'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[TULIPed]

Agape then.

That love is associated with action, no? Sacrificial love. I wonder what ways - Catholics and Protestants - exhibit that kind of love? The kind of love where we give till it hurts.I think one place we can all get better - for example - would be in our stewardship. (I bet the average % of gross income given to the church - any church - isn’t anywhere close 10%, but I digress…)

In any case, a place where we agree (I’m pretty sure) is the old saying - they’ll know we are Christians by our love. Having said that, non-Christians can sacrificially love too (embarrassingly, many times more and better than me). What’s the difference I wonder - between the way non-Christians love and the way Believers love?

 

[Michael16]

Yes, love as shown in our actions. We are judged by our deeds, works; not by our faith.
What I see in Protestant communities is too much emphasis on faith. Faith without love, without heart; is as dead as Joseph Stalin, dry as a dead leaf and empty as a tomb.

There’s no life to it; the whole premise of Sola Fide.

 

[TULIPed]

What I see in Protestant communities is too much emphasis on faith. Faith without love, without heart

Yes, I agree. We are all sinners after all, and in desperate need of God’s mercy. Kyrie Eleison!

Sadly, I feel that your sentiments are felt in the reverse as well. The good news is that what I see every now and then, is the opposite. I see Catholics and Protestants standing side by side helping in natural disasters. I see us standing side by side and serving together in soup kitchens, sorting clothes in shelters, re-roofing widows’ homes, and adopting orphans.

I think that which separates the love that Believers exhibit is joy. What a gift it is to joyfully serve our King! I need to do it way more often.

 

[Wannano]

As I see this train wreck of a thread:

The point of this thread should be Love trumps faith. That’s Scriptural. It should be good enough for you Protestants to accept by your Sola. Instead, you’ve devolved the thread into another ad nauseam pointless argument in which you spout endlessly your refuted Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. However you define it; you can’t escape or weasel out of their basic unscriptural nature.

As for what Luther said: The horrifying things he spoke and written you guys “ explain “ away as hyperbole, sarcasm or whatever. You can’t escape the fact that the man spoke, wrote and taught disturbing things that no saint would ever have done.

Now: The ecclesiological train wreck of Protestantism can be laid at the feet of Luther. Without his rebellion, none of the other “ reformers “ would’ve crawled out of the woodwork. Enough!

I’m sick of hearing your leaders described as reformers. They reformed nothing. They cannot be described as reformers because they broke away from the Church, formed their own communities and actively sought to draw people away from the true Church. A true reformer is like Saint Ignatius de Loyola. He stayed within the Church and helped correct problems that caused your leaders’ revolt.

Im sick and tired of hearing your endless word games, selective Scripture quoting and nit picking of texts.

From my vantage point; such behaviors are a distraction from the real point of being Christian: Living the faith.

I can see that poor De Maria is being frustrated to the point of frothing because of your antics.

Stay on point, Blessed Mother pray for us!

If your post is the result of the superior love you have, and are proposing that we should exemplify love the way you so wondrously do, then this thread is a mild train wreck as compared to what it would be if we all followed your example.

Indeed, we are all judged by our actions.

 

[Michael16]

I see your point. Indeed, we’re all sinners in need of God’s mercy.

But, before I forget; I need to address further on some points.

Forget for a moment, all the basically unscriptural errors of the Solas you guys hold dear. Let’s look at the practical realities.

Sola Scriptura: In the end, without a central unifying authority; it leads to each believer interpreting Sacred Scripture for himself on the basis of his own individual faith and conscience as Luther put it and thus results in the endemic schism and factionalism seen in the Protestant communities. That in itself is the great evil of Sola Scriptura.

Sola Fide: This Sola, in practical terms; leads people to a “ It doesn’t matter what I do; God knows I believe in Him “ attitude. This pretty much let’s the believer off the hook as to the reform of the conduct of actions. This alone is the great evil of Sola Fide.

 

[TULIPed]

Sola Scriptura: In the end, without a central unifying authority; it leads to each believer interpreting Sacred Scripture for himself

A few comments here. First, we would add “with he help of the Holy Spirit” to the end of the phrase above.

Second - allow me to explain the manner in which Reformed Christians are trained to interpret scripture. First, we are taught to prayerfully, with the help of the Holy Spirit, interpret scripture with scripture. So, for example, the 10 commandments say “Thou shall not murder”, we interpret this commandment in light of, and in tension with Jesus saying that when we’re angry with our brother, we’ve committed murder in our hearts.

The second place we go as we read and interpret scripture are the creeds and confessions, which themselves are based on scripture. Reformed Christians would refer to the Westminster confessions and catechisms, the Helvetic confessions, etc.

Finally, we ask other Christians (including Catholics) for help. Ideally, we start with our pastors. In mainline Reformed churches, pastors likely have masters degrees (at least - most “tall steeple” church pastors have doctorate degrees) in divinity and/or theology. They’ve studied Greek, Latin and Hebrew and have spent the “professional” careers training and studying God’s word. When we join a Reformed church, we covenant (in writing) to submit to their (teaching and ruling elders) authority.

Our system is not without faults. As I said earlier, we are all sinners and in desperate need of God’s grace and mercy. As sinners, we all want a theological system that makes sense to us. Yes, we Protestants could learn a thing or 2 from our Catholic brothers and sisters about submission to authority. Which serves to make me all the more thankful for His grace and mercy.

 

[mcq72]

Yes, love as shown in our actions. We are judged by our deeds, works; not by our faith.

Not sure about separating faith as you have…i mean “without faith it is impossible to please God”… furthermore, only those not written in the book of life will be judged soley by their works, by their choice/ default ( white throne judgement)… the saints will be judged at the seat of Christ of their works in Christ, not for salvation but for rewards and roles in the kingdom (our chaff will be done away with, things not done in love and for the glory of Christ)…we the saints will be judged for what we did with our faith, and standing, persevering, resting in Christ is part of the “doing”, even a work of God.

 

[TULIPed]

This Sola, in practical terms; leads people to a “ It doesn’t matter what I do; God knows I believe in Him “ attitude. This pretty much let’s the believer off the hook as to the reform of the conduct of actions. This alone is the great evil of Sola Fide.

Agreed. When taught and/or received improperly, there’s no question that these can be used by the enemy to deceive and otherwise lead Believers astray. For example, a Protestant who would argue as you say is clearly ignoring Romans 6:1 (among much other scripture and confessional teaching). Surely this isn’t limited to Protestants though?

Are there no Catholics who misuse or misinterpret doctrine? For example - are there not Catholics who perhaps would argue “I can do whatever I want during the week, as long as I confess and attend Mass on Sunday?”

To whit - if you judge the efficacy or veracity of a doctrine by the manner in which sinners adhere to it, are not all doctrines destined to fail?

 

[Michael16]

I’m sorry for being uncharitable in how I was saying it and my reply to your reply. Inexcusable and again, I’m sorry.

Our Lord said: “ Love each other as I have loved you. “

My bad.

 

[Michael16]

Mcq, I’m not saying that faith is meaningless. On the contrary: My position always has been that we are saved by faith and works together.

Now, Luther said: “ By faith alone we are saved, saving faith that is not alone. “

In this statement, I see in the first half of the line, faith alone saves. But, he goes on to say in the second line that saving faith is not alone.

It’s like Luther is saying: It’s faith alone, though works are required; but really it’s faith alone.

A plain reading of his statement shows us a paradox. How can faith alone save; if such a saving faith isn’t alone?

Now, I understand that in your tradition’s exegesis Saint Paul’s adjunction of not being saved by works of the Law and saved by faith instead; that these two verses are extensively quoted and a system is extrapolated from there.

However, Saint Paul later goes on in Romans and his other letters; that doers of the Law are justified, working out our salvation and fighting the good fight of faith. Saint Paul even later goes on to say that Abraham, another figure extensively quoted in Sola Fide apologetics; was justified by his works as well as his faith.

Now, on the face of it; it would seem that Sola Fide is clearly refuted directly from the Scriptural pen.

I understand that your apologetics would then later to go on to say: “ You have to understand the context “ of these verses. If I’m not mistaken, the basic defense from there is to say that works follow from faith; thereby preserving Sola Fide.

Now, we arrive back to our start point: How can saving faith be alone; yet it’s clearly not alone?

The basic point we see, as in Saint Paul’s adjunction of doers of the Law are justified; that works are a necessary part of the economy of salvation. In light of Saint Paul’s above adjunction, we see doing of the Law, works; results in justification.

So, the context that I’m understanding is taking both Saint Paul’s positions, justification by faith and justification by works; together develops into a faith and works system.

Now to address your position that Saint Paul’s working out your salvation and fighting the good fight of faith and thus separating the wheat from the chaff means rewards; not salvation:

The word salvation is clearly used. Where do you understand otherwise? Working out your salvation and fighting the good fight of faith meaning it concerns salvation then follows rather clearly; if you follow me.

Now, when Jesus spoke of wheat vs. chaff; He was speaking on the difference between the saved and unsaved. The primary difference being those who keep Our Lord’s words and do them. We can all agree that keeping and doing Our Lord’s words is the basis of salvation, right?

Am I helping you to understand our position?

 

[Michael16]

I understand your position, I think. Your clergy are extensively educated in theology and are trained to interpret carefully and prayerfully; invoking the Holy Spirit. In their exegesis, they refer to your tradition and doctrinal documents. Laypeople are required to submit to your tradition’s authority. Gotcha.



The prayerful method of Scripture interpretation reminds me of our tradition of lectio divina. In this method, originating with the Benedictines from the 6th century; was taught to me on my journey home into the Church. Basically, this method is asking God in prayer where He wants to lead me in this particular passage. In this method, my heart and mind are open to God and allowing the passage to reveal itself to me; allowing the understanding to form in and of itself.

As in your tradition, any understanding has to line up with Church teaching. We also have a criteria by which to judge any mystical experiences: If it leads to better love of God and neighbor; then it’s veritable and reliable.

Since we’re comparing ecclesiological structures:

The Church has endured, united and whole; albeit rocked with scandal and troubles over the two millennia. But, the Church remains a single Church. Ruled by a central Magisterium that carefully and prayerfully goes over Scripture, backed by the Holy Spirit; before it declares definitive statements of doctrine and outright Dogmas of the Faith. Our theologians are also extensively educated and trained with deep spiritual lives.

Comparing the two systems, we see the Church, preserved and whole over the millennia; that’s always been consistent and faithfully preserves the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. Guaranteed by Christ Himself and the preserved from error by the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, there’s the Protestant communities. Split into many communities, each with it’s own interpretation of Scripture; whose doctrines, when you look at what happened to the liberalization of the Protestant communities’ doctrine; have changed over time.

Even your own Reformed tradition is split into several schools; if I remember right.

To my mind, all this ecclesiological history begs the question: Who’s preserved from error by the Holy Spirit and thus correct? The Church standing firm, consistent and whole; or the fractious realm of the Protestant denominations?

Am I helping you to understand?

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

If you don’t believe in Apostolic succession, by what criteria do you consider your orders, valid?

2 Timothy 2
2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

1 Timothy 4:14
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

The Lutheran confessions show that A.S. is “believed in”.

That’s a complicated statute. Walk me through the part that says they believe they have succeeded the Apostles. I see one part that says it was humanly instituted and that it makes for an ordered church. I don’t see Apostolic succession mentioned. But, it is a complicated reg. Show me.

There are Lutherans that do ordain in apostolic succession, and there were, in fact, Catholic priests through presbyter ordination.

It is the Bishops who ordain. None of the leaders of the Protestant uprising were Bishops. Who ordained any priests after they broke away? Luther couldn’t.

 

[De_Maria]

As to that opinion, Luther is in good company, per others opinion, as they even said such a thing about our Lord.

Our Lord didn’t deserve it. But Luther approved of bigamy and adultery and taught others that those sins were good.

Correct, but we were talking about corporate man, as in leadership roles even the church.

Even corporate man can not perfectly imitate our Lord. You probably need to brush up on the Doctrine of infallibility. It does not confer impeccability on any man or group of men. If that’s what you’re getting at.

Understand, just as some say there was no bad doctrine (leaven) coming from those in the seat of Moses either.

Then you don’t understand at all. Jesus Christ conferred infallibility upon His Church.
You may not have the faith to believe that Jesus Christ can protect His Church from error, but we do.

 

[dopeyMS]

Man. thank you very much for Luther and SF and reformation…putting correct emphasis on the role of the institution of the church…hanging out in a garage, even the best garage, does not turn you into a car.

Luther found out, that like Nicodemus, being deeply involved in God’s ordained institution does not necessarily save one or set one free indeed.

Oh indeed once you are in Christ and He in you, you are a member of the body of Christ, connected to the church.

Catholics and Orthodox had been reading the letters of Paul for 1500 years before Luther came along and were wise enough to know that Love is the highest not Faith. Poor Luther and his Reformation, Protestants are the ones who need reforming today and everyone can see it except them.

 

[JonNC]

Mcq, I’m not saying that faith is meaningless. On the contrary: My position always has been that we are saved by faith and works together.

Now, Luther said: “ By faith alone we are saved, saving faith that is not alone. “

In this statement, I see in the first half of the line, faith alone saves. But, he goes on to say in the second line that saving faith is not alone.

It’s like Luther is saying: It’s faith alone, though works are required; but really it’s faith alone.

It isn’t like that at all. Lutherans and Catholics agree that we access justification by grace through faith, and that faith must be a Galatians 5:6 faith, a faith that works through love.
Now there may be divergences from there, but there is no diminishing of the role of good works by Luther or in Lutheranism.

A plain reading of his statement shows us a paradox. How can faith alone save; if such a saving faith isn’t alone?

Because a saving faith can’t be alone. And it is actually about justification. And it is completely about grace.

Now, we arrive back to our start point: How can saving faith be alone; yet it’s clearly not alone?

This doesn’t respond to faith alone. It is by faith that we access justification. This is the “alone”. The alone is about how we access justification. Even Catholics do not believe we access justification by works or other means. And no where in Luther’s writings, much less the confessions, have I seen it said that faith alone means you don’t have do anything. That just isn’t the the meaning.

Now, when Jesus spoke of wheat vs. chaff; He was speaking on the difference between the saved and unsaved. The primary difference being those who keep Our Lord’s words and do them. We can all agree that keeping and doing Our Lord’s words is the basis of salvation, right?

Not necessarily. It depends on what you mean. The baptized infant who dies has done nothing, yet is saved. A deathbed conversion. Choosing not to obey His commands, which is repeated and unrepented sin, is a rejection of grace. That is a dead faith.
Finally, the very reason for Christ’s passion, death and resurrection is because we cannot of our own ability keep and do His commands.
The basis of salvation is grace.

 

[dopeyMS]

The basis of salvation is grace.

The basis of Salvation is belonging to God’s church. It’s a connection, a relationship and a familial understanding of our heavenly Father of love and our heavenly Mother of grace.

 

[JonNC]

Catholics and Orthodox had been reading the letters of Paul for 1500 years before Luther came along and were wise enough to know that Love is the highest not Faith. Poor Luther and his Reformation, Protestants are the ones who need reforming today and everyone can see it except them.

Why do you think that Luther or Lutherans do not agree that “the greatest of these is love”?
Faith alone isn’t some kind of priorities list. It is a recognition of what St Paul says more the once: that it is by grace through faith that we are justified. “The just shall live by faith” is not a dismissal of love or hope.

When Catholics read Galatians 5:6 they don’t interpret it as works without faith. When Lutherans read it they don’t interpret it as faith without works.
I think when one side accuses the other of these, it is disingenuous and uncharitable.

 

[JonNC]

So where is the ‘sola’ for love then? Christ gave you 500 years to figure out the mess you’re in and not 1 in a thousand ever will.

I’m not in any mess. I haven’t been alive for 500 years.
Do we need a sola to describe love? Paul describes it so well it needs no other. “The greatest of these…” is a sola.

 

[JonNC]

You’re in a horrible, terrible and awful mess but you can’t see it.

How long have you known me to know if I’m in a mess?

A lie told often enough is soon believed to be the truth.

State the lie I have told. Be specific.

A heresy that has been taught and accepted for 500 years will never be given up except by the bravest of souls who get ostracized by people like you.

Who have I ostracized?

None of what you’ve said responds to my post.

 

[Michael16]

Interesting points, Jon.

Now, I’ve never said that we can achieve all these things without grace. Luther was correct in saying this.

However: I feel that you haven’t addressed my points on justification by works that Saint Paul wrote in Scripture. Please address the issue: Why would Saint Paul write justification by works by doers of the Law and Abraham; if it weren’t true?