Saved by faith, AND NOT works?

[davidv]

Just a brief question here that has occurred to me since I took part in this discussion yesterday. Does the Catholic Church really teach that “good works” are required? I am thinking of the case of someone baptized. My understanding is that if a baptized person avoids what the Catholic Church calls mortal sin they are saved soley on the basis of the baptism. Is this correct about the Catholic view?

Jesus and His church teach in the affirmative as well as the restrictive, e.g., love your neighbor vs. do not kill. Simply avoiding evil won’t get you to obey the command to Love. So, no that is not a correct understanding of the Catholic view.

 

[SyCarl]

That depends on what people mean when they say “works”. I think it must be something different than St. Paul, who I believe was talking of circumcision (etc.).

Performing a baptism involves work. Just ask the Priest.

The faith in this case is supplied by the whole Church, for the child. And the faith of the Church is definitely a working faith, and not mere assent.

"…as “As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i), “in the Church of our Saviour little children believe through others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism.” Nor is it a hindrance to their salvationAugustine says, writing to the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), “little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost.” And the unbelief of their own parents, even if after Baptism these strive to infect them with the worship of demons, hurts not the children. For as Augustine says (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i) “when once the child has been begotten by the will of others, he cannot subsequently be held by the bonds of another’s sin so long as he consent not with his will, according to” Ezekiel 18:4: “‘As the soul of the Father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.’ Yet he contracted from Adam that which was loosed by the grace of this sacrament, because as yet he was not endowed with a separate existence.” But the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, and communicates the goods of one member to another.” (Summa Theologica, 3rd Part, Q. 68, Art. 9, Rep. Obj. 2)

But the works of the priest etc are not the works of the one being baptized.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Again - we are speaking of justification…sanctification involves the inner working of the Holy Spirit in the one who was miraculously saved and the inevitable fruit is love and good works.

So the person who is justified is automatically saved, and this involves no works, but simply faith… is this what you are saying?

If so, then what distinguishes faith from works, in terms of the definition?

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

But the works of the priest etc are not the works of the one being baptized.

But these works, primarily the work of faith, are credited to the one being baptized, as he is part of the Church.

 

[SyCarl]

Jesus and His church teach in the affirmative as well as the restrictive, e.g., love your neighbor vs. do not kill. Simply avoiding evil won’t get you to obey the command to Love. So, no that is not a correct understanding of the Catholic view.

My understanding was that this was the reasoning at one time applied to Protestants. If they were baptized their sins were forgiven, but since they did not have the advantage of the sacrament of penance, they would be saved only if they avoided grave or mortal sin.

Also if you are baptized and die before you have the chance to do good, would you not be viewed as saved, even without works, if you did not commit grave sin?

 

[Linkowski]

So the person who is justified is automatically saved, and this involves no works, but simply faith… is this what you are saying?

If so, then what distinguishes faith from works, in terms of the definition?

When we are spekaing of works AT JUSTFICATION, we are speaking of works done to find favor with God - with the expectation that God will pay him his wage…but that is not grace (which is received by faith).

Ro 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

So, when we are saying that we are justified by faith alone, we are saying that we are justified by faith apart from any works done to merit salvation. Works of love inevitably follow and are evidence of ones faith…1 John gives all kinds of evidence:

To name a few:

1Jo 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.

1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.

1Jo 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit (PRACTICE)sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Etc.

 

[SyCarl]

But these works, primarily the work of faith, are credited to the one being baptized, as he is part of the Church.

This is something I have a problem with. Since we already owe God all the works we can do, how can there be anything left to credit to another? If the Church’s works can be credited to another, how does this then affect the necessity of good works by the individual.

Also, according to Catholc doctrine, the person is cleansed from sin at the time of baptism, so the actual act of baptism preceed, or at best conicide, with the cleansing. Do they still count as works then?

 

[Philthy]

We are “justified” by faith apart from any works done to merit salvation. The only place that our works have are to evidence our faith - this evidence will be used publicly in the judgment to vindicate those who hav been born of God. We and justified by faith **that **works - not faith AND works. This justification of God starts the Christian life.

I disagree. James goes to extremes to explain that any notion of faith apart from works, ie “faith alone” is useless. The concept of any public display of faith is completely unbiblical IMHO - even praying in public is discouraged. The most obvious, direct statement of this reality of the inseparability of faith and works is from James 2:

“What good is my brothers if a man says he has faith, but has not works?” Employing the use of rhetoric to say that it is no good at all. Notice there is no reference to a public display of works. He later goes on to say that such faith is “dead” and that a person is “justified by works and not by faith alone.” Even Luther understood exactly what James was saying - why else would he attempt to remove it from the canon of Scripture? Usually Protestants explain this verse away by claiming that the person in consideration does not have “true” faith (undefinable), but simply claims to have faith. Once again, I disagree. The point James is making is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAITH WITHOUT WORKS. That is why he describes the individual as claiming to have faith, rather than actually having faith. And that is why he doesnt entertain the question Protestants would like to pretend is a possiblity, “What if a man has true faith but does not have works?” James does not entertain such a notion because, as he repeatedly says, faith without works simply is not faith. Period. Even Abrahams faith was tested by God to reveal its genuineness (cf Genesis 22:12-16).
One thing I will grant the “faith alone” crowd: the initial conversion of heart to trust in Christ as Savior with the intent to commit one’s life in obedience to Christ - what the person has, does and hopes for - meets my personal criteria for ustification such that if that person should die immediately from that experience then they die justified. That does not, however, guarantee them salvation should they later reject their commitment to Christ through mortal sin.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

When we are spekaing of works AT JUSTFICATION, we are speaking of works done to find favor with God - with the expectation that God will pay him his wage…but that is not grace (which is received by faith).

Except that God’s grace has brought forth these very works, and as God’s grace is overflowing, it does not serve the Church as isolated individuals, but the Church as one body, and even from the Church into the world.

Our good works may be meritorious, but it is the grace of Christ Jesus alone that moves us to perform them.

Now, however, we get to “this is not grace (received by faith)”. What is faith, that makes it so it has nothing to do with works?

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

This is something I have a problem with. Since we already owe God all the works we can do, how can there be anything left to credit to another? If the Church’s works can be credited to another, how does this then affect the necessity of good works by the individual.

The underlying concept would be two-fold, that God grace moves all good things within us, such as faith, hope, and charity, and these things impact the world to the glory of God. We are not saved as individuals, but as one body.

Also, according to Catholc doctrine, the person is cleansed from sin at the time of baptism, so the actual act of baptism preceed, or at best conicide, with the cleansing. Do they still count as works then?

I am not sure what you are asking here.

First, as I have asked, I would need a definition of “works”. If by work you mean “motion of an object over a distance”, then yes, baptism qualifies as work, because it requires the moving of water.

I do not think that this is what you mean, but I am curious as to what you do mean, so I may better address your question.

 

[po18guy]

What does it mean to have faith, and not works?

It was my understanding that Trent condemned “faith without works” as being logically inconsistant, or as being “faith by mere assent to Truth without change”, which was condemned by St. James as being possessed even by the demons.

Recluses can have faith. But, if they do not act on the love they are commanded by Christ to have for their neighbor, their faith is actually dead. Love leads to action-the caring for those in prison, sick, naked, hungry, etc.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

Recluses can have faith. But, if they do not act on the love they are commanded by Christ to have for their neighbor, their faith is actually dead. Love leads to action-the caring for those in prison, sick, naked, hungry, etc.

I would agree with this, because I would use a vocabulary where the meaning of “faith” is the same as “assent”, and “works” mean either “works of the law (i.e. circumcision)” or “corporeal and spiritual works of mercy”, depending on the context.

In this sense, both the faith of the Church and the works of the Church are necessary for salvation, but both find their origin in God.

But Protestants seem to be using different definitions for these words.

I want to know what the definitions are.

 

[loscampos]

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God.” Eph 2:8

Protestants are misunderstanding what Grace is. Grace in this instance, is an allowance. by the Grace of God I sin, by the grace of god there is hell. Paul is saying that God allows salvation; the act of salvation is a gift. But how does one receive salvation or sanctifying grace? By faith, which is a living entity in us, through our works. Works are important because they are the life of faith, if your faith has no works, it dies. So the question is, if your faith is dead are you saved? No, because in order to be saved you must have faith, but if your faith is dead, how is one to be saved. This is why James says that even the demons believe in god. He is saying that, believing in the existence of God is not enough.

Another example about faith is Paul in Romans 3:27 “Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.” In this example Paul is saying don’t talk trash about your salvation; just because you think you have done something that gives you a free pass. Like me teasing a catholic who hasn’t been confirmed and going, “I’m going to heaven and you are not, because you haven’t been confirmed”. Also the last part of the quote “by the law of faith", isn’t anywhere else explicitly in the old or new testament. so what exactly is the law of faith then?

these two short passages would lead one to believe that faith isn’t as simple as saying “I do". First faith can be alive, then it can be dead and now there are laws of faith.

If we look at Paul in Gal 3:24 “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” Paul is saying we are justified by faith, so in other words we must have faith to be justified. If we are justified by faith and our faith is justified by works; is our faith still justified without works? And if our faith isn’t justified , are we still saved? According to James 2:18 - 26, the answer is no.

I know that there are a lot more quotes I could use, but time constraints prevent me from going over all of them. I leave with a verse from Revelation 20: 12 - 13
“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.” It’s ironic how people in hell are judged by works and not faith.

 

[loscampos]

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: the gift of God.” Eph 2:8

Protestants are misunderstanding what Grace is. Grace in this instance, is an allowance. by the Grace of God I sin, by the grace of god there is hell. Paul is saying that God allows salvation; the act of salvation is a gift. But how does one receive salvation or sanctifying grace? By faith, which is a living entity in us, through our works. Works are important because they are the life of faith, if your faith has no works, it dies. So the question is, if your faith is dead are you saved? No, because in order to be saved you must have faith, but if your faith is dead, how is one to be saved. This is why James says that even the demons believe in god. He is saying that, believing in the existence of God is not enough.

Another example about faith is Paul in Romans 3:27 “Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.” In this example Paul is saying don’t talk trash about your salvation; just because you think you have done something that gives you a free pass. Like me teasing a catholic who hasn’t been confirmed and going, “I’m going to heaven and you are not, because you haven’t been confirmed”. Also the last part of the quote “by the law of faith", isn’t anywhere else explicitly or implicitly in the old or new testament. so what exactly is the law of faith then?

these two short passages would lead one to believe that faith isn’t as simple as saying “I do". First faith can be alive, then it can be dead and now there are laws of faith.

If we look at Paul in Gal 3:24 “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” Paul is saying we are justified by faith, so in other words we must have faith to be justified. If we are justified by faith and our faith is justified by works; can our faith be justified without works? And if our faith isn’t justified , are we still saved? According to James 2:18 - 26, the answer is no.

I know that there are a lot more quotes I could use, but time constraints prevent me from going over all of them. I leave with a verse from Revelation 20: 12 - 13
“And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.” It’s ironic how people in hell are judged by works and not faith.

 

[po18guy]

I would agree with this, because I would use a vocabulary where the meaning of “faith” is the same as “assent”, and “works” mean either “works of the law (i.e. circumcision)” or “corporeal and spiritual works of mercy”, depending on the context.

In this sense, both the faith of the Church and the works of the Church are necessary for salvation, but both find their origin in God.

But Protestants seem to be using different definitions for these words.

I want to know what the definitions are.

This is the crux of the matter. Terms get redefined and so we are actually not speaking of the same things. This is particularly noticeable with Mormons. They have redefined trinity, and as such, their baptisms are not recognized by any major or mainstream christian groups.

It seems that Luther’s disobedience caused much more than just a split in the Body of Christ.

Christ’s peace be with you.

 

[crisco]

Interesting discussion everyone.

Although I agree that much miscommunication occurs when discussing this topic, and that semantics does cloud the playing field, there are nevertheless some meaningful differences that should be identified. Some of these issues include:
the notion that for Protestants, sanctification and justification are separate from each other - such that the degree of one’s sanctification (i.e., progress towards holiness) has no bearing on one’s justification/righteousness. It is easy for the Calvinist to say that the elect WILL persevere and follow through with good works. But, we know that even the most devout Christian still stumbles, and sins throughout his/her lifetime. This lack of ontological and behavioural righteousness presents us with a gap in knowledge of what happens between death and heaven - i.e., what is the process that renders the individual ‘truly’ righteous (which is required to face God), and not simply considered as though they were truly righteous? Catholic theology proposes the mechanism of purgatory as a solution, but what is the Protestant answer?

Secondly, and this is one question that continually confounds me - imputed righteousness (delivered by Grace through faith) as the means of one time, once for all, justification demands a system of penal substitution. God has to punish Christ (instead of us) since our sin in imputed to Jesus, in order to satisfy His justice. Now, there are several problems with this - the most obvious being that the wage of our sin is eternal separation from God. I’ve read several apologetics that try to explain this issue, despite the fact that Jesus is not in hell, eternally separated from the Father.

Anyways - I like your thread Saultentmaker.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

This is particularly noticeable with Mormons. They have redefined trinity, and as such, their baptisms are not recognized by any major or mainstream christian groups.

Exactly!

The Coptic Church and Catholics split over a redefinition of Trinity (as did the Nestorians before that, and the Eastern Orthodox after that). Much of the disagreements, centered around the filioque, what someone means by “person”, and “being”, etc., are often understood differently by different cultures, often based on language.

Most people now agree that these are semantic, and not substantive.

I am wondering if the differences between the common modern Protestant understanding of justification and the Catholic understanding of justification are of a similar nature.

Copts and Catholics accept the same trinity, but use different language to describe Him.

Mormons and Catholics use different language, and Mormons reject the very concept.

Are Protestants rejecting the Catholic understanding of justification by grace through faith, or do they accept it, while using a different language to describe it?

 

[Linkowski]

I disagree. James goes to extremes to explain that any notion of faith apart from works, ie “faith alone” is useless. The concept of any public display of faith is completely unbiblical IMHO - even praying in public is discouraged. The most obvious, direct statement of this reality of the inseparability of faith and works is from James 2:

“What good is my brothers if a man says he has faith, but has not works?” Employing the use of rhetoric to say that it is no good at all. Notice there is no reference to a public display of works. He later goes on to say that such faith is “dead” and that a person is “justified by works and not by faith alone.” Even Luther understood exactly what James was saying - why else would he attempt to remove it from the canon of Scripture? Usually Protestants explain this verse away by claiming that the person in consideration does not have “true” faith (undefinable), but simply claims to have faith. Once again, I disagree. The point James is making is that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FAITH WITHOUT WORKS. That is why he describes the individual as claiming to have faith, rather than actually having faith. And that is why he doesnt entertain the question Protestants would like to pretend is a possiblity, “What if a man has true faith but does not have works?” James does not entertain such a notion because, as he repeatedly says, faith without works simply is not faith. Period. Even Abrahams faith was tested by God to reveal its genuineness (cf Genesis 22:12-16).
One thing I will grant the “faith alone” crowd: the initial conversion of heart to trust in Christ as Savior with the intent to commit one’s life in obedience to Christ - what the person has, does and hopes for - meets my personal criteria for ustification such that if that person should die immediately from that experience then they die justified. That does not, however, guarantee them salvation should they later reject their commitment to Christ through mortal sin.

What you need to understand is that James is tackling a different angle than Paul is…He is speaking of the nature of the faith that is saving faith. In James 2 - he is showing what dead, useless, demonic faith is - and how well does the scripture say…

Jas 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can **that faith **save him?

So - you have dead faith…

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

Demonic faith…

James 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

Useless…

James 2:20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

What are we speaking of - dead faith. What kind of justification are we speaking of?? The proof of one’s faith - the evidence. This is a different justification than in Romans which is the declaration of one to be righteous at the time of the new birth. That is in event that begins the Christian life. James is speaking of the evidencing of that faith in the life of the Christian. How is this communicated in the passage???

Jas 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
James 2:18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; **show me **your faith without the works, and I will **show you **my faith by my works.”

Faith that is by itself is not faith at all - being by itself…

James 2:17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

We are saved by faith that works - not faith and works. Faith that is by itself is dead - it is the nature of the faith that is the problem. If it is not a faith that is satisfied in all things that God is for us in Christ, then it is dead faith. Faith not mingled with repentance leads to dead faith that falls away and/or is unfruitful (see the parable of the sower).

Also, those who have been born of God will not commit mortal sin - utterly falling away completely which is what mortal sin is…

1Jo 5:16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.
17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.
18 We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.

In Christ…

 

[Linkowski]

Interesting discussion everyone.

Although I agree that much miscommunication occurs when discussing this topic, and that semantics does cloud the playing field, there are nevertheless some meaningful differences that should be identified. Some of these issues include:
the notion that for Protestants, sanctification and justification are separate from each other - such that the degree of one’s sanctification (i.e., progress towards holiness) has no bearing on one’s justification/righteousness. It is easy for the Calvinist to say that the elect WILL persevere and follow through with good works. But, we know that even the most devout Christian still stumbles, and sins throughout his/her lifetime. This lack of ontological and behavioural righteousness presents us with a gap in knowledge of what happens between death and heaven - i.e., what is the process that renders the individual ‘truly’ righteous (which is required to face God), and not simply considered as though they were truly righteous? Catholic theology proposes the mechanism of purgatory as a solution, but what is the Protestant answer?

Secondly, and this is one question that continually confounds me - imputed righteousness (delivered by Grace through faith) as the means of one time, once for all, justification demands a system of penal substitution. God has to punish Christ (instead of us) since our sin in imputed to Jesus, in order to satisfy His justice. Now, there are several problems with this - the most obvious being that the wage of our sin is eternal separation from God. I’ve read several apologetics that try to explain this issue, despite the fact that Jesus is not in hell, eternally separated from the Father.

Anyways - I like your thread Saultentmaker.

What would always be beneficial is to get together in a group - face to face. We know that cannot happen but that would clear up these misconceptions.

 

[po18guy]

Exactly!

The Coptic Church and Catholics split over a redefinition of Trinity (as did the Nestorians before that, and the Eastern Orthodox after that). Much of the disagreements, centered around the filioque, what someone means by “person”, and “being”, etc., are often understood differently by different cultures, often based on language.

Most people now agree that these are semantic, and not substantive.

I am wondering if the differences between the common modern Protestant understanding of justification and the Catholic understanding of justification are of a similar nature.

Copts and Catholics accept the same trinity, but use different language to describe Him.

Mormons and Catholics use different language, and Mormons reject the very concept.

Are Protestants rejecting the Catholic understanding of justification by grace through faith, or do they accept it, while using a different language to describe it?

Excellent points, all. “Sola fide” and “sola scriptura” were developed after the Protestant deformation. Both were useful to explain the separation, but not to lead one to the fullness of God. It was a redefinition after the fact. Human nature to do this, though.