Saved by faith, AND NOT works?

[Bishopite]

Lief Erikson;2746066]Protestants, or at least a significant number of them, do believe in sanctification as an ongoing process.

Yes, you are correct. Sanctification to Protestants is an ongoing process however justification is only a one-time event and in order to stay in a state of justification works are not required for many Protestants, it is only that they will do works, not that they have to do works of charity [love]. I was a Baptist for thirty-eight years, works didn’t have anything to do with justification. Once I was saved I was always saved, if I did works of charity (Gal 5:6) or not.

The Protestants I know believe that when we are saved, Christ enters us and begins transforming us from inside out, creating good works through us by his grace and transforming our personalities to make them more like his. They think that born again believers become more and more like Christ throughout their lives in the process of sanctification. Though they are already saved, they need to still clash with the sinful nature and only become more and more like Christ with time.

Well, can we at least agree that most Protestants don’t know imupted justification vs infused? Catholics are often said to be ignorant of their faith (and many are) however, many Protestants don’t know their faith well either.
Protestants do not teach that one needs to become more and more like Christ in order to be justified. To be sanctified yes, but not justified. They split the two apart, falsely of course. Catholicism says when we are being justified, we are also being sanctified, as Paul uses both interchangebly, i.e., 1 Cor 6:11.

Is the Protestant view of sanctification essentially the same thing as the Catholic view of salvation as a process?

No because in Catholicism after our initial justification, we still need to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” Phil 2:12 NOT meaning we “work our way to heaven” as in doing personal works but MEANING we have to do works (James 2:17-24) which are the kind of works we do under grace, (Gal 5:6, Eph 2:8-10, Mt 25:34-40). So the works we are doing after becoming justified (through faith and baptism John 3:5, Mark 16:16, Titus 3:5) are works done BY God’s grace, Eph 2:10.
As we are being justified, we are also being sanctified, as Paul says in 1 Cor 6:11
“That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”
Notice Paul is using “washed” a reference to baptism, then Paul says…you were sanctified (given sanctifying grace at baptism) and THEN Paul says “you were justified.”

Or when you talk about salvation as a process, are you referring to the sacraments like baptism that Catholics believe are also crucial to salvation?

The sacraments are physical by which God uses to impart supernatural grace upon a person, so since they are modes of grace they are certainly crucial to salvation. And salvation is a process…we are saved Eph 2:8-9,2 Tim 1:9 we are being saved Phil 2:12,1 Peter 1:9 and we will be saved Mt 10:22, Mt 24:13.

That’s good. I don’t think many Protestants would disagree with that, though. Although they do think we are saved from our sins in a one time event, when we turn to Christ in faith, they do recognize that if we sin and fail to repent, God “disciplines us as sons.”

Sure we all believe that.

I really don’t know any Protestants who believe that. All of the ones I know believe in infused righteousness and a transformation of the believer over time through sanctification to become more and more like God, and finally (in heaven) sinless.

Actually, Protestants don’t accept infused grace but imputed grace. Yes they do believe one is changed within as do Catholics, and on this we both agree, however, their theology is that when you are justified Christ cloaks you with His righteousness, He covers (imputes) grace and it is this where I believe their position is lacking for an actual change of the person to occur (2 Cor 5:17), one has to be actually changed within, not just merely covered.

Well said.

 

[VociMike]

When we are speaking 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).
…
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:

There is a great inconsistency in this view, however. Nobody would do works to gain favor with God before they even believed in God and understood that they needed salvation. So I maintain that the kind of works you are describing are quite impossible. It is impossible for a person to do works to gain the favor of a God he does not believe in, or to gain a salvation he does not know he needs.

Your very definition of the works that cannot gain salvation requires that the person doing the works first have faith!

 

[VociMike]

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.

It can also include praying for others, so even recluses can be saved.

 

[Philthy]

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.

Yeah, so what? What is the nature of a saving faith as revealed by James…faith working through love. Same as Paul.

link:

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…

Correct a faith apart from works is a dead faith. If you attempt to separate faith from works it results in non-saving faith, faith that is not part of the life of Christ. That is Catholic. It refutes “faith alone” the way you and many Protestants attempt to present faith. If you somehow meant to support a position contrary to the Catholic understanding of faith and works, you have not only failed, but have actually supported the Catholic position: faith apart from works is dead - it doesnt save, it doesnt justify.

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

link:

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…

Not only that - a reiteration of the reality that faith is inseparable from works (remembering the caveat from my original post), but faith is revealed by the works it produces. Can you know that you “have faith” apart from the works it produces? You seem to think so, but Scripture reveals a different picture. Faith is revealed through works. Abrahams faith was revealed to God through works (Genesis 22:12-16) and our own faith is revealed through works, not only to others, but to ourselves as well.

link:

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.

If you think that such a distinction somehow supports the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, then you are sadly mistaken. All you have done, again, is firmly established that only faith with works saves. That is the Catholic position my friend. You can pretend that you have forwarded something different with this attempt at articulation (faith that works vs faith and works) but I dont see anything different between the two.

 

[po18guy]

It can also include praying for others, so even recluses can be saved.

Thus avoiding corporal works of mercy? Prayer may very well benefit someone in a hospital, but seeing them in person can often do as much-especially if the two are combined. It’s a balanced approach: left hand/right hand, yin/yang, alpha/omega…

 

[Bishopite]

Thus avoiding corporal works of mercy? Prayer may very well benefit someone in a hospital, but seeing them in person can often do as much-especially if the two are combined. It’s a balanced approach: left hand/right hand, yin/yang, alpha/omega…

Perhaps what VociMike is saying is that prayer is a work and IS an act of mercy just as much as a physical act. Works of mercy [love/charity] described by James 1 and 2 are not limited to “physical” works; take for instance a severely physically handicapped person who can’t do actual physical works of charity, they can still do works of charity by praying for others, and God sees this as good just as much as the physically able do what they can.
Luke 12:48
“… Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required;…”

 

[po18guy]

Perhaps what VociMike is saying is that prayer is a work and IS an act of mercy just as much as a physical act. Works of mercy [love/charity] described by James 1 and 2 are not limited to “physical” works; take for instance a severely physically handicapped person who can’t do actual physical works of charity, they can still do works of charity by praying for others, and God sees this as good just as much as the physically able do what they can.
Luke 12:48
“… Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required;…”

True. The shame is that God knows what each of us is capable of…

 

[VociMike]

Perhaps what VociMike is saying is that prayer is a work and IS an act of mercy just as much as a physical act. Works of mercy [love/charity] described by James 1 and 2 are not limited to “physical” works; take for instance a severely physically handicapped person who can’t do actual physical works of charity, they can still do works of charity by praying for others, and God sees this as good just as much as the physically able do what they can.

Yes, exactly. And it’s not just about one’s physical limitations, but also about psychological makeup, one’s situation in life, and who knows how many other characteristics. It’s all about living out one’s faith in love, and there are as many ways to live out one’s Christian faith in love as their are Christians.

 

[Linkowski]

There is a great inconsistency in this view, however. Nobody would do works to gain favor with God before they even believed in God and understood that they needed salvation. So I maintain that the kind of works you are describing are quite impossible. It is impossible for a person to do works to gain the favor of a God he does not believe in, or to gain a salvation he does not know he needs.

Your very definition of the works that cannot gain salvation requires that the person doing the works first have faith!

I did!!..you are not perceiving the issue. “Religious” people end up self-righteous, prideful, people that end up in eternal punishment.

 

[heisenburg]

I did!!..you are not perceiving the issue. “Religious” people end up self-righteous, prideful, people that end up in eternal punishment.

If anyone ends up in this state, Catholic or Protestant they are wrong… They only thing I will say is that religious people CAN end up…

Not all religious people become snooty.

But thats an aside…

In Christ

 

[VociMike]

I did!!..you are not perceiving the issue. “Religious” people end up self-righteous, prideful, people that end up in eternal punishment.

OK, I never know if we’re talking OSAS salvation or salvation as a lifelong process. What I said is true of OSAS salvation, but not of salvation as a lifelong process.

As to your other comment, self-righteous prideful behavior can attach to many other “anchors” as well. I have seen people who were self-righteous and prideful simply because they thought they were saved and others weren’t.

 

[Bishopite]

I did!!..you are not perceiving the issue. “Religious” people end up self-righteous, prideful, people that end up in eternal punishment.

When you say “Religious” people you obvoiusly do mean those who appear to be holy on the outside but aren’t on the inside, like those in James 1:26.
“26If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.”

I say this because to be “Religious” isn’t necessarily against scripture.
“27Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

 

[Bishopite]

[Saul.Tentmaker;2746895]This assumes that there is more than a semantic difference between imputed and infused righteousness. In both cases, from this short conversation, it seems as though we are truly righteous in our justification. Are we so because God makes us so, or because God delcares us so, thereby making us so? Is this the distinction?

We are because God makes us so. As He said in Gen 1:3 “let there be light” and there WAS light, so it is in our justification, God does what He says.

Are there more than semantic differences between imputed and infused righteousness? In other words, are people who are imputed as being righteous not truly righteous?

There are more than semantic issues. Protestant Christians who believe in imputed righteousness aren’t any less justified at all, they just don’t understand how changed we actually are.

There is one Protestant who has posted on this thread who claims this. Maybe you should ask him what his group is.

Oh, now that’s new to me. As I said earlier I read a Oneness Pentacostal website who teach this, but they aren’t considered Christians by the Catholic Church since they don’t accept the Trinity nor baptize in Trinitarian form.

Possibly. Or possibly Calvin, Luther, Zwingli truly believed salvation was a process, but used different vocabulary to describe it (again, if salvation means justification, and sanctification, and glorification, it seems all protestants posting here accept it as a process; I may easily be wrong).

Actually, neither Calvin, Luther nor Zwingli believed salvation was a process and neither do Protestants teach it. If some do then they don’t accept the reformational position of sola fide.

If it is simply meaning, and different words are used to achieve the same or similar concept, then the differences are semantic.

It’s not. The Protestant view is imputed righteousness; Christ covers us like a blanket, but we aren’t truly ontologically changed by their position.
the Catholic view of infused righteousness explains how we are truly ontologically changed within, which better explains 2 Cor 5:17.

So a Protestant would actually say, “I accept, in justification, a person is still not righteous, but God calls this person righteous anyway”? It’s possible, but in that case, either God is a liar, or something else is involved here.

They would say that we aren’t righteous in our person, our being (ontologically), because God imputes to us the righteousness of Christ extrisically NOT intristically, They say God covers us with Christ’s righteousness, again like a blanket over us, Christ is the blanket, we still remain
dirty intrinsically, imputation is an extrinsic change. When God sees us, He sees Christ because Christ covered us.

I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m just trying to understand.

No, problem here. I’ll try to give you the information that I know; surely I’m not an expert.
Catholicism teaches infused righteousness or being justified by infusion, intrinsically so that when we are baptized we receive the Holy Spirit within our being, God changes us ontologically within, He puts an indelable mark on our soul (intrinsically not just extristincally).
If you’ve been to a Catholic baptism, you’ve heard the saying that the child will receive an indelable mark upon their soul.
CCC…

2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.

2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man. 2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.

matt1618.freeyellow.com/2corinthians.html#2%20Corinthians%205:17-20

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

We are because God makes us so. As He said in Gen 1:3 “let there be light” and there WAS light, so it is in our justification, God does what He says.

No argument here.

Actually, neither Calvin, Luther nor Zwingli believed salvation was a process and neither do Protestants teach it. If some do then they don’t accept the reformational position of sola fide.

Not necessarily. The false doctrine of “sola fide” is not so connected to salvation as to justification as a part of salvation (I’ve started reading Luther and Calvin these past few days). Salvation is by the grace of God alone, as both Catholics and Protestants accept. Justification, as a part of salvation, is not merited, but imputed because of faith alone.

As for imputation, though there may have been a strong difference in the past, there is no longer, at least as far as most Lutherans are concerned.

"22.We confess together that God forgives sin by grace and at the same time frees human beings from sin’s enslaving power and imparts the gift of new life in Christ. When persons come by faith to share in Christ, God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love. These two aspects of God’s gracious action are not to be separated, for persons are by faith united with Christ, who in his person is our righteousness (1 * Cor* 1:30): both the forgiveness of sin and the saving presence of God himself. Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say that:

23.When Lutherans emphasize that the righteousness of Christ is our righteousness, their intention is above all to insist that the sinner is granted righteousness before God in Christ through the declaration of forgiveness and that only in union with Christ is one’s life renewed. When they stress that God’s grace is forgiving love (“the favor of God”[12]), they do not thereby deny the renewal of the Christian’s life. They intend rather to express that justification remains free from human cooperation and is not dependent on the life-renewing effects of grace in human beings.

24.When Catholics emphasize the renewal of the interior person through the reception of grace imparted as a gift to the believer,[13] they wish to insist that God’s forgiving grace always brings with it a gift of new life, which in the Holy Spirit becomes effective in active love. They do not thereby deny that God’s gift of grace in justification remains independent of human cooperation. [cf. Sources for section 4.2]."

Source.

As for the perspectives of the original reformers, I will need to continue reading what they wrote.

There is a fundamental difference, but it is outside the purview of the Protestant notion of Justification, and that is that Justification and Sanctification occur, and this completely, not by grace through faith alone, but by grace through baptism (which itself necessarily requires a source of faith, and that is the Church).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Eph 2:9 pretty clear- slavation is NOT of works

As a former Catholic, you must know that this is what the Church teaches.

We also know that salvation is not by faith alone.

James 2:24
24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Bishopite]

Not necessarily. The false doctrine of “sola fide” is not so connected to salvation as to justification as a part of salvation (I’ve started reading Luther and Calvin these past few days). Salvation is by the grace of God alone, as both Catholics and Protestants accept. Justification, as a part of salvation, is not merited, but imputed because of faith alone.

Yes you are correct that both sides affirm sola gratia, grace alone, however you just used the word “merited” a word with which Calvinists and Evangelicals wholeheartedly disagree using in any part of justification. In fact Calvinists would never say we can merit any good ever because of their view of Total depravity.
But what many don’t know is the term “merit” comes from the Latin word “meritum” which means reward not strict earning; only Christ can earn any good in the strict sense. So when we “merit” any good, we are actually receiving a reward since our works are essentially God’s works in us even though we cooperate in our free will by doing those good works. We can NOT do any good on our own, both sides affirm this, however we would say that with God’s grace we can and do good works.
5 point Calvnist’s also don’t accept the term cooperate (synergism) either, yet it IS scriptural indeed.

As for imputation, though there may have been a strong difference in the past, there is no longer, at least as far as most Lutherans are concerned.

For SOME Lutherans but not all. But for Calvinists and many Evangelicals they still abide by imputation.

As for the perspectives of the original reformers, I will need to continue reading what they wrote.

Yes. There are overlaps on both sides but there are still distinct differences and the differences were much wider during the reformation.

Luther wrote…
“They [the scholastics] say that we must believe in Christ and that faith is the foundation of salvation, but they say that this faith does not justify unless it is “formed by love.” This is not the truth of the Gospel; it is falsehood and pretense. The true Gospel, however, is this: Works or love are not the ornament or perfection of faith; but faith itself is a gift of God, a work of God in our hearts, which justifies us because it takes hold of Christ as the Savior… Therefore what the scholastics have taught about justifying faith “formed by love” is an empty dream. For the faith that takes hold of Christ, the Son of God, and is adorned by Him is the faith that justifies, not a faith that includes love.” (LW 26:88)

Luther also said…
"faith in Christ, without the Law or works. The blind sophists do not understand this. Therefore they dream that faith does not justify unless it does the works of love. In this way faith that believes in Christ becomes idle and useless, for it is deprived of the power to justify unless it has been “formed by love.” But you set the Law and love aside until another place and time; and you direct your attention to the point at issue here, namely, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, dies on the cross and bears my sin. "(ibid)
My source is found here…
faithalone.org/journal/1991b/Hollo.html

 

[Bishopite]

Not necessarily. The false doctrine of “sola fide” is not so connected to salvation as to justification as a part of salvation (I’ve started reading Luther and Calvin these past few days). Salvation is by the grace of God alone, as both Catholics and Protestants accept. Justification, as a part of salvation, is not merited, but imputed because of faith alone.

Well, Luther and Calvin both denied works or even love itself have anything to do with faith. This article written by a Protestant gives their full quotes…
faithalone.org/journal/1991b/Hollo.html

As for imputation, though there may have been a strong difference in the past, there is no longer, at least as far as most Lutherans are concerned.

Lutherans have a closer view, however Calvinists and Evangelicals do still affirm imputed righteousness vs the Catholic position of infused righteousness.

As for the perspectives of the original reformers, I will need to continue reading what they wrote.

Indeed.

 

[Newchasm]

Actually, Catholics and Protestants believe exactly the same things here. It’s just that Protestants go to obsessive lengths to deny that they believe what Catholics believe.

What do both groups believe? That those who will be saved will have both faith and works (where they are able), and also repentance, and that those who will not be saved will not have those things.

Actually, its is kind of true. You must go to Calvin and Luther to see what the beef is because some modern fundamentalism doesn’t capture it. Luther was also somewhat irrational. The main thrust is the sycretism vs monergism of grace for the original protestants. And Actual righteousness here on Earth vs. just being given a Righteous position that is realized later. (Forensic imputed righteousness). Finally in sanctification, one makes it necessary for salvation. The other makes it necessary from salvation.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Open bible to Eph 2:8-9 to read about being saved by grace through faith

Read Eph 2:10 to see why we are saved by grace through faith.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

No Catholic would disagree that we are saved by grace through faith.

However, that does not mean that we are saved by faith alone, does it?

In fact, when you consider the scriptures as a whole, you see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Hope this helps. :tiphat: