naturally perceive that one who does works but overtly denies “faith” – the Samaritan – would probably be said by God to “have faith” anyway, whereas (2) people naturally perceive that one who declines to do the work but overtly asserts “faith” – the priest and the Levite – would probably be said by God to NOT “have faith.”

When Luthern excepted “works” out of “faith,” he gutted it, philosophically.

Luther was wrong.

Those who assert “faith without works” are wrong.
 
BibleReader,

I hear what you are saying, and I agree that Luther was completely wrong, but faith and works are not one and the same thing. Please excuse me if I am misunderstanding you, as I certainly may be. But it seems you are confusing faith and works. You wrote:
40.png
BibleReader:
The Lutheran error is that there is some kind of ultimate distinction between faith and works.
Click to expand...
It is true to say that belief and obedience go hand in hand. In fact, the Greek word translated disbelieve (in some places) also means to “disobey”. If you look up the definition of the Greek word “apisteo” it means both “to disbelieve” and “to disobey”. So, when Jesus said “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved. He who believes not (apisteo) shall be condemned” (Mk 16:16), it could be translated “he who obeys not shall be condemned”. So it is true to say that belief and obedience go hand in hand, and are both necessary for salvation.

But faith is not works. Theological faith is a supernatural virtue that enables us (helps us) to believe what God has revealed. Faith perfects the intellect by enabling us to believe what is true. We must also do what God has revealed, but faith is not doing, it is believing. Faith and works are two different things.

Encyclical Satis Cognitum: "Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral deliquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).(Encyclical Satis Cognitum).

Faith is intellectual belief. It is believing the truths that God has revealed. Living according to our faith is not identical with faith, although it is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Some people could interpret what you wrote to mean that if a person behaves the way Jesus requires, yet does not believe He is God, they will be saved. I know you didn’t mean to say that, but if you read over your posts on this thread they seem to imply it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top