Justified by faith “alone”, as in the exclusion of what we do, as you would agree regarding what Catholics call “initial Justification”. It is only by Grace alone through faith in Christ that we come to justification … Faith alone never means the exclusion of our responsibility to conform our lives to the commands of Christ. We are justified by faith alone, but faith is never alone.
So “faith alone” does not refute the necessity of living a holy life, but rather insists that justification (being made right with God) is not impacted by what we do, only what we believe. As a cradle Catholic, I was initially justified by my baptism. If you were likewise baptised as an infant in your Lutheran church, Jon, is that a source of justification as well, or is your justification considered to have begun with the first time you believed? This isn’t a trick, I’m trying to understand how the difference in justification translates to a difference in our treatments of baptism.
If one believes that by one’s actions or intent they can come to faith and justification, this approaches pelagianism, which we both agree is heresy, and which, incidentally, came up long before Luther.
Pelagianism is such an interesting heresy because there’s a kernal of truth in it, though not enough to leaven the loaf. Jerome’s primary condemnation of the Pelagians was for their insistence that man could live without sinning simply by choosing not to do so. The Scriptural tenets that this violates are obvious, but we can discuss if we need to.
The kernal here is that we can choose to do good, at least some of the time, whenever we comply with the Lord, and that doing good can bolster faith, and James seems to imply that it is necessary to keep faith alive. What condemns Pelagianism universally (unless you’re Swedenborg) is its assertion that we can be justified by
works alone, or rather by the
absence of sin.
I don’t know if Jerome’s objection to Pelagianism is in line with Lutheran theology, but I think Calvinism condemns Pelagianism
and disagrees with the Catholic objection to it where predestination of the elect means we cannot choose to do good because it is chosen for us. Calvinists still condemn Pelagianism but through condemning free will (correct me if I’m wrong or have grossly oversimplified this).
Back to topic at hand:
Where works come in is as evidence and edification of the individual who is undergoing sanctification. On this, I think Lutherans and Catholics very much agree (though we may not call it a complete explanation of the purpose of works), and probably Calvinists as well.
Where Catholics differ in this is that we see justification as continuous, while Luther made a distinction between initial justification and the sanctification that follows it. I know the theological distinctions are sublime (ie, of deep significance, though perhaps not easy to tease out), but I think the form of a life that follows initial justification and then endures sanctification, and the form of a life that follows initial justification through final justification, are scarcely different.
I’ve found that observant Lutherans and observant Catholics often live very similar lives in terms of morality and worldview, in general, and perhaps I can extend this to many Reform Protestants. It’s not until we get to a more radical view (ie, “works contravene faith” or “I’m saved once and don’t need to do anything else ever”) - and this is more fringe but for some reason fairly common where I live - that there’s this utter divorce between faith and works that I think was never intended.
…and finally,
Back to the OP
Jon, what do you think is the role of the Eucharist in salvation, and how does consubstantiation (as opposed to it being a symbolic re-creation, as some Protestant churches teach) relate to that? I think we’ve seen the Catholic perspective and I’m curious to see yours.
