I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
That we are justified by works, and not by faith alone.
- Status
S
sandusky
Guest
Council of Trent Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, on the fruits of justification:
“…to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits…nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life.” (emphasis mine).
What is Trent saying, Dave?
R
Redbandito
Guest
To Dave: Dave in response to what you stated earlier about your conviction from mass today, I recommend that we both seek to back off in this discussion. It is clear that Sandusky is more interested in teaching Catholicism than learning. That’s okay. I can’t control that, and I accept that. However, I think it is difficult to maintain charity in those situations. Maybe we should wait to respond to people with legitimate questions like Kendy, rather than responding to someone who is clearly not open.
To Sandusky: With all due respect, it is disingenuous for you to ask that question. You have no desire to learn anything. You think you know it all already. You are not open to any kind of discussion. You clearly prefer a monologue. That’s cool. I just don’t think you are going about this the right way. If you are interested in sharing the Gospel, you may want to do it as the man who revealed the Gospel did. I hope you have not been too offended by some of the responses you have received on this website. However, you may want to look at your part in that as well.
And to give credence to what I am saying, Dave has already responded to this question. You didn’t accept his answer (even though he was correct) but he did give you the answer.
R
Redbandito
Guest
Wow! In re-reading the thread, this one jumped out at me. Do you really not see the logical end to this? IF you admit that only those who endure to the end will be saved, then you must reject a one-time imputation of righteousness, OSAS, and an absolute assurance of salvation. This is a conditional statement. It depends on our cooperation. In other words, if one does not endure to the end, he will not be saved. You seem to agree, but your conclusion from this is erroneous. You state, “If they left, they never truly believed”. Okay, fair enough, but then we can have no absolute assurance of salvation, because this at least leaves the possibility of falling away. You stated it yourself. I am just pointing out the contradiction.
S
sandusky
Guest
In an earlier post, I gave a few scriptural definitions of a true believer, that speak to the security of his salvation. Those go hand in hand with the idea of “endurance,” or “preservation of the true believer.”
The true believer perseveres, only because it is God who enables those who are His to endure.
Left to oneself, as you believe, one will most certainly fail. That is why Christ lives to make intercession for those who are His.
You are reading something into my statement that isn’t there.
S
sandusky
Guest
All Dave did was corrective surgery on what Trent said by introducing explanations of different kinds of merit. Trent meant exactly what they stated.
That was the crux of the argument. Luther said “faith alone;” Trent said, “no, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life."
Again, Trent meant every word as worded; Dave merely tries to correct what was said.
That is eisegesis, and that, on your own documents, no less.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
sandusky,
sandusky:
I will answer this in parts, as it seems my family seeks my attention from time to time as well.
Please be patient with me.
First, we need to look at what Trent’s Decree on Justification says as a whole, and not simply what Ch. 16 states. To do otherwise we be ripping one chapter out of the context of its other chapters.
Also, I’m well aware that you will likely disagree with the authentic teaching of Trent. You will say Catholicism is wrong, and I will say it is in accord with Scripture teaches. We will likely disagree. However, at least you will have heard what the Catholic Council of Trent teaches from a Catholic perspective.
From Trent, Ch. I Session VI, Jan 13, 1547, under the title, "On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to Justify Man"
[hmmm…intriguing title of the chapter, given your thesis is that Trent teaches just the opposite…]
Let’s look now at Ch. 2, which states,
Ch. 3 states,
The Catholic Church is studying and still debating how a child before the age of reason might be baptised by desire, but that’s a whole new discussion.
Ch. 5 teaches that an adult’s conversion and beginning of justification must be derived from the predisposing grace of God though Jesus Christ. Scripture teaches us that we can reject the Holy Spirit, and so Catholicism teaches likewise, that this predisposing grace of Christ can be rejected. If this grace is cooperated with, God is still not obliged to complete the work of justification. Grace cooperated with is more like a “prayer in action,” what C.H. Spurgeon called “faith is action.” It gives hope for further grace, but no condign right to further grace.
continued…
Thank you for the question… they are much better than accusations.
I will answer this in parts, as it seems my family seeks my attention from time to time as well.
Please be patient with me.First, we need to look at what Trent’s Decree on Justification says as a whole, and not simply what Ch. 16 states. To do otherwise we be ripping one chapter out of the context of its other chapters.
Also, I’m well aware that you will likely disagree with the authentic teaching of Trent. You will say Catholicism is wrong, and I will say it is in accord with Scripture teaches. We will likely disagree. However, at least you will have heard what the Catholic Council of Trent teaches from a Catholic perspective.
From Trent, Ch. I Session VI, Jan 13, 1547, under the title, "On the Inability of Nature and of the Law to Justify Man"
[hmmm…intriguing title of the chapter, given your thesis is that Trent teaches just the opposite…]
So, good gentiles and good Jews cannot save themselves. They can neither be justified by their works of the Torah nor by their natural works. Which means, even if I’m a pious Jew who is circumcises and perfect in keeping the law, or if I’m a good person who obeys all the ten commandments, I am still without means of justification apart from Jesus Christ.
Let’s look now at Ch. 2, which states,
So the source of our salvation is our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Ch. 3 states,
Ch. 4 states,
So, neither works of the law nor natural works can justify. We become justified ony through the condigne merit of the passion of Christ being communicated to sinners through the “laver of regeneration or a desire for it.” This last part is Catholic lingo for sacramental baptism or at least its desire. St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope St. Pius X, Pius XII all agree that the desire need not be explicit (expressed), but needs to be at least implicit, or a “certain unconscious desire.” This is the moment of adult regeneration.
The Catholic Church is studying and still debating how a child before the age of reason might be baptised by desire, but that’s a whole new discussion.
Ch. 5 teaches that an adult’s conversion and beginning of justification must be derived from the predisposing grace of God though Jesus Christ. Scripture teaches us that we can reject the Holy Spirit, and so Catholicism teaches likewise, that this predisposing grace of Christ can be rejected. If this grace is cooperated with, God is still not obliged to complete the work of justification. Grace cooperated with is more like a “prayer in action,” what C.H. Spurgeon called “faith is action.” It gives hope for further grace, but no condign right to further grace.
continued…
P
Philthy
Guest
In this I see that eternal life is offered as grace through faith. I would draw upon Ephesians 2:10 to understand the concept that we are God’s handiwork and are to walk in the good deeds that he has prepared in advance for us, and I would apply that to the statement “by those very works which have been done in God”. The last statement which you underlined simply describes what the relationship between faith and works is - they are not opposed to one another, they compliment one another. This is simply the difference in understanding what the term faith means. Faith includes cooperation with the Grace we have been given in Catholic theologyso this is nothing more than a discussion of faith in the role of salvation. The very last part, where the term “merited” is used seems to be the second classification of merit that was discussed - continuous merit I think it was. It is meritorious not of our own accord, but by virtue of what Christ accomplished through his life and death. I don’t see the big deal. You seem to believe that since the word “merited” has been used, that the merit is of our own making, and that is where I believe you are wrong.
Phil
B
bene7
Guest
How can you make a statement like this? What a Catholic is required to believe is written down for all to read. And some things are very explicit, like what Sandusky quoted:
"“to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits… nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life.”
Now the question I have for you, being a post-grad student of Catholic theology , is how, according to what is stated plainly above, can you NOT conclude the meritorious nature of Catholic soteriology?
- “To those who walk well unto the end”
- “Trust in God”
- “Eternal life is to be offered”
- “Mercifully promised”
- “As a reward”
- “Given to their good works and merits”
- “Being considered to have BY those good works”
- “fully satisfied the divine law”
- " Merited eternal life"
Salvation:
"For BY grace you HAVE BEEN saved THROUGH faith; and that NOT of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God; NOT as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus FOR good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:8-10).
Justification:
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a GIFT by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.
Eternal life:
“For the wages of sin is death, but the free GIFT of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23).
The contrast between the two is quite conspicuous, so please show me how the two are reconciled according to Catholicism?
Blessings,
Bene
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
bene7… if you are reading my posts, I am answering by showing what Trent states in context. If you are patient, you’ll learn the answer to your question.
The teaching of Trent on Justification, continued…
Ch. 5 states,
To illustrate this, we have a foreshadowing of how man cooperates with the reception of God’s heavenly gift in the OT. The people of God were given the undeserved gift of manna from heaven. Nothing they did before obliged God to give them manna. This was a gratutitous gift, which fed God’s people. Certainly, God could have just poofed the manna into His people, but He didn’t. Why? God clearly wanted the cooperation of his people in the reception of His heavenly gift. Thus, while man did nothing on his part to deserve manna, they could receive the manna in vain, if they disobeyed the Lord it turned into worms. In other words, they had to remain stedfast in their obedience to the Lord, or the heavenly gift would be received in vain.
Likewise in the NT, grace can be received in vain. We are exhorted to work with God. St. Paul warns the Corinthians, “Working together with (Gk sunergountes)* [God], then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain***” (2 Corinthians 6:1). Thus, for the reception of the heavenly gift of grace, just like manna in the OT, God demands that we “work together” with Him, or like manna, the heavenly gift of grace will be received in vain.
Ch. 6 of Trent’s decree on justification states,
The teaching of Trent on Justification, continued…
Ch. 5 states,
This means while man cannot become just on his own, he can “resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51) as Sacred Scripture states. So, while man adds nothing to his justification, he can place a barrier to it by his resistence.
To illustrate this, we have a foreshadowing of how man cooperates with the reception of God’s heavenly gift in the OT. The people of God were given the undeserved gift of manna from heaven. Nothing they did before obliged God to give them manna. This was a gratutitous gift, which fed God’s people. Certainly, God could have just poofed the manna into His people, but He didn’t. Why? God clearly wanted the cooperation of his people in the reception of His heavenly gift. Thus, while man did nothing on his part to deserve manna, they could receive the manna in vain, if they disobeyed the Lord it turned into worms. In other words, they had to remain stedfast in their obedience to the Lord, or the heavenly gift would be received in vain.
Likewise in the NT, grace can be received in vain. We are exhorted to work with God. St. Paul warns the Corinthians, “Working together with (Gk sunergountes)* [God], then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain***” (2 Corinthians 6:1). Thus, for the reception of the heavenly gift of grace, just like manna in the OT, God demands that we “work together” with Him, or like manna, the heavenly gift of grace will be received in vain.
Ch. 6 of Trent’s decree on justification states,
Good summary of how a sinner becomes saved!!!
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Teaching of Trent on Justification, continued…
In Ch. 7, Trent states the causes of justification. Let’s see if natural “works” or “obedience to the law” is anywhere understood as a cause of justification, shall we???
Ch. 8 states,
In Ch. 7, Trent states the causes of justification. Let’s see if natural “works” or “obedience to the law” is anywhere understood as a cause of justification, shall we???
Hmmmm… don’t see salvation by works or law as a cause of justification.
Ch. 8 states,
Well that seems rather clear… nothing which precedes justification merits the grace of justification. That’s pretty much what I thought.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Trent’s teaching on justification continued…
Ch. 9 states,
Martin Luther rejected the Catholic doctrine of justification by faith formed by charity. Observe,
Thus says the Lord, “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [Gk *misthos] [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” (Rev 22:12)
Now, bene7 and others may not think this means reward or recompense (aka merit) in the after life, but the sense of the words seem very much to be just that. The Protestant source, *Vine’s Expository of New Testament Words, *agrees. More on this later, however. For now, it’s sufficent to point out that works, and not just fiduciary faith alone, have something to do with reward Christ is bringing for Christians.
Furthermore, Catholicism teaches that Christians place their trust in God’s gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. It appears most Lutherans now agree with this but still call it “faith alone” by some strange use of linguistic gymnatics.
Ch. 9 states,
This is the imfamous “fiduciary faith alone” doctrine which appears nowhere in Scripture. St. Paul taught that if he had all faith, but was without love, he is nothing. Likewise, St. James says “faith by itself, if it has not works, is dead.” The Catholic Church is stedfast in asserting the same. Thus faith must be formed by love if it is to be a faith that justifies. Furthermore, “belief” according to St. John includes “obedience.”
Martin Luther rejected the Catholic doctrine of justification by faith formed by charity. Observe,
Catholics maintain that Luther was absurd in asserting such a thing. Faith that includes love certainly justifies, and without love, we are nothing. It also appears that we will be rewarded for our work in some way.
Thus says the Lord, “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [Gk *misthos] [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.” (Rev 22:12)
Now, bene7 and others may not think this means reward or recompense (aka merit) in the after life, but the sense of the words seem very much to be just that. The Protestant source, *Vine’s Expository of New Testament Words, *agrees. More on this later, however. For now, it’s sufficent to point out that works, and not just fiduciary faith alone, have something to do with reward Christ is bringing for Christians.
Furthermore, Catholicism teaches that Christians place their trust in God’s gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. It appears most Lutherans now agree with this
but still call it “faith alone” by some strange use of linguistic gymnatics.
S
sandusky
Guest
Dave,
Thank you for your response.
Let’s look at a brief synopsis of the Sixth Session of Trent.
The Council of Trent expressed itself on justification in its Sixth Session (January, 1547) with sixteen chapters and thirty-three canons of anathemas. Chapters one through nine stress humankind’s incapacity to save itself (as you have stated, stopping at chapter 9), but confirm the necessity for the cooperation of human free will, including the resolve to receive the sacrament of baptism and to begin a new life. Chapters ten through thirteen affirm that justifying grace may be increased through obedience to God’s commandments and deny that predestination to salvation can be known with certainty. Chapters fourteen through sixteen declare that justifying grace is forfeited by infidelity or by other grievous sins and must be recovered through the sacrament of penance, and that salvation is given to the justified person not only as a gift, but also as reward since he has meritoriously fulfilled God’s law by good works performed in a state of grace.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your explanation, in the above 3 posts, is more the Catholic idea of initial justification, which leaves open the necessity of works to regain lost justification. Is that correct?
Thus, when the Council of Trent Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, on the fruits of justification says:
“…to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits…nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life.” (emphasis mine).
We see that after initial justification, subsequent justification comes by meritorious works.
Either way, what Trent says above, speaks for itself. Works are necessary to justification for the Catholic.
(And, as an aside, I want to thank you for your service to this country.)
Thank you for your response.
Let’s look at a brief synopsis of the Sixth Session of Trent.
The Council of Trent expressed itself on justification in its Sixth Session (January, 1547) with sixteen chapters and thirty-three canons of anathemas. Chapters one through nine stress humankind’s incapacity to save itself (as you have stated, stopping at chapter 9), but confirm the necessity for the cooperation of human free will, including the resolve to receive the sacrament of baptism and to begin a new life. Chapters ten through thirteen affirm that justifying grace may be increased through obedience to God’s commandments and deny that predestination to salvation can be known with certainty. Chapters fourteen through sixteen declare that justifying grace is forfeited by infidelity or by other grievous sins and must be recovered through the sacrament of penance, and that salvation is given to the justified person not only as a gift, but also as reward since he has meritoriously fulfilled God’s law by good works performed in a state of grace.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your explanation, in the above 3 posts, is more the Catholic idea of initial justification, which leaves open the necessity of works to regain lost justification. Is that correct?
Thus, when the Council of Trent Sixth Session, Chapter XVI, on the fruits of justification says:
“…to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits…nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life.” (emphasis mine).
We see that after initial justification, subsequent justification comes by meritorious works.
Either way, what Trent says above, speaks for itself. Works are necessary to justification for the Catholic.
(And, as an aside, I want to thank you for your service to this country.)
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I’ll be getting to ch. 16 soon enough. Without the context of the other chapters one can easily misunderstand what ch. 16 is saying. I’ll be providing my explanation, with support from other Catholic sources of dogmatic theology, just so you know it’s not just my own opinion of Trent, but instead is the authentic explanation of Trent held by theologians before my birth.
Thanks. It’s a pleasure to serve. Tomorrow it’s back to the business, vacation is over.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
More tomorrow…good night. 
R
Redbandito
Guest
As they were for Paul and James.
S
sandusky
Guest
Dave the rewards you cite above are not the reward of salvation. The rewards above are promised to those who are justified. Justification is not the reward; you misuse the verses.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Yes, the rewards in the afterlife, in the context of positive rewards, are the rewards given to those already justified or what is also called in Catholicism, a “state of grace.” I never said otherwise, so I don’t understand what you mean by my misuse. You cannot persevere in faith unless you first have faith. You cannot have faith (fide formata or faith “formed by love”) without justification nor justification without faith (fide formata). They come as a gift packaged together from God. And as Trent taught, “**none of those things which precede justification, whether faith, or works merit the grace itself of justification.” **(Trent, Ch. 8, Decree on Justification).
Just so you know that this is not just my opinion, you should know that before our grandmothers were even born, the Catholic Church taught, "supernatural merit is only an effect or fruit of the state of grace" (*The Catholic Encyclopedia (1909), “Merit”). *
But I’m jumping ahead to ch. 16 again.
Now, back to Trent in context.
P
Philthy
Guest
This statement is entirely consistent with the full scriptural context of salvation by grace through faith. The only difference I see is a difference in the concept of what faith is between yourself (non-Catholic) and Dave(Catholic). You continue to exclude the role of cooperation with Gods grace through love as an itegral part of faith, whereas Catholic theology does not. The statement above embraces ALL of the scriptural contexts revealed regarding salvation. For example,“he who endures to the end will be saved”
How, exactly do you incorporate that into Salvation is by Grace alone? And how, exactly do you incorporate that into ‘Salvation is through faith alone’ ? And please don’t respond that “those who **are **saved will endure to the end” as you have previously. Why not? Because this scripture does NOT say “those who ARE/HAVE BEEN saved will endure” but rather that those who do endure WILL BE saved. Big difference.
You reject the Catholic understanding of endurance playing any role in salvation because you assume it creates an element of a “wage earned” for the individual. But it does not: “we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus FOR good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them”. And when we do, we have simply chosen to follow the path that GOD HAS PREPARED AND DESERVES FULL CREDIT FOR. All we have done is chosen to follow that path through faith rather than reject his gift to us in disobedience. Big difference.
Con’d
P
Philthy
Guest
how, according to what is stated plainly above, can you NOT conclude the meritorious nature of Catholic soteriology?
Of course Catholic soteriology is meritorious. Why would I/should I need to conclude that it is not? It is merited on Jesus Christ and his perfect sacrifice of himself on our behalf. Have you not heard the good news my friend?
Im teasing, of course, but this is the type of question that is so frustrating. How many times has it been stated that the merit spoken of is God’s own by virtue of what Christ accomplished? Yet despite this you continue to persist in assuming that whenever the word merit is applied to us, it means that we are the authors of the merit as opposed to the undeserving beneficiaries of it and that we therefore believe in works righteousness of our own making.
Clarion teachings? you mean like this:
Really. Sounds like one needs a LOT of education to understand the message to me. You even state that an “exacting exegetical analysis” is required to arrive at the appropriate conclusion. Im pretty certain 99% of Christian don’t even know what that means, let alone possess the capability to execute such an analysis. That doesn’t sound like clarion anything. It sounds like a recipe for confusion…
the clarion teachings on salvation, justification and eternal life found in God’s written Word:
Salvation: "For BY grace you HAVE BEEN saved THROUGH faith;We have to stop here because “faith” apparently can mean different things to different people. And you have already locked into your mind what it means and that changes the entire verse relative to how someone else will understand it. Your description of this as being “clarion” is a little overstated. There is a lot of Scripture that alludes to a variety of things which “save” us. It is very easy to end up with a variety of understandings of what faith is. If you think this is a clear verse, is it any clearer than James 2:24? Does it get any clearer than that? “…a man is justified…NOT by faith alone.” It doesn’t get clearer than that, but you will argue that the plain meaning of that statement is something actually different. That’s somewhat hypocritical IMHO. I’ll remind you that Luther had so much trouble with this that he believed that James should be removed from the canon. That’s how clear it was to him. You have(in the past) mocked me for bringing this up as well as my logical analysis of certain Scripture texts. Your basis for doing so is partially subjective: you’ll claim that certain Scripture “doesn’t apply to this church age” without demonstrating how you know that infallibly or why it is even reasonable; or you will claim that certain passages are “figurative” without demonstrating how you know that infallibly. You can huff and puff all you want regarding my ignorance which I confess , but it is by your own standard - Scripture Alone - that we arrive at these difficulties. If you think I am ignorant, consider the general population of Christians - would you say they are more or less likely to interpret Scripture any better than I can? :ehh: Is that what actual history has shown? And so, the question inevitably becomes (regardless of how persuasive your arguments are), “By what authority do you claim your interpretations to be correct and why should I believe you?” This is a question of necessity for most of us: who are we to believe? We don’t have the intellectual capacity that you do and so we must rely on another. But whom? I’ll stop because although this is entirely relevant, Im off topic…
I hope some of what I wrote reveals why I DON"T think the “contrast between the two is quite conspicuous”. It is only superficially conspicuous - just like you would claim James2:24 is. I apologize for butting in and understand if you choose not to respond.
Peace,
Phil
- Status