Romans 5:1-2 How to read as a Catholic? And to evengelize

[JRKH]

How are we to interpret Mt. 25:31-46? Neither faith nor grace is mentioned. It’s all about works – do these works, go to heaven, don’t do these works, go to hell, is what it says.

Yes - this is extremely important to recognize…However there is also Mt 22:36-40 where all the law is reduced to just two commands. Love God and Love neighbor. So - Can one Love God (fulfill the greatest commandment) without faith? Likewise can one love neighbor as themselves without works?

To me - these passages - along with another about those who cry “Lord Lord”…speak to another and more fundamental aspect of salvation. Agape…Faith - works - what do they mean without Agape - without Love.

St John says this:
7 Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)
Reading Mt 25 we see love in selfless action - and Love MUST act selflessly for love without selfless action is not Love at all.

Peace
James

 

[GodHeals]

Yes Brian, IMO there is.

But let’s back up a bit and start at the beginning.

In ANY evangelization effort

Two rules you want to always keep in mind are

1. He who controls the dialog usually wins it.
2. There is Only One INFALLIBLE rule for right understanding of the bible

Never-EVER, can, may or does one part of the bible make void, overrule, invalidate or take precedence over another teaching.

Should this ever seem to occur; KNOW it is human error. Most mistakes that could be legitimate if the Infallible rule did not exist; stem from this common practice. Do NOT permit it to happen.

A third necessity to insure that “all-bible terms” are understood in the precise same manner. For example what do you and your friend MEAN by “justification?”

I’ll risk a protestant meaning of “saved” as in, “Faith Alone”, is ALL that is necessary?

So taking your example of Rom. 5:1-2;** each of the following passages contradict it.**

**Eph.2: 8 **“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God”

**Rom.4: 16 **“That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants – ”

**Jn. 3:5 **“Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”

Mt. 19:17 [Jesus speaking] “But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments”

Rom. 2:6 “Who will render to every man according to his works.”

Rev. 22:12 “Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works”

Brian, these are but a few vrs. I can use. The number matters NOT; so long as there is at least one that seems to contradict it.

So as to how: allow God to “pick your battles” by providing the opportunities

KNOW what we believe and how to explain it; and how to defend it against error

Have a strong spiritual life and prayer life.

There is much more but space limits are prudently applied.

Continued Blessings and THANKS for asking,
pat/PJM

Thank you, Pat! Happy New Year to you and your family! God Bless You! Brian

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Yes - this is extremely important to recognize…However there is also Mt 22:36-40 where all the law is reduced to just two commands. Love God and Love neighbor. So - Can one Love God (fulfill the greatest commandment) without faith? Likewise can one love neighbor as themselves without works?

I understand and know the passages you cite, but all you’ve done is deflect my point, which deals with the Lord’s discourse on the Final Judgment. As I said, He doesn’t mention faith or grace. The entire passage demands works for salvation, period. If ‘agape’ is also required, why didn’t Jesus mention it? I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I’m looking for a response which addresses Mt. 25:31-46. Thanks.

 

[JRKH]

I understand and know the passages you cite, but all you’ve done is deflect my point, which deals with the Lord’s discourse on the Final Judgment. As I said, He doesn’t mention faith or grace. The entire passage demands works for salvation, period. If ‘agape’ is also required, why didn’t Jesus mention it? I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I’m looking for a response which addresses Mt. 25:31-46. Thanks.

I don’t think that it is possible to give an answer strictly from within the verses cited. Why would you wish to separate this passage out from the whole of Jesus teaching? Do you think that his audience was listening to this in isolation? Or do you suppose that, at least the majority and most certainly the twelve, had heard many of the other things that he had said - Most especially the fact that All of the Law and Prophets stem from the Law of Love…and therefore all of our actions likewise stem from this.

Peace
James

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I don’t think that it is possible to give an answer strictly from within the verses cited. Why would you wish to separate this passage out from the whole of Jesus teaching? Do you think that his audience was listening to this in isolation? Or do you suppose that, at least the majority and most certainly the twelve, had heard many of the other things that he had said - Most especially the fact that All of the Law and Prophets stem from the Law of Love…and therefore all of our actions likewise stem from this.

I’m discussing the passage I’m discussing. If I’m omitting the whole of Jesus’ teaching it’s because He did in that passage.

Implied in the passage, of course, is the love of God and neighbor found in the doing of the works described, which are accomplished by grace. It’s more the Protestant insistence on faith I’m challenging (‘faith alone’ can be dismissed out of hand since it is Luther’s invention and is not found in Scripture). Perhaps I’m in the wrong place for that.

 

[JRKH]

I’m discussing the passage I’m discussing. If I’m omitting the whole of Jesus’ teaching it’s because He did in that passage.

Implied in the passage, of course, is the love of God and neighbor found in the doing of the works described, which are accomplished by grace. It’s more the Protestant insistence on faith I’m challenging (‘faith alone’ can be dismissed out of hand since it is Luther’s invention and is not found in Scripture). Perhaps I’m in the wrong place for that.

Fair enough…Perhaps I should not have responded then since I am not a protestant can cannot give you a protestant perspective on the passage. Sorry…

Peace
James

 

[jcrichton]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 25:31-46[/BIBLEDRB]

I don’t think that’s problematic. There’s nothing in the doing of works that makes one worthy of salvation. Salvation is still an act of God, done entirely by His grace, even if He requires that we appropriate that salvation through faith and works.

Hi!

Welcomed Home!

…that’s the reason why the Church Teaches that we are Saved by Grace and that we are not guaranteed Eternal Salvation simply through the knowledge that God Grants Eternal Salvation… Faith that works is that Faith which emanates from God’s Grace and Produces Fruits… these Fruits are the visible signs that we are in Fellowship with the Body… however, as the Apostles clearly state (gathered from Jesus’ Teachings) there cannot be Salvation in absence of these Fruits since that “Faith” would be as empty as the repercussion of gong expanding into a void. It is why Christ is concerned that the branches remain in Him so that through Him they may Produce Fruits!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I understand and know the passages you cite, but all you’ve done is deflect my point, which deals with the Lord’s discourse on the Final Judgment. As I said, He doesn’t mention faith or grace. The entire passage demands works for salvation, period. If ‘agape’ is also required, why didn’t Jesus mention it? I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I’m looking for a response which addresses Mt. 25:31-46. Thanks.

…I think that we must not fall into that “Scriptures” (‘if not’ or ‘if it is’) since much can be lost when we fall into that form of legalism… the fact is that none of those acts/works can be performed outside of Love (in the form of Agape) since it is impossible to place others, let alone God, above ourselves unless we act in Christ’s Love… it is the failure of those who did not recognize Christ in any of the people that were in need of their assistance and they simply held to their convictions that they Knew Jesus because they performed supernatural feats… since they were devoid of Love Jesus turned to them and accused them: “I never Knew you!”

…so, yes, St. Matthews passage demonstrates acts/works… but these works are demonstrated through Love–even though Love is not specifically mentioned… we have similar passages where some may not see the totality of God’s Teaching as they grasp only the very visible words that are pronounced… but when we look deeper into the passage/s we find that much more is being Taught than what the actual text depicts:

i.e: some claim that Jesus never spoke against homosexuality… yet, here’s what Christ had to say:

4 He answered, ‘Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female 5 and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh? 6 They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’ (St. Matthew 19:4-6)

…clearly, it was understood that in the Jewish religious culture homosexuality was an abomination… Jesus did not need to Teach about what was clearly understood… but His Words were extremely unambiguous: man & woman = a bond marriage under God.

…so while legalists enlist the Power of the Holy Spirit and Speak in Jesus’ Name… they fail to Obey Jesus’ Command to Love Yahweh God above all else and neighbor as self!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I’m discussing the passage I’m discussing. If I’m omitting the whole of Jesus’ teaching it’s because He did in that passage.

Implied in the passage, of course, is the love of God and neighbor found in the doing of the works described, which are accomplished by grace. It’s more the Protestant insistence on faith I’m challenging (‘faith alone’ can be dismissed out of hand since it is Luther’s invention and is not found in Scripture). Perhaps I’m in the wrong place for that.

…you’re in the right place (Scriptures)… the point you have inteded to make is that Salvation through Faith alone is impossible since Jesus clearly demands that works (Product of Faith emanated from God’s Grace) be present in the Life of the Believer… the Protestant insistence, from my perspective, is mostly based on tradition (those teachings that their founders passed or that were ultimately accepted as their “dogmas”–but don’t tell them I used that word since they truly believe that they do not subscribe to Catholic-isms) that has been passed along in their desperate efforts to divorce themselves from the Catholic Church… that’s why they cannot view such passages as the one you’ve cited as a model for Salvation–they will insist on “faith alone” even when Scriptures adamantly opposes their theology…

…they divorce everything but “faith” from Salvation… it’s like partaking of a smorgasbord but limiting one’s self to bread and water–yeah that can sustain a person… but brother, we be missing out on so much! :banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[guanophore]

How are we to interpret Mt. 25:31-46? Neither faith nor grace is mentioned. It’s all about works – do these works, go to heaven, don’t do these works, go to hell, is what it says.

The Apostles taugth that we are to understand the Scriptures as a seamless garment. When this is not done, Protesatants end up in all kinds of heresies, trying to derive doctrines from a handful of passages in isolation from the others.

We read and interpret Mt. 25 from the context of the Church which wrote and preserved it. This passage is complemented by other passages that do not mention works at all. All of the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant, and they cannot contradict themselves.

 

[guanophore]

I understand and know the passages you cite, but all you’ve done is deflect my point, which deals with the Lord’s discourse on the Final Judgment. As I said, He doesn’t mention faith or grace. The entire passage demands works for salvation, period. If ‘agape’ is also required, why didn’t Jesus mention it? I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I’m looking for a response which addresses Mt. 25:31-46. Thanks.

You are looking at this from a false premise. There is no requirement that every single passage of Scripture contain all there is to know about salvation.

The fact that grce and faith, and love are all mentioned in other places does not negate this passage, nor does this one negate the others.

We do not derive doctrines by extracting them from singular passages of Scripture. Jesus taught the One Faith to His Aposltes. They, in turn, handed it down to their successors the Bishops. The message of salvation was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. It was contained fully in the Kerygma, preached and taught to the disciples.

It is inappropriate to separate this passage from the rest of the One Faith that was deposited once for all to the Church.

I'm discussing the passage I'm discussing.

Your method of separating the text from the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit will cause errors.

If I’m omitting the whole of Jesus’ teaching it’s because He did in that passage.

No. This is a false conclusion based upon the false premise cited above. Jesus did not make that “passage”. Jesus did not write any Scripture. The only writing we know He did was in the sand.

The Disciples wrote this passage, and did so to summarize His teaching. It cannot, and should not, be separated from the rest of the Divine Revelation both inside and outside of Scripture.

Implied in the passage, of course, is the love of God and neighbor found in the doing of the works described, which are accomplished by grace.

I agree.

It’s more the Protestant insistence on faith I’m challenging (‘faith alone’ can be dismissed out of hand since it is Luther’s invention and is not found in Scripture). Perhaps I’m in the wrong place for that.

Yes, it is a good passage for that purpose. Faith is never alone. Saving faith is faith that works, and this passage is the best example of how that faith is accompanied by working in love.

 

[guanophore]

Hi!

Welcomed Home!

…that’s the reason why the Church Teaches that we are Saved by Grace and that we are not guaranteed Eternal Salvation simply through the knowledge that God Grants Eternal Salvation… Faith that works is that Faith which emanates from God’s Grace and Produces Fruits… these Fruits are the visible signs that we are in Fellowship with the Body… however, as the Apostles clearly state (gathered from Jesus’ Teachings) there cannot be Salvation in absence of these Fruits since that “Faith” would be as empty as the repercussion of gong expanding into a void. It is why Christ is concerned that the branches remain in Him so that through Him they may Produce Fruits!

Maran atha!

Angel

Very well said Angel!

 

[benjohnson]

If I may, as a Protestant, I would encourage Catholics to not get into protracted argument with Protestants on the “faith + works” problem as perhaps it wouldn’t be too productive.

I’ll give you an example, in that I’m somewhat intelligent and Guanophore has tried to teach me the Catholic position over and over. It still don’t get it. And it’s not because he’s not a great teacher - there’s something in my Protestant bones that makes me reject what he’s teaching me.

I would imagine that the same problem in encountered with many Catholics talking to Protestants about faith and works.

Perhaps if a Protestant says “We believe that we’re saved by grave though faith”, in order to move on to the more persuasive things about Catholicism it would be prudent to say “That sound like what we believe.”

Then you talk about things that really are interesting to protestants - the history of the Catholic Church, the liturgy, the true presence, unchanging dogma. Things they may not be getting in their church.

 

[JRKH]

If I may, as a Protestant, I would encourage Catholics to not get into protracted argument with Protestants on the “faith + works” problem as perhaps it wouldn’t be too productive.

I’ll give you an example, in that I’m somewhat intelligent and Guanophore has tried to teach me the Catholic position over and over. It still don’t get it. And it’s not because he’s not a great teacher - there’s something in my Protestant bones that makes me reject what he’s teaching me.

I would imagine that the same problem in encountered with many Catholics talking to Protestants about faith and works.

Perhaps if a Protestant says “We believe that we’re saved by grave though faith”, in order to move on to the more persuasive things about Catholicism it would be prudent to say “That sound like what we believe.”

Then you talk about things that really are interesting to protestants - the history of the Catholic Church, the liturgy, the true presence, unchanging dogma. Things they may not be getting in their church.

Ben I would agree with this - except (there has to be an except…) that it is often the protestant who brings up “works” in a negative sense, either dismissing works or attacking the Church. In such a case, one must defend the biblical position.

Something that I think is interesting about certain protestants is that if you say to one…
Do you believe that faith requires works…they will firmly declare emphatically - NO
However if you ask them
Do you believe that faith requires action…they will firmly say yes

So then - what is the difference between an “action” and a “work”…

Peace
James

 

[fhansen]

**

Hi,

1. How do I read these verses as a Catholic, since doesn’t say justified by faith and works. I know in Galations 5:6 it talks about faith expressing itself through love (love are works?).

“Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God.”(Romans 5:1-2)

1. Is there an easy way to evangelize as a Catholic while explaining we are believers in Faith and Works, not faith bringing about good works as I think Arminianism teaches?

Thank you,
Brian

According to Catholic teaching “faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification” (Trent). Faith is not the equivalent of justice for man, as if that’s all that’s necessary, rather its the beginning of restored relationship between man and God, a relationship that was spurned by Adam, for humankind, at the Fall. This is why we’re all born without faith in God, and this, individual faith, is what must be restored-and what the Atonement seeks to restore-in order for God to truly become the God of man again, so He may begin the work of justifying us by placing His laws on our hearts and writing then in our minds, fulfilling the New Covenant promises of Jer 31.

The Church teaches that the Law, on it’s own, is incapable of justifying man. Only by right relationship, God and man in communion, can justification take place, a work of His hands and our cooperation with it.

IOW, what Paul is telling us is that we’re saved via faith, via God, rather than strictly via our own crude and ultimately futile efforts at attempting to obey the law.

 

[jcrichton]

If I may, as a Protestant, I would encourage Catholics to not get into protracted argument with Protestants on the “faith + works” problem as perhaps it wouldn’t be too productive.

I’ll give you an example, in that I’m somewhat intelligent and Guanophore has tried to teach me the Catholic position over and over. It still don’t get it. And it’s not because he’s not a great teacher - there’s something in my Protestant bones that makes me reject what he’s teaching me.

I would imagine that the same problem in encountered with many Catholics talking to Protestants about faith and works.

Perhaps if a Protestant says “We believe that we’re saved by grave though faith”, in order to move on to the more persuasive things about Catholicism it would be prudent to say “That sound like what we believe.”

Then you talk about things that really are interesting to protestants - the history of the Catholic Church, the liturgy, the true presence, unchanging dogma. Things they may not be getting in their church.

I concur with you… Catholic theology vs. Protestant’s is almost an inherent circular argument… being pedestrian I attest to the near impossibility of Protestantism since there’s nothing I can offer except for my personal Biblical understanding of the Word of God… so in absence of formal religiousity (mine) the Protestant theology, in my view, is the essense of the term (protest against)… if we take the issue of “works,” for instance, Protestants will blindly cite St. Paul’s admonishions against the early Christian converts from Judaism who were bent on upholding the Mosaic Laws… clearly, Catholic theology does not equate “works” with the Mosaic Laws but with the Fruit of the Holy Spirit; coincidentally, without which none can claim to be in Fellowship with Christ!:

22 On the other hand the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control; no law can touch such things as these. 24 All who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified self with all its passions and its desires. 25 Since we are living by the Spirit, let our behaviour be guided by the Spirit 26 and let us not be conceited or provocative and envious of one another. (Galatians 5:22-26)

…as far as meeting half-way… it is difficult to come to such terms when the values are constantly being changed or voided (the “show me in Scriptures” or “if not in Scriptures” arguments); I think that we (Catholics and non-Catholics) must ascertain a certain number of absolutes (or what can be understood as absolutes) and work the exchanges from that very defined and limited agenda/enumeration (which could be open-ended to include new topics as the old are defined and rendered clear and comprehensive)…

…someone once said that to be steep in history is to cease being Protestant… I fear that that is the Protestants’ worst nightmare… the second we step into defining Church history past the 16th century most Protestants, from my experience, cease to have interest in further exchange–it seems that the contrived revisionists’ views of the Church is enough “truth” for them…

…I second your proposal… go ahead an open a thread on “the history of the Catholic Church, the liturgy, the true presence, unchanging dogma”–I’ll be right there learning with you! :extrahappy::extrahappy::extrahappy:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The Disciples wrote this passage, and did so to summarize His teaching. It cannot, and should not, be separated from the rest of the Divine Revelation both inside and outside of Scripture.

You and jcrichton have spoken very well to my remarks. I defer to you both.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

…someone once said that to be steep in history is to cease being Protestant…

It’s ‘deep’ into history by Blessed John Henry Newman after his conversion from Anglicanism. Great message!

 

[guanophore]

If I may, as a Protestant, I would encourage Catholics to not get into protracted argument with Protestants on the “faith + works” problem as perhaps it wouldn’t be too productive.

I’ll give you an example, in that I’m somewhat intelligent and Guanophore has tried to teach me the Catholic position over and over. It still don’t get it. And it’s not because he’s not a great teacher - there’s something in my Protestant bones that makes me reject what he’s teaching me.

I would imagine that the same problem in encountered with many Catholics talking to Protestants about faith and works.

Perhaps if a Protestant says “We believe that we’re saved by grave though faith”, in order to move on to the more persuasive things about Catholicism it would be prudent to say “That sound like what we believe.”

Then you talk about things that really are interesting to protestants - the history of the Catholic Church, the liturgy, the true presence, unchanging dogma. Things they may not be getting in their church.

I agree with you wholeheartedly Ben. I personally don’t like the forumlation “faith + works” anyway, but if we can agree that we are justified by unmerited grace we can then move along to other matters. Especially with regard to our Lutheran and Reformed brethren, we are already in agreement that the Christian life necessitates progress in sanctification.

Heb 6:1-4
6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits.

 

[guanophore]

**
According to Catholic teaching “faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification” (Trent). Faith is not the equivalent of justice for man, as if that’s all that’s necessary, rather its the beginning of restored relationship between man and God, a relationship that was spurned by Adam, for humankind, at the Fall. This is why we’re all born without faith in God, and this, individual faith, is what must be restored-and what the Atonement seeks to restore-in order for God to truly become the God of man again, so He may begin the work of justifying us by placing His laws on our hearts and writing then in our minds, fulfilling the New Covenant promises of Jer 31.

The Church teaches that the Law, on it’s own, is incapable of justifying man. Only by right relationship, God and man in communion, can justification take place, a work of His hands and our cooperation with it.

IOW, what Paul is telling us is that we’re saved via faith, via God, rather than strictly via our own crude and ultimately futile efforts at attempting to obey the law.

I think what Ben is saying is that we will progress faster in our ecumencial efforts if we can quickly stipulate this point.