'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

That’s what I have repeatedly told you and you denied it. But now you’ve said it. This is the same principle that all Protestants hold to, not just Lutherans. If it doesn’t agree with their understanding of Scripture, they reject it. Darn the traditions and the councils and everything else.

Where did I say someone’s understanding of scripture?

Then Luther would had to consider all Lutherans as heretics. Luther is influential, clearly, but he was neither infallible, nor was he immune from the principle of sola scriptura, which mainithst sll teachers are normed by scripture.
The very first symbols in the Book of Concord are the three ecumenical creeds. That’s not by accident.

but he was neither infallible, nor was he immune from the principle of sola scriptura, which mainithst sll teachers are normed by scripture.

Who is doing the norming of Luther’s teachings to Scripture?

That said, the Catholic approach is the same, someone’s understanding of scripture. Someone’s understanding of Tradition.

Except that the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ with the express purpose of Teaching His Commands.

The Lutheran Church was established by Luther and they quickly quit following him.

 

[Michael16]

I see you’re being relative. First you say we’re not consistent in Scripture and Tradition, that Luther had it right; then you say that it’s merely a matter of each person’s understanding of Scripture and Tradition.

I find your inconsistency sad.

 

[Michael16]

Let’s look at the fruits between the Church and your tradition.

The Church has been consistent and faithful in her teaching of Scripture and Tradition as well as remaining unified with a great many saints leading holy lives.

Then we have the Lutheran tradition: Multiple communities of multiple interpretations of doctrine that don’t even fellowship with some of the others, communities under the power of the secular state and very few exemplars worthy of veneration and emulation.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t understand how you say there’s no conflict concerning my refutation of Sola Fide. In addition, you further didn’t address the paradox of your statement on Apostolic Succession.

Because nothing in that post refutes sola scriptura.

Faith alone. This is the rock upon which he himself said upon stands his entire doctrine. He declares: By faith alone, are we justified. Saint Paul says: “ Doers of the Law are justified “ and Saint James says: “ Faith without works is dead… By his works is a man justified and not by faith alone. “

Sola fide states, as scripture says numerous times, that by grace through faith we are justified, and not of yourself. Clearly, Paul is not contradicting himself. Scripture doesn’t contradict itself.
If we are justified by grace through faith, and grace is a free, unmerited gift, then we cannot attain justification by our own works.
We do, as regenerate people of God, have to joyfully do the works He prepares for us to do. The Holy Spirit guides and encourages us to do them. Any good works we do are by grace.

Sola fide does not deny the necessity of good works.

There is no justification without sanctification, no forgiveness without renewal of life, no real faith from which the fruits of new obedience do not grow. -Luther

 

[Michael16]

You again state an inconsistent position and you evade the rest of what I said. Luther attempted to have it both ways and interpreted Scripture thusly.

 

[Michael16]

You have to examine the inconsistencies in his doctrine: It’s faith alone, faith that’s not alone, yet it’s faith alone.

The entire position is exegetical sophistry.

 

[De_Maria]

Certainly not in justification,

Yes. The call to conversion is the beginning of the process of justification. The call to conversion is an absolutely free gift to all men.

even as your catechism states, on " initial justification.

Let’s look at the exact words.

[2010] Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

at the beginning of conversion.

“no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion”

Correct. But read on.

Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

 

[mcq72]

Yes. The call to conversion is the beginning of the process of justification

Well doesn’t say the “call to conversion”, but the actual reception
of the calling and forgiveness and justification…that is much much more than " call to conversion".

Doesn’t say for further justification but jumps right to sanctification, which I agree is sometimes predicated by past grace’s in works( David going from a lion and bear to a Goliath).

But justification is not merited one iota, just as surely as while we were yet sinners He died for us. Further, calling out to Him triggers His saving, it is not meritorious as the flesh can not be.

 

[De_Maria]

You have to examine the inconsistencies in his doctrine: It’s faith alone, faith that’s not alone, yet it’s faith alone.

The entire position is exegetical sophistry.

It’s a dance that they do to deny Scripture. They claim that Scripture is their highest authority. But when Scripture disagrees with their doctrines, they dance around it.

Scripture says:

James 2:24You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

But they insist, “it is by faith alone but not by a faith which is alone”. Why? Because it doesn’t matter that Scripture denounces that doctrine. They will have it their way.

 

[De_Maria]

Well doesn’t say the “call to conversion”, but the actual reception
of the calling and forgiveness and justification…that is much much more than " call to conversion".

Where do you read that and what is your point?

Doesn’t say for further justification but jumps right to sanctification, which I agree is sometimes predicated by past grace’s in works( David going from a lion and bear to a Goliath).

We don’t consider sanctification and justification as separate processes as you do. They are one and the same.

But justification is not merited one iota, just as surely as while we were yet sinners He died for us.

God tells us what we merit and what we don’t. If He says we merit justification, we believe Him.

Further, calling out to Him triggers His saving, it is not meritorious as the flesh can not be.

See Matt 25:31-46

The Sheep are those who did God’s works. They are the ones’ saved.
The Goats refused to do God’s works. They receive eternal punishment.

 

[mcq72]

And you both fail to see you split hairs, for your catechism plainly stated justification, initial saving, is unmerited (alone?).

Sanctification is something else, where we really separate, for you seem to hold initial justification at ransom thru sanctification and glorification process.

 

[mcq72]

Where do you read that and what is your point?

Your quote from catechism…

We don’t consider sanctification and justification as separate processes as you do. They are one and the same.

Then why bother with the terminology?..English is English and weird of you to say that seeing how you don’t get the Calvin quote of salvation by faith alone but but not remaining alone afterwards…I mean I read your catechism and it seems, linguistically, and yes thru my protestant eyes, to have lines drawn differing sanctification and justification…I could say anybody should be able to see it thru plain reading.

God tells us what we merit and what we don’t. If He says we merit justification, we believe Him.

Amen…now what do we do when he plainly and more often says we do not merit justification?

 

[Michael16]

No, Jon. Lutheran apologists do not reconcile the rest of what Saint Paul and Saint James wrote; to any reasonable satisfaction.

I invite you to demonstrate how these verses can be reasonably reconciled.

 

[Michael16]

You’re not reading the rest of the line in our catechism. We do merit justification by our good works. You’re trying to twist our catechism to fit your worldview.

 

[mcq72]

Doesn’t say merit justification if I recall Mike but merit in sanctification.

Just reread …did not see anything about meriting justification in catechism quotes.

 

[De_Maria]

And you both fail to see you split hairs, for your catechism plainly stated justification, initial saving, is unmerited (alone?).

Why don’t you answer my question? I asked, where did you read this and what is your point? The Catechism plainly says that the initial grace, the call to conversion, is unmerited. Conversion is only the first step in justification. In order to be justified, one must do many things before Baptism, which is the instrument of justification.

So, show me where you are reading what you claim the Catechism says or admit that you’re making it up in order to bluff your argument.

Sanctification is something else, where we really separate, for you seem to hold initial justification at ransom thru sanctification and glorification process.

2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.

 

[Michael16]

No. It says quite clearly. By responding to God’s grace by doing good works, which lays up for us treasures in heaven; not to mention in Sacred Scripture itself says we are justified by our works.

By doing good works, we grow in justification. Luther’s split hairs between justification and santification.

 

[mcq72]

where did you read this and what is your point?

I think your quotes from 331 and 368, in particular 2010 catechism , the only time I see the term justification used, and as non merited.

" 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification,"

Of course if after initial justification sanctification and glorification are synonomous terms, which catechism does not state, then I see your point…since the terms are not described as synomous, I see unmerited justification only in your catechism.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

where did you read this and what is your point?

I think your quotes from 331 and 368, in particular 2010 catechism , the only time I see the term justification used, and as non merited.

" 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification,"

Ok, thanks for paying attention. I have to say that you are right.

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion.

But what is the point that you’re making? Are you saying that therefore, the justification which we receive at Baptism, what we call the washing of regeneration, must also be unmerited?

Edit: I didn’t see this part of your message.

Of course if after initial justification sanctification and glorification are synonomous terms, which catechism does not state, then I see your point…since the terms are not described as synomous, I see unmerited justification only in your catechism.

And only with reference to the beginning of conversion, which I understand as our response to the “call to conversion”.

 

[Johan]

That is correct. God’s free will gift of salvation is not absolutely free. It is conditional. Only those who obey God and keep the Commandments, receive it.

This is sophistry. There is no valid difference between “free” and “absolute free”. The adjective “free” is not gradable. Something that is not “absolutely” free is not free at all. And I claim the opposite of what you are saying: only elect sinners will receive His gift of salvation. What need would there be in the first place for a non-sinner to be saved? Only someone in danger needs to be saved, and those who are inherently righteous are in no spiritual danger.