Salvation by faith alone

  • Thread starter Thread starter MEE
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=jerry kelso;6774811]The Bible says rightly divide the word, be like the bereans to see if they are telling the truth and try those who say they are apostles. So the protestants are correct in not just taking someone’s word that they say has the truth, even an apostle. This process has to do with seeing if it lines up with the word of God. Who helps them know if they are telling the truth? There will be various opinions on that. The Catholics are right on apostolic authority and this is where many protestants don’t have a clue at all. Both Catholics and Protestants need to learn how to put this in the proper perspective. Since there are catholics who believe that some protestants will make it into heaven and some protestants believe that some catholics will make it into heaven then it appears that we cannot agree on the possesion of infallible teachings completely except for salvation and getting to heaven. I guess that’s the most important things though it won’t help much at the judgement of believers personal works. God bless’ Jerry Kelso
Click to expand...
***Hi Jerry…WELCOME TO THE FORUM!

Autually you are partly correct. Questioning the Word is not the issue so long as conforms to Catholic Teaching. WHY?*

I don’t mean this next coment as an insult; rather I’m pointing out the very obvious error in your position. In a mere 400 years The Protestant community has gome from a handfull of different churches; to MANY THOUSANDS, each with there OWN theologies and philosophies; primarily caused by independent and self interpetation of God’s Holy Word. Clearly and indispuitabily that is neither God’s desire or God’s Will.

We would, I hope agree that for any given issue there can be logically ONLY ONE TRUE meaning? So why the constant reinvetion of teaching which has been God inspired and held for about 1,500 years? [Mt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18, Jn.14: 16-17, Jn.17:15-19].

After nearly 2,000 years the CC has still One Church, One Faith, the same Sacraments and the same Bible. Nearly all of the Dogmas and Doctrines are held in common; an after all this time, there is still one Church with 27 branches. That ought to be extremely meaninful:shrug:

BIBLE FACTS:

The Catholic Church is THEE Bible Church

The OT was compiled by Catholics

The NT was written entirely by Catholics

The Canon approved by GOD HIMSELF was done by Catholics [2 Tim. 3:16-17]Does

The ONLY, the ONLY Church for more than ONE THOUSAND YEARS WAS THE CC

Thus it is clear that it was both by Catholics, and FOR Catholics [there was no one else] and certainly the authors could not, and did not predict the divisions of THOUSANDS of competing churches more than a thousand years later.

Given these facts; does it not seem reasonable that ONLY the Church that birthed the Bible which was approved by God [His CC] would be given BY GOD, the necessary understanding of this book? There are over 100 references to ONE CHURCH in the NT. No intelligent and honest person can read the bible and not discern God’s very specific and precise intention.

Certainly intending ONE CHURCH, God would both expect and Bless ONLY that Church which HE [not of HUMAN ORIGIN like all Protestant faiths] Himself Founded and He Himself assures has the singular truth, with the needed Wisdom and Understanding; both gifts form God, to support the Mission given to the CC in Matt. 28:19-20.**

Love and prayers,
Pat
 
PJM said:
***Hi Jerry…WELCOME TO THE FORUM!

Autually you are partly correct. Questioning the Word is not the issue so long as conforms to Catholic Teaching. WHY?***

I don’t mean this next coment as an insult; rather I’m pointing out the very obvious error in your position. In a mere 400 years The Protestant community has gome from a handfull of different churches; to MANY THOUSANDS, each with there OWN theologies and philosophies; primarily caused by independent and self interpetation of God’s Holy Word. Clearly and indispuitabily that is neither God’s desire or God’s Will.

We would, I hope agree that for any given issue there can be logically ONLY ONE TRUE meaning? So why the constant reinvetion of teaching which has been God inspired and held for about 1,500 years? [Mt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18, Jn.14: 16-17, Jn.17:15-19].

After nearly 2,000 years the CC has still One Church, One Faith, the same Sacraments and the same Bible. Nearly all of the Dogmas and Doctrines are held in common; an after all this time, there is still one Church with 27 branches. That ought to be extremely meaninful:shrug:

BIBLE FACTS:

The Catholic Church is THEE Bible Church

The OT was compiled by Catholics

The NT was written entirely by Catholics

The Canon approved by GOD HIMSELF was done by Catholics [2 Tim. 3:16-17]Does

The ONLY, the ONLY Church for more than ONE THOUSAND YEARS WAS THE CC

Thus it is clear that it was both by Catholics, and FOR Catholics [there was no one else] and certainly the authors could not, and did not predict the divisions of THOUSANDS of competing churches more than a thousand years later.

Given these facts; does it not seem reasonable that ONLY the Church that birthed the Bible which was approved by God [His CC] would be given BY GOD, the necessary understanding of this book? There are over 100 references to ONE CHURCH in the NT. No intelligent and honest person can read the bible and not discern God’s very specific and precise intention.

Certainly intending ONE CHURCH, God would both expect and Bless ONLY that Church which HE [not of HUMAN ORIGIN like all Protestant faiths] Himself Founded and He Himself assures has the singular truth, with the needed Wisdom and Understanding; both gifts form God, to support the Mission given to the CC in Matt. 28:19-20.

Love and prayers,
Pat
Click to expand...
PJm: I don’t know where you got your history but it’s nowhere in the ballpark of being right. The Bible was given by the jews by way of Abraham who was a gentile from Ur of the chaldees. There are no literal catholics or literal protestants in the bible period. Literal Catholic history at the earliest would have started more with the early church fathers. The jews literal history started with abraham.
The truth is that there are offshoots in the catholic church and there are differing opinions about certain scriptures. Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun.
I’ve studied different doctrines of different persuasions and they all are alike in many ways. Many of them are proud of their doctrine, think they are absolutely correct in every jot and tittle and most of the time they are the ones who know the least about scripture; instead they know traditions of men more than the word of God. Jesus had to get on to the jewish leaders about this.
Yes. I believe in one church which is the one body of Christ which is made up of many members called believers. The bible says there are no jews or gentiles in the body of Christ. It doesn’t say catholics or protestants.
I love history but even secular history bears out the jews writing the bible. The only non-jew would have been Luke. The only other ones would have been scribes who dictated for different apostles.
You can be right in your own context but you are not right in secular history or bibical history. God bless! Jerry kelso
 
PJM said:
***Hi Jerry…WELCOME TO THE FORUM!

Autually you are partly correct. Questioning the Word is not the issue so long as conforms to Catholic Teaching. WHY?***

I don’t mean this next coment as an insult; rather I’m pointing out the very obvious error in your position. In a mere 400 years The Protestant community has gome from a handfull of different churches; to MANY THOUSANDS, each with there OWN theologies and philosophies; primarily caused by independent and self interpetation of God’s Holy Word. Clearly and indispuitabily that is neither God’s desire or God’s Will.

We would, I hope agree that for any given issue there can be logically ONLY ONE TRUE meaning? So why the constant reinvetion of teaching which has been God inspired and held for about 1,500 years? [Mt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18, Jn.14: 16-17, Jn.17:15-19].

After nearly 2,000 years the CC has still One Church, One Faith, the same Sacraments and the same Bible. Nearly all of the Dogmas and Doctrines are held in common; an after all this time, there is still one Church with 27 branches. That ought to be extremely meaninful:shrug:

BIBLE FACTS:

The Catholic Church is THEE Bible Church

The OT was compiled by Catholics

The NT was written entirely by Catholics

The Canon approved by GOD HIMSELF was done by Catholics [2 Tim. 3:16-17]Does

The ONLY, the ONLY Church for more than ONE THOUSAND YEARS WAS THE CC

Thus it is clear that it was both by Catholics, and FOR Catholics [there was no one else] and certainly the authors could not, and did not predict the divisions of THOUSANDS of competing churches more than a thousand years later.

Given these facts; does it not seem reasonable that ONLY the Church that birthed the Bible which was approved by God [His CC] would be given BY GOD, the necessary understanding of this book? There are over 100 references to ONE CHURCH in the NT. No intelligent and honest person can read the bible and not discern God’s very specific and precise intention.

Certainly intending ONE CHURCH, God would both expect and Bless ONLY that Church which HE [not of HUMAN ORIGIN like all Protestant faiths] Himself Founded and He Himself assures has the singular truth, with the needed Wisdom and Understanding; both gifts form God, to support the Mission given to the CC in Matt. 28:19-20.

Love and prayers,
Pat
Click to expand...
The Old Testament was not compiled by Catholics. How could Catholics exist before Christ?
 
=jerry kelso;6776046]PJm: I don’t know where you got your history but it’s nowhere in the ballpark of being right. The Bible was given by the jews by way of Abraham who was a gentile from Ur of the chaldees. There are no literal catholics or literal protestants in the bible period. Literal Catholic history at the earliest would have started more with the early church fathers. The jews literal history started with abraham.
The truth is that there are offshoots in the catholic church and there are differing opinions about certain scriptures.
Click to expand...
A few KEY points:

You failed to respond the information I have already provided. How do you explain the questions I asked. Or am I to understand you don’t have answers to the questions?

Have you bothered to actaully study Bible history? I have.

The terms leading up to the term Catholic: “The Way,” became “Christians”, which in turn became known as “Catholics.” The entire OT was collected by these folks and the ENTIRE NT was Written by them. NOTE: Mathew; John, Peter, James and Paul were all Apostles… that means they were Catholics friend.

Please don’t take my word for it. Google “Bible History” and then talk to me.

" 1. Septuagint. The oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament is known as the Septuagint, and was made between 300 and 130 B.C. It derives its name from the seventy or seventy two translators to whom it is attributed. According to a legend, Ptolemy II (284-247 B.C.) wished to have a copy of the Law of Moses in his famous library in Alexandria. At his request the high priest sent seventy two scholars (six from each of the twelve tribes) from Jerusalem to Alexandria to translate the Law into Greek.
Code: 
    The Septuagint contains all the forty-five books of the Old Testament. It was used by the Apostles and early Christians and helped greatly in the spread of revealed truths among the Greek pagans. Many Jewish and pagan converts obtained their first knowledge of the Bible through the Septuagint. 

    2. Old Latin. Since the Christians of Rome and of the Roman Empire needed a Latin Bible for the Liturgy and for private reading, it is probable that as early as the first century the Greek Bible - both the Old and New Testaments - began to be translated into Latin. The Latin Bible which was used in Western Europe prior to the acceptance of St. Jerome's text is commonly known as the "Old Latin." 

    3. Vulgate. The Latin "Vulgate" ("accepted" or "commonly used") text is the work of St. Jerome (383-405). The New Testament is St. Jerome's revision of the Old Latin text made with the help of ancient Greek manuscripts. Most of the books of the Old Testament are a direct translation of the original Hebrew, while the rest are the Old Latin text. The Council of Trent made the Vulgate the official text of the Catholic Church, and our present edition was brought out by Clement VIII in 1592. 

    4. The Rheims-Douay Bible. The most widely used English Catholic translation (from the Latin Vulgate) of the Bible is the Rheims-Douay or Douay Version. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth many English bishops, priests and laymen were obliged to seek refuge in France and other European countries. In 1568 a number of illustrious Oxford scholars opened an English College at Douay in France, in order to supply priests for the English missions. In 1578 the College was transferred to Rheims and later back again to Douay. Among the founders of this College were William Allen, principal of St. Mary's Hall at Oxford and later Cardinal; Gregory Martin, fellow of St. John's College of Oxford; Richard Bristow, fellow of Exeter College of Oxford, and others. 

    The English translation of the Bible was made by Gregory Martin and the work was revised by Allen and Bristow. The New Testament was published at Rheims in 1582, and the Old Testament at Douay in 1609-1610. The language of the text was modernized by Bishop Challoner (1749-1752). 

    5. The Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - of which Fathers Lattey and Keating of the Society of Jesus are general editors - was published in England. It is a new critical Catholic translation of the New Testament made directly from the Greek. It is a private and not an official version of the Bible. 

    6. The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Edition of New Testament. This is not a translation but a revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version undertaken by a group of Catholic scholars under the patronage of the episcopal committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. It aims to bring the language of Challoner's version into conformity with modern English and to render accurately the divine message in the language of our own day.
  1. Protestant Versions. a). The King James or Authorized Version (AV) was published in 1611 in the reign of King James I. The Authorized Version is not a new translation but a revision of an English Bible known as the Bishop’s Bible and published in 1568. The translation is often colored by anti-Catholic prejudice which in certain instances leads to outright falsifications of the text. The purity of its English, however, has made it the Bible of English Protestantism. b). The Revised Version (RV) (1881-1885) is a modern critical revision undertaken - at the instance of the British Parliament - by a group of English and American Protestant scholars. The committee departed in at least thirty-six thousand instances from the text of 1611. c). In 1901 the American group of the same committee brought out its own text of the Revised Version and this is known as the American Standard Version. (SV)."
 
For Jerry:

Here is where the term Catholic comes from:

"The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. Thus we meet such phrases as the “the catholic resurrection” (Justin Martyr), “the catholic goodness of God” (Tertullian), “the four catholic winds” (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of “the general resurrection”, “the absolute or universal goodness of God”, “the four principal winds”, etc. The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase “Catholic Epistles” as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.” However, in view of the context, some difference of opinion prevails as to the precise connotation of the italicized word, and Kattenbusch, the Protestant professor of theology at Giessen, is prepared to interpret this earliest appearance of the phrase in the sense of mia mone, the “one and only” Church [Das apostolische Symbolum (1900), II, 922]. From this time forward the technical signification of the word Catholic meets us with increasing frequency both East and West, until by the beginning of the fourth century it seems to have almost entirely supplanted the primitive and more general meaning…"
 
Saint Paul (13):

The Doctrine of Justification: from Works to Faith.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

On the journey we are making under St Paul’s guidance, let us now reflect on a topic at the centre of the controversies of the century of the Reformation: the question of justification. How does man become just in God’s eyes? When Paul met the Risen One on the road to Damascus he was an accomplished man; irreproachable according to the justice deriving from the Law (cf. Phil 3: 6), Paul surpassed many of his contemporaries in the observance of the Mosaic Law and zealously upheld the traditions of his fathers (cf. Gal 1: 14). The illumination of Damascus radically changed his life; he began to consider all merits acquired in an impeccable religious career as “refuse”, in comparison with the sublimity of knowing Jesus Christ (cf. Phil 3: 8). 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. He had understood that what until then had seemed to him to be a gain, before God was, in fact, a loss; and thus he had decided to stake his whole existence on Jesus Christ (cf. Phil 3: 7). The treasure hidden in the field and the precious pearl for whose purchase all was to be invested were no longer in function of the Law, but Jesus Christ, his Lord.

The relationship between Paul and the Risen One became so deep as to induce him to maintain that Christ was no longer solely his life but also his very living, to the point that to be able to reach him death became a gain (cf. Phil 1: 21). This is not to say he despised life, but that he realized that for him at this point there was no other purpose in life and thus he had no other desire than to reach Christ as in an athletics competition to remain with him for ever. The Risen Christ had become the beginning and the end of his existence, the cause and the goal of his race. It was only his concern for the development in faith of those he had evangelized and his anxiety for all of the Churches he founded (cf. 2 Cor 11: 28) that induced him to slow down in his race towards his one Lord, to wait for his disciples so they might run with him towards the goal. Although from a perspective of moral integrity he had nothing to reproach himself in his former observance of the Law, once Christ had reached him he preferred not to make judgments on himself (cf. 1 Cor 4: 3-4). Instead he limited himself to resolving to press on, to make his own the One who had made him his own (cf. Phil 3: 12).

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). At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”. I shall return to this point at the end of the Catechesis. First, we must explain what is this “Law” from which we are freed and what are those “works of the Law” that do not justify. The opinion that was to recur systematically in history already existed in the community at Corinth. This opinion consisted in thinking that it was a question of moral law and that the Christian freedom thus consisted in the liberation from ethics. Thus in Corinth the term “πάντα μοι έξεστιν” (I can do what I like) was widespread. It is obvious that this interpretation is wrong: Christian freedom is not libertinism; the liberation of which St Paul spoke is not liberation from good works.
 
So what does the Law from which we are liberated and which does not save mean? For St Paul, as for all his contemporaries, the word “Law” meant the Torah in its totality, that is, the five books of Moses. The Torah, in the Pharisaic interpretation, that which Paul had studied and made his own, was a complex set of conduct codes that ranged from the ethical nucleus to observances of rites and worship and that essentially determined the identity of the just person. In particular, these included circumcision, observances concerning pure food and ritual purity in general, the rules regarding the observance of the Sabbath, etc. codes of conduct that also appear frequently in the debates between Jesus and his contemporaries. All of these observances that express a social, cultural and religious identity had become uniquely important in the time of Hellenistic culture, starting from the third century B.C. This culture which had become the universal culture of that time and was a seemingly rational culture; a polytheistic culture, seemingly tolerant constituted a strong pressure for cultural uniformity and thus threatened the identity of Israel, which was politically constrained to enter into this common identity of the Hellenistic culture. This resulted in the loss of its own identity, hence also the loss of the precious heritage of the faith of the Fathers, of the faith in the one God and in the promises of God.

Against this cultural pressure, which not only threatened the Israelite identity but also the faith in the one God and in his promises, it was necessary to create a wall of distinction, a shield of defence to protect the precious heritage of the faith; this wall consisted precisely in the Judaic observances and prescriptions. Paul, who had learned these observances in their role of defending God’s gift, of the inheritance of faith in one God alone, saw this identity threatened by the freedom of the Christians this is why he persecuted them. At the moment of his encounter with the Risen One he understood that with Christ’s Resurrection the situation had changed radically. With Christ, the God of Israel, the one true God, became the God of all peoples. The wall as he says in his Letter to the Ephesians between Israel and the Gentiles, was no longer necessary: it is Christ who protects us from polytheism and all of its deviations; it is Christ who unites us with and in the one God; it is Christ who guarantees our true identity within the diversity of cultures. The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. 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).

Paul knows that in the twofold love of God and neighbour the whole of the Law is present and carried out. Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love. We shall see the same thing in the Gospel next Sunday, the Solemnity of Christ the King. It is the Gospel of the judge whose sole criterion is love. What he asks is only this: Did you visit me when I was sick? When I was in prison? Did you give me food to eat when I was hungry, did you clothe me when I was naked? And thus justice is decided in charity. Thus, at the end of this Gospel we can almost say: love alone, charity alone. But there is no contradiction between this Gospel and St Paul. It is the same vision, according to which communion with Christ, faith in Christ, creates charity. And charity is the fulfilment of communion with Christ. Thus, we are just by being united with him and in no other way.

At the end, we can only pray the Lord that he help us to believe; really believe. Believing thus becomes life, unity with Christ, the transformation of our life. And thus, transformed by his love, by the love of God and neighbour, we can truly be just in God’s eyes.
 
Saint Paul (14):

The Doctrine of Justification: The Apostle’s Teaching on Faith and Works

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

In the Catechesis last Wednesday I spoke of how man is justified before God. 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.

Thus, in our last Catechesis, we discovered two levels: that of the insignificance of our actions and of our deeds to achieve salvation, and that of “justification” through faith which produces the fruit of the Spirit. The confusion of these two levels has caused more than a few misunderstandings in Christianity over the course of centuries. In this context it is important that St Paul, in the same Letter to the Galatians radically accentuates, on the one hand, the freely given nature of justification that is not dependent on our works, but which at the same time also emphasizes the relationship between faith and charity, between faith and works: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Gal 5: 6). Consequently, there are on the one hand “works of the flesh”, which are “immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry…” (Gal 5: 19-20): all works that are contrary to the faith; on the other, there is the action of the Holy Spirit who nourishes Christian life, inspiring “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (Gal 5: 22-23). These are the fruits of the Spirit that blossom from faith.

Agape, love, is cited at the beginning of this list of virtues and self-control at the conclusion. In fact, the Spirit who is the Love of the Father and the Son pours out his first gift, agape, into our hearts (cf. Rm 5: 5); and to be fully expressed, agape, love, requires self-control. In my first Encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, I also treated of the love of the Father and the Son which reaches us and profoundly transforms our existence. Believers know that reciprocal love is embodied in the love of God and of Christ, through the Spirit. Let us return to the Letter to the Galatians. Here St Paul says that by bearing one another’s burdens believers are fulfilling the commandment of love (cf. Gal 6: 2).
Justified through the gift of faith in Christ, we are called to live in the love of Christ for neighbour, because it is on this criterion that we shall be judged at the end of our lives. In reality Paul only repeats what Jesus himself said and which is proposed to us anew by last Sunday’s Gospel, in the parable of the Last Judgment. In the First Letter to the Corinthians St Paul pours himself out in a famous eulogy of love. It is called the “hymn to love”: “If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal… Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way” (1 Cor 13: 1, 4-5). Christian love is particularly demanding because it springs from Christ’s total love for us: that love that claims us, welcomes us, embraces us, sustains us, to the point of tormenting us since it forces each one to no longer live for himself, closed into his own selfishness, but for him “who for their sake died and was raised” (2 Cor 5: 15). The love of Christ makes us, in him, that new creation (cf. 2 Cor 5: 17), which comes to belong to his Mystical Body that is the Church.

Seen in this perspective, the centrality of justification without works, the primary object of Paul’s preaching, does not clash with faith that works through love; indeed, it demands that our faith itself be expressed in a life in accordance with the Spirit. Often there is seen an unfounded opposition between St Paul’s theology and that of St James, who writes in his Letter: “as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead”(2: 26). In reality, while Paul is primarily concerned to show that faith in Christ is necessary and sufficient, James accentuates the consequential relations between faith and works (cf. Jas 2: 24). Therefore, for both Paul and James, faith that is active in love testifies to the freely given gift of justification in Christ. Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to “with fear and trembling. For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure… Do all things without grumbling or questioning… holding fast the word of life”, St Paul was to say further, to the Christians of Philippi (cf. Phil 2: 12-14, 16).
 
We are often induced to fall into the same misunderstandings that characterized the community of Corinth; those Christians thought that since they had been freely justified in Christ through faith, “they could do as they pleased”. And they believed and it often seems that today’s Christians also think this that it is permissible to create divisions in the Church, the Body of Christ, to celebrate the Eucharist without looking after the neediest of our brothers, to aspire to better charisms without being aware that each is a member of the other, and so forth. The consequences of a faith that is not manifested in love are disastrous, because it reduces itself to the arbitrariness and subjectivism that is most harmful to us and to our brothers. On the contrary, in following St Paul, we should gain a new awareness of the fact that precisely because we are justified in Christ, we no longer belong to ourselves but have become a temple of the Spirit and hence are called to glorify God in our body with the whole of our existence (cf. 1 Cor 6: 19). We would be underselling the inestimable value of justification, purchased at the high price of Christ’s Blood, if we were not to glorify him with our body. In fact, our worship at the same time reasonable and spiritual is exactly this, which is why St Paul exhorts us “to present [our] bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God” (Rm 12: 1). To what would a liturgy be reduced if addressed solely to the Lord without simultaneously becoming service to one’s brothers, a faith that would not express itself in charity? And the Apostle often places his communities in confrontation with the Last Judgment, on the occasion of which: “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor 5: 10; cf. also Rm 2: 16). And this idea of the Last Judgment must illumine us in our daily lives.

If the ethics that Paul proposes to believers do not deteriorate into forms of moralism and prove themselves timely for us, it is because, each time, they start from the personal and communal relationship with Christ, to be realized concretely in a life according to the Spirit. This is essential: the Christian ethic is not born from a system of commandments but is a consequence of our friendship with Christ. This friendship influences life; if it is true it incarnates and fulfils itself in love for neighbour. For this reason, any ethical decay is not limited to the individual sphere but it also weakens personal and communal faith from which it derives and on which it has a crucial effect. Therefore let us allow ourselves to be touched by reconciliation, which God has given us in Christ, by God’s “foolish” love for us; nothing and no one can ever separate us from his love (cf. Rm 8: 39). We live in this certainty. It is this certainty that gives us the strength to live concretely the faith that works in love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top