'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[Michael16]

Sigh.

If he called his movement “ catholic “, then he misrepresented the term.

As for your answer of Luther’s definition of Sola Scriptura: I have read what you posted and none of it demonstrated any validity concerning Sola Fide.

 

[dopeyMS]

You’re still squirming. According to the article, the original use of the term Sola Fide meant what the Church condemned in the Council of Trent. According to the article, Protestant doctrine changed over time into a form that accidentally lines up with Catholic doctrine. Because Protestants ran into the exact problem that Sola Fide logically produces. A happy accident that you’re employing.

Plus, what bothers me is that the article’s author seems to be saying he’s both Evangelical and Catholic at the same time. A paradox that makes me suspicious of his opinion.

Correct. God’s love with the forgiveness of sin leads us to exercise faith in Christ i.e. 1Cor. 13. Love comes first and then faith.

Protestants with their Sola Fide basically say that faith is the highest and that somehow leads to Justification and love is not even part of the equation.

So I have to self-generate faith in myself in order to be justified which is just wrong on so many levels. It’s just backwards theology.

 

[Michael16]

Totally agree with you there. Ill executed exegesis.

 

[JonNC]

If he called his movement “ catholic “, then he misrepresented the term.

As for your answer of Luther’s definition of Sola Scriptura: I have read what you posted and none of it demonstrated any validity concerning Sola Fide.

How would you know?

 

[Michael16]

Catholic means universal. Luther split the Church irreparably. Thus, he can’t be catholic. Nuff said there.

As for how do I know?

When I read Sacred Scripture, I look at the whole passage, reading it simply and straightforwardly; in context.

Luther didn’t do that with Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. I look at Luther in two ways. Either:

A: He was earnestly seeking relief from scrupulosity and assurance of his salvation and the devil whispered evil error into his ear.

B: He intentionally did evil and deliberately led others into sin, perdition and hell.

Generally, I stick with A.

 

[JonNC]

Catholic means universal. Luther split the Church irreparably. Thus, he can’t be catholic. Nuff said there.

Then you can’t, either, since not all Christians are in communion with The pope. Your communion is not universal.

When I read Sacred Scripture, I look at the whole passage, reading it simply and straightforwardly; in context.

Which passage?

Luther didn’t do that with Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide.

How do you know what Luther read or didn’t read? Even Catholic theologians do not question Luther’s knowledge of scripture as you seem to be doing here.
The Lutheran understanding of sola fide is quite scriptural. It reflects the fullness of grace, that by grace we are saved, through faith, and not by works lest anyone should boast.
And by the justification by grace through faith, we are freed to walk in the good works he prepares for us to do.
I do not expect any Catholic to accept sola fide. I just expect that Catholics accept our explanation of the doctrine and not redefine it.

 

[Michael16]

With the Church, we’re catholic because anywhere in the world you go, the Church has a common doctrine. Not so with Lutheranism. You’re split into several factions.

Your point being?

Sola Fide isn’t scriptural. The Church understands your doctrine and definition of Sola Fide. We accept that you’re wrong.

 

[Michael16]

Darn it. Meant to tag you.

 

[JonNC]

With the Church, we’re catholic because anywhere in the world you go, the Church has a common doctrine. Not so with Lutheranism. You’re split into several factions.

I can receive word dnd Sacrament in virtually all of them.

Sola Fide isn’t scriptural. The Church understands your doctrine and definition of Sola Fide. We accept that you’re wrong.

Well, how about this?

By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.

Is that acceptable?

 

[Michael16]

Jon, now that I’ve had time to settle down and let my aggression cool off, I’m remembering Saint Benedict and King Totila; I want to be more charitable in my apologetics.

I’m not questioning Luther’s theological knowledge base. Just his conclusions.

My break is over, so I’ll take some time and carefully reflect over the rest of my response to your post.

 

[Michael16]

I’m sorry, Jon. I’m just not very good at using the various features; I’ll try to be more specific though.

What I meant in my point of: When I’m reading Sacred Scripture I’m reading the whole passage, simply and straightforwardly; in context; I mean reading in general. Though at the time I was thinking of the Upon this Rock passage.

 

[JonNC]

I’m sorry, Jon. I’m just not very good at using the various features; I’ll try to be more specific though.

No need to apologize. It’s just easier to respond. After years in the old format, it took me a while to figure out this one, too.

 

[Genesis315]

Sola Caritas is not Catholic. Both faith and charity are necessary for salvation. Without faith it is impossible to please God. As the Council of Trent says, “faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the fellowship of His sons.”

 

[dopeyMS]

Yes, and it’s impossible to have faith without first experiencing love in the person of Christ with the forgiveness of sin. Love comes first and then faith so Luther was wrong and all the generations that have parroted his words are wrong as well. Love alone for lack of a better term has the power to save, faith alone does not.

 

[dopeyMS]

How do you know what Luther read or didn’t read? Even Catholic theologians do not question Luther’s knowledge of scripture as you seem to be doing here.
The Lutheran understanding of sola fide is quite scriptural. It reflects the fullness of grace, that by grace we are saved, through faith, and not by works lest anyone should boast.
And by the justification by grace through faith, we are freed to walk in the good works he prepares for us to do.
I do not expect any Catholic to accept sola fide. I just expect that Catholics accept our explanation of the doctrine and not redefine it.

We are only justified by faith alone when you cherry pick certain passages of Paul and ignore the rest of the new testament. Any honest bible student will look at everything the new testament writers had to say and not build doctrine on a few isolated ‘proof texts’ which is the oldest trick in the book. Even when you look at everything Paul by himself had to say, faith alone doesn’t work. Proof texting is the greatest evil of the last 500 years.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, and it’s impossible to have faith without first experiencing love in the person of Christ with the forgiveness of sin. Love comes first and then faith so Luther was wrong and all the generations that have parroted his words are wrong as well. Love alone for lack of a better term has the power to save, faith alone does not.

This is a total misrepresentation. God’s love is expressed as grace. The teaching is as stated, by grace along through faith alone in Christ we are justified. To claim that Luther didn’t believe that is silly polemics.

 

[dopeyMS]

I was raised Lutheran and I have read most of Luther’s writings and his understanding of love was the medieval ‘caritas’ or works-based charity so he was against it. And anyone who has read his writings knows this is true.

 

[JonNC]

I was raised Lutheran and I have read most of Luther’s writings and his understanding of love was the medieval ‘caritas’ or works-based charity so he was against it. And anyone who has read his writings knows this is true.

If you were raised Lutheran and read “most” of his writings, and you came away with the idea that he opposed good works, it must have been a different Lutheran than I’ve read.

Thus faith is a divine work in us, that changes us and regenerates us of God, and puts to death the old Adam, makes us entirely different men in heart, spirit, mind, and all powers, and brings with it [confers] the Holy Ghost. Oh, it is a living, busy, active, powerful thing that we have in faith, so that it is impossible for it not to do good without ceasing. [11]](http://bookofconcord.org/sd-goodworks.php#para11) Nor does it ask whether good works are to be done; but before the question is asked, it has wrought them, and is always engaged in doing them. But he who does not do such works is void of faith, and gropes and looks about after faith and good works, and knows neither what faith nor what good works are, yet babbles and prates with many words concerning faith and good works. [12]](http://bookofconcord.org/sd-goodworks.php#para12) [Justifying] faith is a living, bold [firm] trust in God’s grace, so certain that a man would die a thousand times for it [rather than suffer this trust to be wrested from him]. And this trust and knowledge of divine grace renders joyful, fearless, and cheerful towards God and all creatures, which [joy and cheerfulness] the Holy Ghost works through faith; and on account of this, man becomes ready and cheerful, without coercion, to do good to every one, to serve every one, and to suffer everything for love and praise to God, who has conferred this grace on him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire.

 

[dopeyMS]

Luther had a balanced understanding of the gospel, he couldn’t point blank reject good works but 99% of Protestants who have come after him will in fact reject good works and parrot the ‘faith alone’ propaganda like you.

 

[JonNC]

Luther had a balanced understanding of the gospel, he couldn’t point blank reject good works but 99% of Protestants who have come after him will in fact reject good works and parrot the ‘faith alone’ propaganda like you.

Then why are you blaming Luther for what others believe?