Rubutting a Baptist on Faith and Works

[Bookcat]

When protestants say we are saved by faith they mean we are saved by faith ALONE [sola fide]. When I say we are not saved by faith we are saved by grace I mean that we are not saved by faith but by grace. To say we are saved by faith is tantamount to saying we didn’t need Jesus to die on the cross. All we needed to be saved was faith. Our salvation [faith] was within us and Jesus died unnecessarily. But when we say we are saved by GRACE then we do need Jesus because it was through Jesus death that we receive the grace of salvation. Recall that the original sin of Adam was a loss of grace that was restored with Jesus’ death. And I highly doubt if any pope would disagreee with me.

But we ARE saved by Faith.

Why put a protestant understanding into a Catholic phrase?

We are saved by Faith.

St Paul tells us this…as does the Church …as does Pope Benedict XVI.

For it is simply the case.

Never said we are saved by faith alone in the sense of Protestantism. I use the phrase as a Catholic…

As Paul and Pope Benedict XVI uses it. (of course one needs to understand it correctly…as one needs to understand everything in Scripture or the Catechism correctly)

We as Catholics CAN NOT SAY “We are not saved by Faith”.

lets not let our brothers who are not in full communion with us co-op this phrase …

We must hold onto it as Paul teaches us and as the Church holds onto it and preaches it…

 

[Bookcat]

I Peter 3:19-21
. . . **eing put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also [Christ] went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . (I Peter 3:18b-21)
Beside Acts 2:38, this is the next text most strongly depended on by those in favor of the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation. The reason is obvious. This text includes the striking phrase, “an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism.” In reference to baptism Paul writes, “Not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.” Now the physical baptism is “the removal of filth of the flesh” (cf. Hebrews 10:22). But what actually saves is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.”
This shows the close examination between this verse and Hebrews 10:22. That there is another careful distinction between outward cleansing of the body in pure water, and inward cleansing of the conscience. The same distinction is made here in II Peter 3:21, and shows that it is not the outward act which saves but the inward change which is signified by the outward act. Thus Peter refers briefly to the sign of clear conscience, the submitting to baptism, as a short way of referring to the actual thing, the clear conscience. But then for clarification he explains that it is not the sign which saves, but the thing signified: the clear conscience saves, not the physical baptism.
In this context, then, “baptism” is used metaphorically to symbolize a conscience clear before God. It is not said that it is the outward, physical act of baptism which saves, but that it is the good conscience which baptism signifies which saves. This good conscience is achieved by the washing of the conscience by the Blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22; Titus 3:5; I John 1:7; Revelation 1:5), and is acquired entirely by faith (Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-10) before baptism in water is practiced as a sign of that good conscience (Romans 4:8-11, remembering that baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision; Colossians 2:11-12).
Thus we see that it is deceiving to refer simply to the phrase “[baptism] now saves us” without taking it in context with the very careful explanatory phrase which Peter uses, that is, that it is not the outward and physical act which saves, but the inward testimony of a cleansed and good conscience before God, which saves (cf. I John 3:21).

I Peter 3:21, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Please remember that Christ has commanded many things, is our disobedience of a command the mark of lost salvation? Of course not. We neither obtain salvation via obedience nor disobedience but rather faith in Him. Granted a demonstration of faith is baptism which is the outward sign of an inward work.**

Yes I understand that this is your protestant understanding.

 

[Bookcat]

of course perhaps a better way of saying thing is we are justified by Faith not by works of the law…

again all in Paul’s (and thus the Church’s) meaning here.

 

[Bookcat]

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God (Eph 2:7 RSV CE)

Of course this does not mean that baptism is not involved…as other verses and the practice in the Church from the beginning show…

Some may never reach water baptism of course…and still be in the Kingdom of God…

Some later leave Christ and do not return…and thus do not enter Heaven…or rise in the Resurrection of the Blessed…

 

[Bookcat]

But we ARE saved by Faith.

Why put a protestant understanding into a Catholic phrase?

We are saved by Faith.

St Paul tells us this…as does the Church …as does Pope Benedict XVI.

For it is simply the case.

Never said we are saved by faith alone in the sense of Protestantism. I use the phrase as a Catholic…

As Paul and Pope Benedict XVI uses it. (of course one needs to understand it correctly…as one needs to understand everything in Scripture or the Catechism correctly)

We as Catholics CAN NOT SAY “We are not saved by Faith”.

lets not let our brothers who are not in full communion with us co-op this phrase …

We must hold onto it as Paul teaches us and as the Church holds onto it and preaches it…

Perhaps I should have used the “justified by faith” for that is term I was meaning…but it means also saved in the one sense…

 

[Bookcat]

When

Sorry if I came off too strong… i know we are both here seeking to live and profess our Catholic Faith! Have a blessed Day of the Lord tomorrow!

 

[PJM]

=unacanta;6369254]I Peter 3:19-21
. . . **eing put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also [Christ] went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . (I Peter 3:18b-21)
Beside Acts 2:38, this is the next text most strongly depended on by those in favor of the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation. The reason is obvious. This text includes the striking phrase, “an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism.” In reference to baptism Paul writes, “Not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.” Now the physical baptism is “the removal of filth of the flesh” (cf. Hebrews 10:22). But what actually saves is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.”
This shows the close examination between this verse and Hebrews 10:22. That there is another careful distinction between outward cleansing of the body in pure water, and inward cleansing of the conscience. The same distinction is made here in II Peter 3:21, and shows that it is not the outward act which saves but the inward change which is signified by the outward act. Thus Peter refers briefly to the sign of clear conscience, the submitting to baptism, as a short way of referring to the actual thing, the clear conscience. But then for clarification he explains that it is not the sign which saves, but the thing signified: the clear conscience saves, not the physical baptism.
In this context, then, “baptism” is used metaphorically to symbolize a conscience clear before God. It is not said that it is the outward, physical act of baptism which saves, but that it is the good conscience which baptism signifies which saves. This good conscience is achieved by the washing of the conscience by the Blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22; Titus 3:5; I John 1:7; Revelation 1:5), and is acquired entirely by faith (Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-10) before baptism in water is practiced as a sign of that good conscience (Romans 4:8-11, remembering that baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision; Colossians 2:11-12).
Thus we see that it is deceiving to refer simply to the phrase “[baptism] now saves us” without taking it in context with the very careful explanatory phrase which Peter uses, that is, that it is not the outward and physical act which saves, but the inward testimony of a cleansed and good conscience before God, which saves (cf. I John 3:21).

I Peter 3:21, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Please remember that Christ has commanded many things, is our disobedience of a command the mark of lost salvation? Of course not. We neither obtain salvation via obedience nor disobedience but rather faith in Him. Granted a demonstration of faith is baptism which is the outward sign of an inward work.**

***perhaps

But John 3:5 does ***

John.3

[5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [Please notice whose saying this.]

 

[unacanta]

***perhaps

But John 3:5 does ***

John.3

[5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [Please notice whose saying this.]

Glad you brought up John3:5, hopefully the following will dispel your misconception concerning this passage.

John 3:3-7
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

If “born of water” means water baptism, then this verse proves that it is necessary to be baptized in water to be saved. About that we can be sure. But I will give several reasons why “born of water” cannot mean “baptism in water.”
First, at the time that Christ said this, Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. There was no such thing at that time as baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” It therefore would have been impossible for Nicodemus to understand “born of water” as referring to water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Also, this must be seen in the context of verse 6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” and of verse 7: “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’” This shows that being “born again” (see also verse 3) is being “born of the Spirit.” Being “born again” cannot be being “born of the flesh” (verse 6), so it must be being “born of the Spirit.”
If “born of water” meant water baptism, then verse 5 would contradict verse 6, which requires for salvation only being “born of the Spirit,” while verse 5 would require being baptized in water and being born of the Spirit. But if being “born of water” does not mean water baptism, and instead is a figurative way of saying “born of the Spirit,” then verse 5 does not contradict verse 6.
There is good reason to believe that “born of water” could be simply a figurative way of saying, “born of the Spirit.” The word “water” in connection with salvation, the covenant, regeneration, rebirth, is often used in Scripture as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself used water this way when He said:

If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water (John 7:37-38).

In the next verse, John added:
But this He spoke concerning the Holy Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive… (verse 39a)

With this interpretation in mind, the reader should note the following verses, and see if they make more sense understanding “water” in each case as a symbol of the Spirit, not as the physical element: Isaiah 12:3, 35:6, 55:1; Ezekiel 36:25; Jeremiah 2:13; John 4:10; Revelation 21:6, 22:17. These verses make more sense if we see "water’ in them as symbolic of the Holy Spirit. We therefore have good precedent for understanding “water” in connection with salvation as symbolic of the Holy Spirit, and this means that it would be reasonable to do so at John 3:5 as well. [5]
If this is the case, then John 3:5 would be understood as follows: when Jesus said, “You must be born of water and the Spirit,” He used water as a figurative way of saying “born of the Spirit,” and then made Himself perfectly clear by reiterating the thought in plain language. Such a form of speaking was common, to the Jews and to Jesus’ own teaching. It would readily be understood by Nicodemus, who as a Pharisee would be quite familiar with the Old Testament symbolic usage of “water.” Water baptism, on the other hand, in the Christian formula, could not have been understood by Nicodemus, because it did not exist at the time.

John 3:5 does not even refer to water baptism, or to any form of baptism. It therefore does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

 

[unacanta]

Originally Posted by manygift1spirit
I am no theologian, so YMMV, but I have been taught (and after years of reflection recognize the profound sense in this view) that one is saved by faith alone, but that one who is truly saved by faith alone will be doing works as a simple logical consequence of having faith. So doing works alone will not save you, but having faith will both save you and prompt you to do works, per one’s facilities and vocation.

Luther separated faith from works then emphasized the faith part. To Luther faith was the dog that wagged the tail [works]. So to Luther it was salvation by faith or salvation versus salvation by works. In reality the two are not separable. It is faith AND works not faith or works. We see this same separation in some protestant sects belief on Baptism. It is baptism by water AND spirit not baptism by water versus baptism by spirit.

I agree to the point which Luther held that we are saved by faith. The works which follow are not an aspect of salvation, but rather a visible sign that salvation has occurred. Again we are saved not by deeds done in righteousness but rather by His mercy. Since it is Christ who saved you, He knows for certain that the work is complete by His atonement on the cross. Works are nothing more than a visible sign that His mission was accomplished in you, just as baptism is the outward sign of the inward work done by the Holy Spirit. I find it remarkable that the RCC and the LDS find themselves on the same side of the fence on this matter.

 

[unacanta]

Hummm well you here contradict yourself. And you show my point.

You your self say…“the faith given us” !!

Faith is a gift from God. Thus it is infused. It is also something in which man is involved of course…but again it is God working in Man.

And yes salvation comes from Christ. We do not do anything to earn entering salvation…being "in Christ’.

I guess I don’t understand why you think I contradict myself. Faith is the ability to believe. We are giving this ability as a gift, hence when we say Faith is a gift. Your term “infused” is misleading since faith is not an item which as a flu vaccine is infused via a needle into our body. Rather faith is our ability to believe in Christ.

I agree with the other point you make “but again it is God working in Man”.
Philippians 2:13 (ESV)
13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Anyway, blessings,
Len

 

[Bookcat]

I guess I don’t understand why you think I contradict myself. Faith is the ability to believe. We are giving this ability as a gift, hence when we say Faith is a gift. Your term “infused” is misleading since faith is not an item which as a flu vaccine is infused via a needle into our body. Rather faith is our ability to believe in Christ.

I agree with the other point you make “but again it is God working in Man”.
Philippians 2:13 (ESV)
13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Anyway, blessings,
Len

Yes and your later agreement is that faith is a gift.

But not only the ability humanly to believe something…but the actual faith in Jesus that is a gift… one can not say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

And as Paul writes there three things last…Faith …Hope and Charity…

Faith is not simply an action…it is gift given to us by God …by the Holy Spirit.

 

[papabear]

I am no theologian, so YMMV, but I have been taught (and after years of reflection recognize the profound sense in this view) that one is saved by faith alone, but that one who is truly saved by faith alone will be doing works as a simple logical consequence of having faith. So doing works alone will not save you, but having faith will both save you and prompt you to do works, per one’s facilities and vocation.

In other words, the utterance “I am saved by my faith, so now I will not do works at all for any reason because I do not need them to be saved.” is evidence of a deficient faith. A consistent position would be “I am saved by my faith, and because of my faith I will do works as per my vocation/calling in the faith, despite knowing it is not these works themselves which save me.”

" my good and loving works reflect my good and loving faith"…of course the emphasis is on love

 

[unacanta]

Yes and your later agreement is that faith is a gift.

But not only the ability humanly to believe something…but the actual faith in Jesus that is a gift… one can not say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.

And as Paul writes there three things last…Faith …Hope and Charity…

Faith is not simply an action…it is gift given to us by God …by the Holy Spirit.

I do agree with you in this area. Faith is action based upon belief sustained by confidence. We absolutely cannot “have faith”, I use this since the English language does not have a verb to faith, we use to believe unless it is given to us.

When the statement faith is a gift, what is being said is our ability to believe is given. Many people can “have faith”, but not “saving faith”. Saving faith of course is that which actually saves, not of the dead faith decried by James.

 

[PJM]

=unacanta;6370931]Glad you brought up John3:5, hopefully the following will dispel your misconception concerning this passage.

John 3:3-7
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

If “born of water” means water baptism, then this verse proves that it is necessary to be baptized in water to be saved. About that we can be sure. But I will give several reasons why “born of water” cannot mean “baptism in water.”
First, at the time that Christ said this, Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. There was no such thing at that time as baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” It therefore would have been impossible for Nicodemus to understand “born of water” as referring to water baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Also, this must be seen in the context of verse 6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,” and of verse 7: “Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’” This shows that being “born again” (see also verse 3) is being “born of the Spirit.” Being “born again” cannot be being “born of the flesh” (verse 6), so it must be being “born of the Spirit.”
If “born of water” meant water baptism, then verse 5 would contradict verse 6, which requires for salvation only being “born of the Spirit,” while verse 5 would require being baptized in water and being born of the Spirit. But if being “born of water” does not mean water baptism, and instead is a figurative way of saying “born of the Spirit,” then verse 5 does not contradict verse 6.
There is good reason to believe that “born of water” could be simply a figurative way of saying, “born of the Spirit.” The word “water” in connection with salvation, the covenant, regeneration, rebirth, is often used in Scripture as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself used water this way when He said:

If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water (John 7:37-38).

In the next verse, John added:
But this He spoke concerning the Holy Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive… (verse 39a)

With this interpretation in mind, the reader should note the following verses, and see if they make more sense understanding “water” in each case as a symbol of the Spirit, not as the physical element: Isaiah 12:3, 35:6, 55:1; Ezekiel 36:25; Jeremiah 2:13; John 4:10; Revelation 21:6, 22:17. These verses make more sense if we see "water’ in them as symbolic of the Holy Spirit. We therefore have good precedent for understanding “water” in connection with salvation as symbolic of the Holy Spirit, and this means that it would be reasonable to do so at John 3:5 as well. [5]
If this is the case, then John 3:5 would be understood as follows: when Jesus said, “You must be born of water and the Spirit,” He used water as a figurative way of saying “born of the Spirit,” and then made Himself perfectly clear by reiterating the thought in plain language. Such a form of speaking was common, to the Jews and to Jesus’ own teaching. It would readily be understood by Nicodemus, who as a Pharisee would be quite familiar with the Old Testament symbolic usage of “water.” Water baptism, on the other hand, in the Christian formula, could not have been understood by Nicodemus, because it did not exist at the time.

John 3:5 does not even refer to water baptism, or to any form of baptism. It therefore does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Well, at least your thinking about it.

Baptism: In the “NAME OF the Father, the Son and The Holy Spirit,” friend, is all inclusive of Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Of COURSE, it means Baptism of water! What, God didn not know what words to use, or what they actually mean? Jn. 3: 5 QUOTED:

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” Matt.3: 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; "

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
When protestants say we are saved by faith they mean we are saved by faith ALONE [sola fide]. When I say we are not saved by faith we are saved by grace I mean that we are not saved by faith but by grace. To say we are saved by faith is tantamount to saying we didn’t need Jesus to die on the cross. All we needed to be saved was faith. Our salvation [faith] was within us and Jesus died unnecessarily. But when we say we are saved by GRACE then we do need Jesus because it was through Jesus death that we receive the grace of salvation. Recall that the original sin of Adam was a loss of grace that was restored with Jesus’ death. And I highly doubt if any pope would disagreee with me.

But we ARE saved by Faith. Why put a protestant understanding into a Catholic phrase? We are saved by Faith. St Paul tells us this…as does the Church …as does Pope Benedict XVI. For it is simply the case. Never said we are saved by faith alone in the sense of Protestantism. I use the phrase as a Catholic…
As Paul and Pope Benedict XVI uses it. (of course one needs to understand it correctly…as one needs to understand everything in Scripture or the Catechism correctly)
We as Catholics CAN NOT SAY “We are not saved by Faith”.
Lets not let our brothers who are not in full communion with us co-op this phrase …We must hold onto it as Paul teaches us and as the Church holds onto it and preaches it…

.

The Catholic position is that we are saved by God’s grace. That grace is a gift from God that no amount of faith can earn. Do not fall into the protestant heresy whereby they relegate works as a follow on and only made possible by faith. That is false. I know of people who are atheists who are more charitable than many people who claim to have faith. The error in protestantism is that they do not distinguish between works and works. Yeah, you read that correctly. Protestants quote Paul’s words exclusively. They would like to ignore James. Remember that Luther wanted to remove Jame’s epistle from the NT calling it “an epistle of straw” because he could not harmonize it with his theology. But notice what Luther could not. Everywhere Paul went he preached against the Judiacizers. These were Jewish converts who insisted that the Gentile converts first become Jews and subject to the Law of Moses and all of its WORKS before they could become Christians. Paul preached against this everywhere he went. The WORKS that Paul preached about were WORKS OF THE MOSAIC LAW. The Judiacizers were mired in the Old Covenant. But Christians, be they former Jew or Gentiles were not subject to the Old Covenant but the New Covenant. For instance Paul preached against circumcision which was a work of the Old Covenant. The WORKS Paul preached against were not the corporal works of mercy of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. what we know today as 'GOOD WORKS" that James speaks of. Protestants, stuck with the Epistle of James in their NT canon, try to harmonize Pauls words on works with those seemingly contradictory words of James by saying that what James says of works is to “justify us before men” whereas faith “justifies us before God”. What a bunch of **** that is. Since when are we supposed to justify ourselves before any man? What good does that do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. But this is the best that protestants can come up with because they start with error and they end with even bigger error.

On the other hand we Catholics can harmonize Paul and James perfectly because their words are not contradictory. The “works” that each speak of are not the same works. Paul speaks of “WORKS OF THE LAW” such as circumcision while James speaks of “GOOD WORKS” as in the corporal works of mercy [feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.] So Paul and James are not contradicting each other.

This why Catholics can do something that protestants cannot. That is to harmonize our theology with other scripture passages such as Romans 2:6-11

“6.For he will render to every man according to his works: 7.to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8.but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9.There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10.but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11.For God shows no partiality.”
[Romans 2:6-11 RSV]

It doesn’t say God will render to every man according to his faith now does it. So, do our works justify us before man or God? And may I remind our protestant friends viewing this that the only time the words “faith alone” appear in the scripture the words “and not by” preceed it.

1. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [James 2:23 RSV]

 

[Bookcat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer

.

The Catholic position is that we are saved by God’s grace. That grace is a gift from God that no amount of faith can earn. Do not fall into the protestant heresy whereby they relegate works as a follow on and only made possible by faith. That is false. I know of people who are atheists who are more charitable than many people who claim to have faith. The error in protestantism is that they do not distinguish between works and works. Yeah, you read that correctly. Protestants quote Paul’s words exclusively. They would like to ignore James. Remember that Luther wanted to remove Jame’s epistle from the NT calling it “an epistle of straw” because he could not harmonize it with his theology. But notice what Luther could not. Everywhere Paul went he preached against the Judiacizers. These were Jewish converts who insisted that the Gentile converts first become Jews and subject to the Law of Moses and all of its WORKS before they could become Christians. Paul preached against this everywhere he went. The WORKS that Paul preached about were WORKS OF THE MOSAIC LAW. The Judiacizers were mired in the Old Covenant. But Christians, be they former Jew or Gentiles were not subject to the Old Covenant but the New Covenant. For instance Paul preached against circumcision which was a work of the Old Covenant. The WORKS Paul preached against were not the corporal works of mercy of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. what we know today as 'GOOD WORKS" that James speaks of. Protestants, stuck with the Epistle of James in their NT canon, try to harmonize Pauls words on works with those seemingly contradictory words of James by saying that what James says of works is to “justify us before men” whereas faith “justifies us before God”. What a bunch of **** that is. Since when are we supposed to justify ourselves before any man? What good does that do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. But this is the best that protestants can come up with because they start with error and they end with even bigger error.

On the other hand we Catholics can harmonize Paul and James perfectly because their words are not contradictory. The “works” that each speak of are not the same works. Paul speaks of “WORKS OF THE LAW” such as circumcision while James speaks of “GOOD WORKS” as in the corporal works of mercy [feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc.] So Paul and James are not contradicting each other.

This why Catholics can do something that protestants cannot. That is to harmonize our theology with other scripture passages such as Romans 2:6-11

“6.For he will render to every man according to his works: 7.to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8.but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9.There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10.but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11.For God shows no partiality.”
[Romans 2:6-11 RSV]

It doesn’t say God will render to every man according to his faith now does it. So, do our works justify us before man or God? And may I remind our protestant friends viewing this that the only time the words “faith alone” appear in the scripture the words “and not by” preceed it.

1. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [James 2:23 RSV]

I only skimmed somewhat the above…cause my wife is ready now to leave…but to be brief…

Again forget about Protestantism. I am not talking about Protestantism. I am talking about how Paul and the Church say that yes we are justified by faith.

We are justified by Faith

This is a true statement.

One must understand it as Paul and the Catholic Church mean it.

This will help you understand that I am simply saying that it is a true statement to say that we are justified by Faith. And that we need to not say that it is not true.

Of course it is by Grace…of course it is not just some intellectual belief…of course Baptism is normally involved…of course by works Paul is referring mostly if not entirely to those of the Mosaic Law…of course…

Of course in talking with a Protestant…one may further clarify what is meant…

Please read these two audiences by Pope Benedict…for this is what I mean.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html

Have a Blessed Day of the Lord!

 

[mackbrislawn]

I Peter 3:19-21
. . . **eing put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also [Christ] went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ . . . (I Peter 3:18b-21)
Beside Acts 2:38, this is the next text most strongly depended on by those in favor of the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation. The reason is obvious. This text includes the striking phrase, “an antitype which now saves us, namely baptism.” In reference to baptism Paul writes, “Not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.” Now the physical baptism is “the removal of filth of the flesh” (cf. Hebrews 10:22). But what actually saves is “the answer of a good conscience toward God.”
This shows the close examination between this verse and Hebrews 10:22. That there is another careful distinction between outward cleansing of the body in pure water, and inward cleansing of the conscience. The same distinction is made here in II Peter 3:21, and shows that it is not the outward act which saves but the inward change which is signified by the outward act. Thus Peter refers briefly to the sign of clear conscience, the submitting to baptism, as a short way of referring to the actual thing, the clear conscience. But then for clarification he explains that it is not the sign which saves, but the thing signified: the clear conscience saves, not the physical baptism.
In this context, then, “baptism” is used metaphorically to symbolize a conscience clear before God. It is not said that it is the outward, physical act of baptism which saves, but that it is the good conscience which baptism signifies which saves. This good conscience is achieved by the washing of the conscience by the Blood of Christ (Hebrews 10:22; Titus 3:5; I John 1:7; Revelation 1:5), and is acquired entirely by faith (Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-10) before baptism in water is practiced as a sign of that good conscience (Romans 4:8-11, remembering that baptism is the New Testament counterpart to circumcision; Colossians 2:11-12).
Thus we see that it is deceiving to refer simply to the phrase “[baptism] now saves us” without taking it in context with the very careful explanatory phrase which Peter uses, that is, that it is not the outward and physical act which saves, but the inward testimony of a cleansed and good conscience before God, which saves (cf. I John 3:21).

I Peter 3:21, therefore, does not prove the necessity of water baptism for salvation.

Please remember that Christ has commanded many things, is our disobedience of a command the mark of lost salvation? Of course not. We neither obtain salvation via obedience nor disobedience but rather faith in Him. Granted a demonstration of faith is baptism which is the outward sign of an inward work.**

“And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a clear conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” (NAS)

How does baptism save us? Well, ordinarily when we go into the water to bathe, it is to remove dirt from the flesh. Water by itself, by its nature, has the power to cleanse dirt from the body. But now, in baptism, when we go into the water, we are appealing, praying, to God to cleanse not our body, but our conscience. And how do we know that our prayer, by means of water, will be answered? Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ’s resurrection is the evidence provided that our faith in Christ is justified. We have faith that if we do what Christ commands, He will keep his word.

Christ saves, through his grace. And because we have faith in doing what Christ says, our faith saves.

 

[inkaneer]

I only skimmed somewhat the above…cause my wife is ready now to leave…but to be brief…

Again forget about Protestantism. I am not talking about Protestantism. I am talking about how Paul and the Church say that yes we are justified by faith.

We are justified by Faith

This is a true statement.

One must understand it as Paul and the Catholic Church mean it.

This will help you understand that I am simply saying that it is a true statement to say that we are justified by Faith. And that we need to not say that it is not true.

Of course it is by Grace…of course it is not just some intellectual belief…of course Baptism is normally involved…of course by works Paul is referring mostly if not entirely to those of the Mosaic Law…of course…

Of course in talking with a Protestant…one may further clarify what is meant…

Please read these two audiences by Pope Benedict…for this is what I mean.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html

Have a Blessed Day of the Lord!

We are justified by grace. We are not justified by faith. That is the Catholic position. That is what Trent said and I doubt the pope would or could contradict Trent. The pope said, in his own words, what I said about works of the law and good works. Make up your mind whether you want to be Catholic [saved by grace] or protestant [saved by faith]. Your pick.

 

[Bookcat]

We are justified by grace. We are not justified by faith. That is the Catholic position. That is what Trent said and I doubt the pope would or could contradict Trent. The pope said, in his own words, what I said about works of the law and good works. Make up your mind whether you want to be Catholic [saved by grace] or protestant [saved by faith]. Your pick.

Please do read what I wrote and not read into it.

One must read Trent and understand what Trent is saying.

Trent was very precise in what was said…and Trent does not say that we are not justified by faith. (In Paul’s sense).

I am not disagreeing with Trent…nor of course is the Pope

One must understand what Paul and Pope Benedict are saying…

I am a Catholic. And can say as a Catholic any of these statements:

We are Justified by Faith.

We are justified by Grace.

We are justified in Baptism.

We are justified by Jesus Christ.

One must understand **each **as Paul and the Church understand them.

Pope Benedict XVI writes:

“Justified through the gift of faith in Christ”

“The Letter to the Philippians offers us a moving testimony of Paul’s transition from a justice founded on the Law and acquired by his observance of the required actions, to a justice based on faith in Christ.”

“It is precisely because of this personal experience of relationship with Jesus Christ that Paul henceforth places at the centre of his Gospel an irreducible opposition between the two alternative paths to justice: one built on the works of the Law, the other founded on the grace of faith in Christ.”

“The alternative between justice by means of works of the Law and that by faith in Christ thus became one of the dominant themes that run through his Letters: “We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law; because by works of the law no one will be justified” (Gal 2: 15-16). And to the Christians of Rome he reasserts that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rm 3: 23-24). And he adds “we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (ibid., v. 28).”

“Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).”

“Following St Paul, we have seen that man is unable to “justify” himself with his own actions, but can only truly become “just” before God because God confers his “justice” upon him, uniting him to Christ his Son.** And man obtains this union through faith**. In this sense, St Paul tells us: not our deeds, but rather faith renders us “just”. This faith, however, is not a thought, an opinion, an idea. This faith is communion with Christ, which the Lord gives to us, and thus becomes life, becomes conformity with him. Or to use different words faith, if it is true, if it is real, becomes love, becomes charity, is expressed in charity.** A faith without charity, without this fruit, would not be true faith**. It would be a dead faith.”

A Catholic says with Paul – we are justified by faith. Understood as Paul understood it…as the Church understood it. And I am meaning it in this sense.

(Not as some protestants have understood it…though a number now are understanding it better or we are understanding them better as to their use of the language…but again …forget Protestantism here)

I am very much a Catholic. I hold to everything the Church teaches and reject everything she rejects.

And I know that as a Catholic we say with Paul and with Pope Benedict XVI we are justified by faith. And yes we are justified by grace!

Paul even says beautifully:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God……(Eph 2:8 RSV CE)

 

[inkaneer]

The problem with Catholics saying we are saved by Faith is that protestants will understand that to mean “saved by faith alone.” They will then claim Catholics have changed doctrines and they [protestants] were correct all the while. And while you may have a different understanding of the statement than they do the problem with it is that it does not clarify the issue and not only adds more confusion on top of an already confused matter but then calls into question other issues. This is similar to protestants saying Mary is not the mother of God, only the mother of Christ. Would you agree with them on that or would you say that she is the Theotokos not the Christotokos as the Council of Ephesus stated in its condemnation of Nestorius?