Saved by faith, AND NOT works?

[SyCarl]

Christ declares us to be something that we are not? Is this just and honest?

As for the layout, it doesn’t sound like it takes any part in heresy. It, in fact, sounds like salvation is a process, and this is certainly the Catholic understanding of things.

We are made righteous by baptism, but still with a defective will that, with Christ’s grace, wills only good, but may (and shall) fail. And sanctification, the true purifying of my soul from all stains of sin, both from Adam, and from myself, since it is not complete in this lifetime, would likely take time to complete itself in purgatory before the beatific vision.

So except for some semantic disagreements, it sounds as though we are on the same page.

I think on this matter we are separated largely by semantics, especially as the Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that we can only do good works by God’s grace and that because of the great disparity between God and man, there cannot be any true merit by man before God. (I think I have that right without looking it up. My copy of the Catechism is at home.)

 

[SyCarl]

Most protestants have never heard of the temporal or corporate works of mercy. Although they would acknowledge taking care of the poor etc. as worthy Christian duties, they dont see this as part of salvation.

The biggest part of the problem is the language. When Catholics speak of salvation, we speak of a process (justification, sanctification, and glorification). Therefore, we see that we have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. Most protestants have been taught to separate these from each other, and refer to initial justification as being “saved”.

I think this is true mainly of those who accept once saved always saved. Even among those there is still recognition of an ongoing processed. We are saved. We are being saved. We will be saved.
All apply at the same time.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

While in much of Romans he may use “works of the law”, it cannot be those works that Paul is referring to as Abraham was justified before the law of Moses or even circumsion was given.

And that is St. Paul’s very point, that the Patriarch Abraham was justified by his faith before the works of the law. The thing is, I believe he is contrasting that point with the Judaisers who claim that circumcision is necessary for salvation.

Secondly I think that there is really no practical difference between “works of the law” and works. Paul seems to use them as if they are the same thing through out his epistles.

Unless by “works of the law” you mean such works as pertain to the Old Jewish Law, such as circumcision. This was a very important issue for the early Church.

But even ignoring these, my question remains unaddressed at this time.

What about these activities differentiates them from works? What does St. Paul mean when he uses the term “works”, and what definition is he using to make sure he doesn’t include the list I gave above?

Assuming the Law Christ gave is the same thing St. Paul means when he refers to works, does that mean that one could love God and his fellow man, without having faith? Or that one could have faith without loving God or his fellow man?

As my signature says, “And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” - 1 Corinthians 13:2

Finally Jesus tells us what the true meaning of the law is.in Matthew 22.

This statement does not leave much room for anything that would be outside the true scope of the law as defined by Jesus.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

I think on this matter we are separated largely by semantics, especially as the Catechism of the Catholic Church indicates that we can only do good works by God’s grace and that because of the great disparity between God and man, there cannot be any true merit by man before God.

That sounds right. St. Thomas Aquinas and the Baltimore Catechism say as much.

So as you would hold, there is no severe disagreement between Protestants and Catholics on the idea of justification.

Would that be correct of me to say?

 

[SyCarl]

That sounds right. St. Thomas Aquinas and the Baltimore Catechism say as much.

So as you would hold, there is no severe disagreement between Protestants and Catholics on the idea of justification.

Would that be correct of me to say?

I would tend to agree, but recognizing that Protestants call what Catholics call salvation we call justification.

 

[guanophore]

So as you would hold, there is no severe disagreement between Protestants and Catholics on the idea of justification.

Would that be correct of me to say?

Yes but the disagreement has more to do with what they THINK we believe, and not what we actually believe.

 

[SyCarl]

But even ignoring these, my question remains unaddressed at this time.

What about these activities differentiates them from works? What does St. Paul mean when he uses the term “works”, and what definition is he using to make sure he doesn’t include the list I gave above?

I think the problem is that we are using our concept of works, not Paul’s. To us what is involved in faith might seem like works, but Paul differeniates between faith and works. Therefore what Paul means by faith cannot be included in works. We don’t need to know why he does except that Scripture shows he does.

Assuming the Law Christ gave is the same thing St. Paul means when he refers to works, does that mean that one could love God and his fellow man, without having faith? Or that one could have faith without loving God or his fellow man?

I don’t think that you can truly love God or your fellow man without faith. You may do things that look like you love your fellow man but not doing them for the reason you would by faith. By faith you would do them simply because it is what God wants and pleases Him. Without faith it is like doing your good works to be seen by man. You want something from what you are doing.

From what is meant by true faith, no you cannot love God or fellow man without it. That would not mean the intellectual faith of merely assenting.

I have enjoyed discussing with you but I must be going for now.

God bless you.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Yes but the disagreement has more to do with what they THINK we believe, and not what we actually believe.

Hence the importance of asking these sorts of questions.

I am learning more.

Reading about the Lutheran-Catholic agreement on this topic on the vatican website right now.

 

[SyCarl]

Yes but the disagreement has more to do with what they THINK we believe, and not what we actually believe.

And I think that it can be said in reverse too. Many Catholic think that most Protestants are saying we can do whatever we like as long as we have faith. That is not true.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

I think the problem is that we are using our concept of works, not Paul’s.

What is St. Paul’s?

 

[SyCarl]

What is St. Paul’s?

One last post then quickly.

Whatever Paul’s concept is, since he say by faith not works, it must not include what is involved in faith. If faith is different form works, then it cannot be composed of things that are works.

 

[Bishopite]

That sounds right. St. Thomas Aquinas and the Baltimore Catechism say as much.

So as you would hold, there is no severe disagreement between Protestants and Catholics on the idea of justification.

Would that be correct of me to say?

Actually, there is a difference in the Protestant and Catholic view of justification. Protestantism says justification is punctiliar** only**, (one moment in time for all time). Catholicism says justification is punctiliar but NOT only for it is a process throughout life until death.
Also, Protestantism teaches imputed justification** only** which is a declarative juridical act of God; God is the judge, Jesus is our lawyer, God **only **covers our sin with the righteousness of Christ, ergo imputation so when God sees us, He sees Christ’s covering us; i.e., a blanket covering us; Christ is the blanket over us.
Catholicism as you know, teaches infused justification; that when God justifies us, He infuses His very life within our soul so that we are changed ontologically, not just in mere affectations, so that 2 Cor 5:17 says we are a “new creation” we are not just declared to be new but we are a new creation.
I argue that the Protestant view of justification (imputation) does NOT actually affirm a real ontological change within since our sin is NOT actually erradicated, it is still there only cloaked under the blanket of Christ. Catholicism says Christ changes your soul and the Holy Spirit puts an permenant mark on your soul when you are justified so that your whole being is made anew. Sorry I am out of time. Hope that helps.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

But Bishopite, even if this is the case, it is still a matter, it seems, of semantics, much like what drove the Coptic Church from us so long ago (monophysites vs miaphysites).

If Protestants accept that salvation is a process that begins in Baptism (even if Baptism by desire, but this is a different issue), and is hopefully, though not certainly, perserved in love until death (avoiding the heresy of Calvin), and that all this is by the Grace of Christ alone, to the Glory of God alone, what would be the problem?

The big issue is that their use of the word “justification” would be different from our’s.

Beyond this, as I think was agreed upon in an above post, if God declares something to be the case, it must be, for God speaks only Truth.

 

[SyCarl]

Actually, there is a difference in the Protestant and Catholic view of justification. Protestantism says justification is punctiliar** only**, (one moment in time for all time). Catholicism says justification is punctiliar but NOT only for it is a process throughout life until death.
Also, Protestantism teaches imputed justification** only** which is a declarative juridical act of God; God is the judge, Jesus is our lawyer, God **only **covers our sin with the righteousness of Christ, ergo imputation so when God sees us, He sees Christ’s covering us; i.e., a blanket covering us; Christ is the blanket over us.
Catholicism as you know, teaches infused justification; that when God justifies us, He infuses His very life within our soul so that we are changed ontologically, not just in mere affectations, so that 2 Cor 5:17 says we are a “new creation” we are not just declared to be new but we are a new creation.
I argue that the Protestant view of justification (imputation) does NOT actually affirm a real ontological change within since our sin is NOT actually erradicated, it is still there only cloaked under the blanket of Christ. Catholicism says Christ changes your soul and the Holy Spirit puts an permenant mark on your soul when you are justified so that your whole being is made anew. Sorry I am out of time. Hope that helps.

The infusion of new life would take place at regeneration for Protestants when we are given a spirit capable of wanting to please God. Justification cannot mean that we are made righteous because to be righteous in God’s sight is to be without any taint of sin. However, we still have a sinful nature that we have to struggle against and we can still sin. Since we have that nature, we have not been made righteous.

 

[VociMike]

SyCarl, I want to say that I very much appreciate both the tone and the substance of your comments on this thread. Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

The infusion of new life would take place at regeneration for Protestants when we are given a spirit capable of wanting to please God.

Catholics call this prevenient Grace. For us, rejeneration happens at baptism.

Justification cannot mean that we are made righteous because to be righteous in God’s sight is to be without any taint of sin. However, we still have a sinful nature that we have to struggle against and we can still sin. Since we have that nature, we have not been made righteous.

No, it means “declared” righteous, by the merits of Christ on the cross. It is a legal description of what happens spiritually. Not that a person is free of concupiscence, but that we have been covered by Christ, and are no longer held in judgment for sin.

Search for the “works salvation” thread there is a lot of detail.

 

[Michael_G]

Protestants say faith alone but not faith that is alone. By this we mean that faith will inevitably lead to works which are the evidence of faith. The dead faith in James 2 is an intelectual belief, assenting to the truth but not relying on it. If you have true faith it involves accepting, repenting, trusting and relying on Jesus and His sacrifice. So faith will be accompanied by works, but Protestants don’t attribute merits to those works. This is to stress that it is by grace alone that we are saved. If our works play a part in meritting salvation then it is not be grace alone.
I don’t know if this is exactly the right way to look at it, but I liken it to works being a one way thing. We already owe God all the good works we can do. Therefore we must do the good works but not expect anything in return since we are only doing our duty. So while we must do the good works, God does not grant salvation because of them. I think Jesus sums it up in Luke 17.

You seem to be negating that faith comes by grace also, so if you are saved by faith it cannot be grace alone. the reality is both faith and works come by the grace of God, the big question on both counts is how we respond to that grace. We are saved by grace, but no works no salvation, no faith or rejection of faith no salvation. Actually ignorance of the faith one can still be saved by grace, which acts on the faith we are capable of having such as their must be a God, and the grace which produces good works, works of love and compassion. I hope I am making some sense. here.

Navarre Commentary: James 2:18-19
. “The truth of faith includes not only inner belief, but also outward profession, which is expressed not only by declaration of one’s belief, but also by the actions by which a person shows that he has faith” (St Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 124, a. 5).

1. St James goes as far as to** compare a faith without works with the kind of faith devils have,** for
   they do believe: they are forced to believe by the evidence of the signs (miracles and prophecies, for example) which support Christian teaching (cf. Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 5, a. 2). However, that faith is not saving faith: on the contrary, it causes them to cringe by reminding them of divine justice and eternal punishment.

Commenting on this verses, **St Bede **says that it is one thing to believe God. **Another thing to believe in God, and another to believe “towards” God **(creder in illum). “Believing him is believing that what he says is true. Believing in him is believing that he is God. Believing ‘towards’ him is loving him. Many people, even bad people, believe that God tells the truth: they believe it is the truth and they do not want to, are too lazy to, follow the way truth points. Believing that he is God is something the devils are able to do. But believing and tending towards him is true only of those who love God, who are Christians not in name only but whose actions and lives prove them to be so. For without love faith if of no avail With love, it is the faith of a Christan: without love it is the faith of the devil” (Super lac. Expositio, ad loc.).

** a faith that is alive expresses itself in actions, especially in acts of charity. **

St Bernard explains, “so too good works show that faith is alive. The soul gives life to the body, causing it to move and feel: charity gives life to faith, causing it to act, as the Apostle says, “faith working through love’ (Gal 5:6). Just as the body dies when its soul leaves it, so faith dies when charity grows cold. Therefore, when you see someone who is active in good works and happy and eager in his conduct, you can be sure that faith is alive in him: his life clearly proves it to be so” (second Sermon on the Holy Day of Easter, 1).

**Gal 5:6 **but faith which worketh by love.

Commentary:

true faith, genuine** faith, moves us to love Christ and, as a consequence of this, to love everyone without exception**. The faith to which St Paul is referring can be described, as the Apostle** St James implies (Jas 2:17), as “living faith”, that is, faith which is translated into a profound conviction which**** motivates us to love: this is “faith working through love**”.

 

[misslollipops]

To give a bit of background,

I came to the Catholic Church from atheism. As such, I have a very poor understanding of what some Protestants believe. I tried to find out at CARM, but was terribly unsuccessful. I will try more here.

What does this faith look like? How does one have it? What is it?

If this is a repeat of another thread, please let me know.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb11:1
Open bible to Eph 2:8-9 to read about being saved by grace through faith

 

[Bishopite]

[SyCarl;2743639]The infusion of new life would take place at regeneration for Protestants when we are given a spirit capable of wanting to please God. Justification cannot mean that we are made righteous because to be righteous in God’s sight is to be without any taint of sin.

You must be a Reformed Protestant Christian, for many Protestants wouldn’t put it that way. They would say you are justified when you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. And righteousness does not mean we are free from sin.
Luke 1:5-6
“5In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, * of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.”

Surely Zechariah and Elizabeth had sin?

If imputed justification doesn’t actually take away our sin but merely covers it (which is what it is said to do) then we aren’t actually made a new creation, just given the affectations of a new creation. We aren’t actually partakers of the divine nature 2 Peter 1:4. Justification does mean we are made righteous, the two words mean the same thing.
The Greek word for righteousness is dikaiosune which is from the Hebrew word tsedaqah in Gen 15:6 means righteousness which Rom 4:3 is quoting. To be justified before God is to be made righteous and is an on going process as it was for Abraham.

However, we still have a sinful nature that we have to struggle against and we can still sin. Since we have that nature, we have not been made righteous.

Yes, we have a sinful nature, it is what Catholicism calls concupiscience, the tendency toward sin. That you say we “can’t be made righteous” only gives credence to what I mentioned earlier that imputed justification doesn’t actually make us righteous within, because it can’t, for our sins remain. And that’s why I believe it is not the scriptural model. Infused justification is more in-line with God not just declaring us just, but actually doing what He said and making us a new creation 2 Cor 5:17.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Actually, there is a difference in the Protestant and Catholic view of justification. Protestantism says justification is punctiliar** only**, (one moment in time for all time). Catholicism says justification is punctiliar but NOT only for it is a process throughout life until death.
Also, Protestantism teaches imputed justification** only** which is a declarative juridical act of God; God is the judge, Jesus is our lawyer, God **only **covers our sin with the righteousness of Christ, ergo imputation so when God sees us, He sees Christ’s covering us; i.e., a blanket covering us; Christ is the blanket over us.
Catholicism as you know, teaches infused justification; that when God justifies us, He infuses His very life within our soul so that we are changed ontologically, not just in mere affectations, so that 2 Cor 5:17 says we are a “new creation” we are not just declared to be new but we are a new creation.
I argue that the Protestant view of justification (imputation) does NOT actually affirm a real ontological change within since our sin is NOT actually erradicated, it is still there only cloaked under the blanket of Christ. Catholicism says Christ changes your soul and the Holy Spirit puts an permenant mark on your soul when you are justified so that your whole being is made anew. Sorry I am out of time. Hope that helps.

Just to let you know, I’ve been a Protestant all my life, and my family and many of my friends are Protestant, and I’ve never before heard the view you claim is that of Protestants. Maybe it is the case that some Protestants believe what you said they believe about being covered by Christ but not actually transformed, but many others believe otherwise. My belief has always been the same as the view you say Catholics hold to. All the Protestants I know say that sin is actually eradicated, not just covered.

I don’t know that much about the Catholic view of salvation, so that hinders my understanding of where differences might lie. The only difference I have really been observing so far (though there may be many others I don’t know of) regards baptism. So far as I know, many Protestants hold baptism to be a symbolic act of unification with Christ’s death and resurrection rather than an act that involves actual cleansing of sins. The cleansing of sins is regarded to have occurred the moment they earnestly pray for forgiveness and are transformed and born again in Christ.

There are so many different kinds of Protestant that I can’t speak for all of them when I say this, but that is what those of my acquaintance believe.