'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[fhansen]

I would argue that the only way we’re able to truly give joyfully is if the Holy Spirit empowers us to do so. In fact, I would say that the level of our joyful, sacrificial giving is a tangible indication of the presence of faith in our lives.

Aquinas had this to say on it, teaching on the difficulty between fulfilling the Old Covenant vs the New:
To act virtuously “is difficult for a man without virtue [primarily faith, hope, and love] but through virtue it becomes easy for him.”

And then Aquinas goes on to quote Augustine who was expounding on 1 John 5:30 (“His commands are not heavy”), with this:
“they are not heavy to the man that loves; whereas they are a burden to him that loves not.”

 

[De_Maria]

I would agree that baptism is a sign of our union with Christ in his death and resurrection and cleansing from sin. Baptism is part of becoming a disciple, and I believe that baptism as a means of grace even functions to strengthen our faith.

Ok.

However, the spiritual realities signified by baptism can be entered into only by faith.

That is why Jesus says, “He who believes AND IS baptized”.

There are people who have been baptized who have not placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ and have not obeyed him.

Agreed. Just as there are people who claimed to have faith in Him, but didn’t.

So, why is that your concern?

How can they be said to have newness of life?

If they don’t believe, they can’t. But if they do believe, they can, because Jesus said so. (John 3:5).

And there are people who have placed their fiath in Christ who have not yet been baptized. How are they not born again?

Because God says that regeneration occurs at Baptism.

Yes, Paul does say here some strong things about baptism.

So, do Jesus and St. Peter.

In the context of the rest of Romans and the rest of Paul’s writings, I don’t think we can say that water baptism unites us to Christ or becomes the means by which we participate in his death and resurrection.

Why? Does St. Paul ever deny it?

Paul is pretty clear that it is faith that unites us to Christ and there are passages where he clearly connects the reality of baptism to faith.

Yeah. CONNECTS. Not disconnects.

Colossians 2:11-12: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

Here both circumcision and baptism are used to describe the same thing. It is a “circumcision made without hands” and a burial with Christ in baptism “through faith.” Both Christ’s baptism and his circumcision are realities entered into by faith that are shown by our choosing to be baptized.

This is really funny. Because I understand the self same thing and my conclusion is that he is connecting faith to Baptism because it is in Baptism that this all comes together. This is why one must believe AND be baptized. Not by faith alone.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Galatians 3:26-27: “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Here Paul says we are children of God through faith, and then he references baptism as an acting out of this faith.

Duh! He is basically equating faith and Baptism. Because a faithful person will be baptized and thus, born again in the image of Jesus Christ. A faithful person will want these results and thus, seek Baptism.

C’mon, Itwin! Let’s break this down.

for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith

If we are in Christ, we are sons of God. Through faith. Now, if it is by faith alone, there is no need to say anything else. But, what does he say? He doesn’t say, all of you are sons of God through faith. NO!

He fine tunes his words. Who are they who are sons of God?

For as many of you as were baptized

That’s who!

For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Those who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ and are sons of God. Not those who merely believe. It’s not by faith alone.

When we are baptized, we are choosing to clothe ourselves in Christ.

Exactly! This is New Life. This is New Birth.

This only makes sense if baptism involves a personal act of faith.

YES! But not by faith alone. One must make a personal act of faith and be baptized. If you believe and are baptized, you are saved.

Even here there is the expectation that the person being baptized will personally appeal to God.

That is what Baptism is. It is an appeal to God for salvation. It is an appeal to God for the washing of regeneration. We can’t wash our own souls. We can’t regenerate ourselves.

I agree. I also believe we can have assurance that we are in Christ, but we have to be careful that we are not indulging in a false sense of security (1 Cor. 10:12).

Amen!

Well, I hope I wasn’t too strident there. I just can’t understand why you’re dancing on that line. God bless you.

 

[mcq72]

And this is one of the issues. The New Covenant never does away with the obligation for man to be righteous. In fact, it provides the very mean s, the only right means, to achieve the righteousness that man was orignally made for but cannot possibly realize to the extent that he’s unreconciled with and therefore still apart from God.

Disagree that the new covenant has the only right means to righteousness, for in the end it had always been faith that saves, makes one righteous and pleasing before God, even in the old testament.

For sure today, there is no other condition besides faith in new testament for access to His truth and salvation.

 

[fhansen]

Ok, maybe- but how does the old and new differ then, how is the new better?

 

[dopeyMS]

That is the ultimate test. It was for me.

Protestantism is a rejection of all seven sacraments.

They flat out reject the Eucharist.

They flat out reject Penance.

They flat out reject Unction.

They flat out reject Holy Orders.

They reject most of Baptism.

Some accept Confirmation and some don’t.

Marriage can be a man and a woman or some deviation that was condemned by Paul in Romans 1. When I hear them say they follow the bible alone its almost comical.

 

[mcq72]

When I hear them say they follow the bible alone its almost comical.

what is comical is that you reject any form of those “sacraments” other than your own.

 

[ltwin]

They flat out reject the Eucharist.

I don’t.

They flat out reject Penance.

I believe confession and repentance are necessary. I do reject the Catholic concept of penance.

They flat out reject Unction.

I don’t reject anointing the sick. My church does this in accordance with James 5. It’s not a sacrament though.

They flat out reject Holy Orders.

We don’t reject ordination. It’s not a sacrament though.

They reject most of Baptism.

Not really sure how you can have half a baptism.

Some accept Confirmation and some don’t.

Yeah, you got me. I think this one is sort of superfluous.

Marriage can be a man and a woman or some deviation that was condemned by Paul in Romans 1.

Well, I agree that churches that bless same-sex unions are in violation of Scripture. But the majority of Protestants around the world have not succumbed to that. Marriage has not been rejected, but it is not a sacrament.

 

[Michael16]

In love, I will say this: What you just said abrogated the entirety of Scripture.

 

[mcq72]

In love, I will say this: What you just said abrogated the entirety of Scripture.

Perhaps you misunderstood…of course the new covenant is the only means towards righteousness, in and thru Christ. We were speaking however in reference to the previous testament, covenants, which also had way to please God, even to be righteous. They had common denominator of faith, in the Promised One. They looked forward in faith, as we look backward in faith , to Calvary. Of course we all look forward to His coming again.

PS most churches have scriptural foundation for hope for those who have never heard any gospel( NT, OT)in any age.

 

[TNMan]

You can can’t lump all of Protestantism together and be general about such statements.

Lutherans for instance:

Don’t reject the Eucharist. We don’t believe in Transubstantiation, but we do believe that when the words of institution are said by a called and ordained pastor, the elements do become the actual body and blood of Christ. And we call it a Sacrament.

We have retained confession and absolution. Don’t have penance but do still do congregational and private confessions.

We do anoint the sick, with oil even, we just don’t call it a sacrament.

We do call and ordain Pastors.

Baptism is a sacrament and do believe that it seals us as God’s. It does save.

We do conformation, but don’t call it a sacrament.

So to just generally lump Protestants all together isn’t accurate.

You will say our sacraments (other than Baptism) aren’t valid, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that Lutherans retain them.

 

[dopeyMS]

what is comical is that you reject any form of those “sacraments” other than your own.

They’re not my own. They were here long before I came along. Protestants rejected the sacraments as ‘superstitious idolatry’ and have been on a downward spiral ever since.

 

[dopeyMS]

Perhaps you misunderstood…of course the new covenant is the only means towards righteousness, in and thru Christ. We were speaking however in reference to the previous testament, covenants, which also had way to please God, even to be righteous. They had common denominator of faith, in the Promised One. They looked forward in faith, as we look backward in faith , to Calvary. Of course we all look forward to His coming again.

PS most churches have scriptural foundation for hope for those who have never heard any gospel( NT, OT)in any age.

Dispensational Protestants don’t even believe that Christians are under the new covenant anymore. They read the bible so woodenly literal that the new covenant is only for ethnic Israel so Christians are cut off from all the blessings of Christ. This is just one example of the mindless and nutso beliefs that are found in Protestant circles. If there ever was an unpardonable sin it would be a rejection of the new covenant promise that these people preach from the pulpit.

 

[mcq72]

Dispensational Protestants don’t even believe that Christians are under the new covenant anymore. They read the bible so woodenly literal that the new covenant is only for ethnic Israel so Christians are cut off from all the blessings of Christ. This is just one example of the mindless and nutso beliefs that are found in Protestant circles. If there ever was an unpardonable sin it would be a rejection of the new covenant promise that these people preach from the pulpit.

Ok, maybe so, i mean there are 30,000 covenant views, so you might be right about some of them…just not sure what it has to do with posts here.

 

[Michael16]

Here’s something you must bear in mind, mcq72:

Nicodemus asked Our Lord: “ Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? “ and Our Lord answered him: “ Keep the Commandments. “

Keeping the Commandments. Works. Straight from Our Lord’s lips. Doesn’t even matter what Saint Paul says in his letters.

Consider this as well: Our Lord says “ Love each other as I have loved you. “ Love. Saint Paul says “ without love, I am nothing “ Without Love, faith is meaningless. Renders the whole faith alone thing unscriptural and moot; don’t you think?

 

[De_Maria]

dopeyMS:

When I hear them say they follow the bible alone its almost comical.

what is comical is that you reject any form of those “sacraments” other than your own.

We actually believe in the “operation of God” in those Sacraments. Do you?

 

[De_Maria]

I believe confession and repentance are necessary.

To a priest?

I do reject the Catholic concept of penance.

What do you see as the Catholic concept of penance and why do you reject it?

I don’t reject anointing the sick. My church does this in accordance with James 5. It’s not a sacrament though.

Why not?

We don’t reject ordination. It’s not a sacrament though.

Why not?

Not really sure how you can have half a baptism.

Some claim it is necessary for obedience but not effectual. I think you are amongst that number.

Yeah, you got me. I think this one is sort of superfluous.

Because of private interpretation of Scripture. I believe you are one who denied that Protestants had that option.

Well, I agree that churches that bless same-sex unions are in violation of Scripture. But the majority of Protestants around the world have not succumbed to that. Marriage has not been rejected, but it is not a sacrament.

So, you don’t even hold marriage as a Sacrament. If marriage is not a Sacrament to you, how do you define “sacrament”?

 

[TNMan]

Fair enough.

 

[mcq72]

Here’s something you must bear in mind, mcq72:

Nicodemus asked Our Lord: “ Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? “ and Our Lord answered him: “ Keep the Commandments. “

Keeping the Commandments. Works. Straight from Our Lord’s lips. Doesn’t even matter what Saint Paul says in his letters.

What has this to do with being justified by faith thru out all covenants, even those before the law as I posted?

Secondly your quote about keeping the commandments was still under OT, before Calvary. I believe it was not said to Nicodemus. Nicodemus was told one must be born of the Spirit, born of God , born again ( born of water does not negate this and we differ on the water meaning). I think the rich young ruler was told to keep the commandments.

Thirdly is there a difference between keeping the commandments (the 613?, the 10?, the two main ones?) and keeping “His” commanments, to love God and man and believe on Him? Do we no longer keep the Sabbath of said commandments ?

Which brings us back to earlier posts of loving as the central command, but asking is it a work unto salvation, or a work wrought out of salvation. I posted we must first believe on Him as commanded. Then His love is shed abroad in our heart abundantly to love others, even in works, keeping such commandments.

Do you believe that the 613 and 10 laws were the “schoolmaster”, leading us to the Savior with a broken and contrite spirit?..as Paul states…the schoolmaster not being the teacher but the one who rounds up all the children and delivers them into the school to be taught of the Master?

Even the apostles saw the vanity in keeping the law, even of works (giving all you have away), asking, saying it is impossible for man to be saved. Jesus agreeing, except for God stepping in first by giving us In Jesus to satisfy and propitiate demands of law and justice where we could not.

Secondly by establishing (reestablishing) the Law of Faith in Jesus’s righteous, propitiating work, justifying the believer, freeing him from the law, enabling the believer to to satisfy the spirit of the law, loving God and neighbor.
.
Jesus justifies us. His work in us shows we have been justified, even as we are sanctified, and one day glorified, with Him.

This is the good news, the gospel. He saves us first, before satisfying one iota of the law, save the law of faith, even that being gifted.

 

[Michael16]

No, mcq72. Faith is just the start point. Jesus calls on us to keep the 2 Great Commandments and the 10 Commandments.

Jesus said: Those who love me Keep and do my Commandments.

In addition: Jesus said: Only those who do the Father’s Will, i.e. works; will enter Heaven.

Jesus never taught the vanity of the Law.