'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[Michael16]

I’m trying to understand your position, mcq. I realize that I don’t have an accurate knowledge of your doctrine and I’m not meaning any disrespect.

I humbly and charitably offer this in hopes this can clarify your position for me:

“ You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only. “

Correct me please if I’m misunderstanding you, but wouldn’t Saint James be teaching justification by works and that, by implication; justification is righteousness before God?

That’s what I’m reading in the text.

In your answer, please consider that I’m not inferring that man can justify himself on his own power. We both can hopefully agree that grace is required in the salvation process.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Why would Saint Paul write justification by works by doers of the Law?

No, the real question then is why would Paul emphatically write indisputably that by works of the law, even righteous works, shall no flesh be saved? Could we not conclude that indeed by keeping the law perfectly one could be justified but all have failed save One, leaving all before and after Him to be justified by faith in his satisfying the Law?

For clarification, those words were from @Michael16.

 

[De_Maria]

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. …

Finally, we ask other Christians (including Catholics) for help…

That’s a new one. I’ve more often heard Protestants say that they don’t want to be yoked with Catholics.

When did this come about?

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?”

There’s a big difference.

If Joe Protestant disagrees with a Pastor, he leaves and goes to another one.

In fact, this is part of what aggravates the problem of fallen away Catholics. We don’t have that option in our Church. One Catholic Pastor teaches the same thing as the next. So, the only option for Catholics who disagree with the Catholic Church, is to leave the Catholic Church.

Do you deny this difference?

 

[De_Maria]

JonNC:

Why would Saint Paul write justification by works by doers of the Law?

No, the real question then is why would Paul emphatically write indisputably that by works of the law, even righteous works, shall no flesh be saved?

Because he’s referring to the Sacraments. He is basically saying, this is the New Testament, the Law of Christ, we are now saved in Baptism, wherein we die with Christ and are raised with Him to new life.

Could we not conclude that indeed by keeping the law perfectly one could be justified

No. Even if a man kept the Law perfectly, the Law does not justify. God justifies those who keep the Law. Do you not see the difference?

This is not an oxymoronic statement like, “we are saved by faith alone but not by a faith which is alone.” That basically says, we are saved by faith alone, we are not saved by faith alone.

In order for a man to be justified, he must do righteous deeds in accordance with God’s will. The righteous deeds which he does will not saved Him. But God will not save him unless He does them.

but all have failed save One, leaving all before and after Him to be justified by faith in his satisfying the Law?

You’ve actually got the formula correct. We are all justified by faith. A faith which is made perfect in good deeds:

James 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.

 

[De_Maria]

Michael16:

I understand you, man. That’s one problem I see in Protestant communities. Their doctrines evolved over time into even more unbiblical doctrines.

My 15 year old niece perceived this dichotomy in her ELCA Confirmation class.

It would be interesting to know what doctrines you feel have evolved into even more unbiblical doctrines.

You can’t get more unbiblical than sola Scriptura. That doctrine can’t be found in Scripture. But, from sola scriptura, it has evolved to solo scriptura. Which is both ungrammatical and a more radical heresy.

Solo scriptura , it is argued, is what most Evangelicals would probably understand as their basic matrix of church authority—the Bible is above everything. Some might say that the Bible is the only authority in church life, while others might say it is the primary authority in church life, but it’s still over everything. What the Bible says trumps anything some teacher or cleric or council might say. They’ve all been wrong, but the Bible is always right.

Hold on now, say the sola scriptura adherents. The Church has a place.…

Then, it is my understanding that Martin Luther did not teach double predestination. But Calvin evolved or devolved to double predestination. Wherein, some group of people are said to be elected by God to destruction. No matter if they do any good or not.

P Sub. The idea that Jesus voluntarily sacrificed Himself for our sins is devolved into the idea that God, the Father, poured out His hatred on His only begotten Son, which Scripture describes as “beloved”.

And then, of course, there’s the moral doctrines. Acceptance of contraception virtually a universal acceptance, in some protestant groups of homosexual pastors, in some of abortion, etc.

I am listening, but just a reminder, it is not fair to lump all non-Catholic Christians as Protestant.

Well, except for the Orthodox. By Protestant, we mean those who followed Luther out of the Church.

Your words even here would be softer if you could say you see it in "some Protestant communities. "

True. But its difficult because those are so rare.

If you can’t figure out what I mean, please ask for more clarification.

Ok.

 

[JonNC]

Because he’s referring to the Sacraments. He is basically saying, this is the New Testament, the Law of Christ, we are now saved in Baptism, wherein we die with Christ and are raised with Him to new life.

So he’s talking about Christ’ works because the institution of the sacraments are His work of grace for us to receive.

No. Even if a man kept the Law perfectly, the Law does not justify. God justifies those who keep the Law. Do you not see the difference?

Actually, the is the oxymoronic statement, unless you include in it that even our mere ability to keep the law is predicated on grace. That’s why we cannot boast.

In order for a man to be justified, he must do righteous deeds in accordance with God’s will. The righteous deeds which he does will not saved Him. But God will not save him unless He does them.

Does not justification have it’s beginning in baptism? What infant performs righteous deeds.
Does anyone perform righteous deeds on their own, without grace?
Justification begins with grace through faith. That is the Gospel. If faith is a gift of grace, so also is our ability to do works of righteousness.

You’ve actually got the formula correct. We are all justified by faith. A faith which is made perfect in good deeds:

Which are only possible because of grace.

 

[JonNC]

You can’t get more unbiblical than sola Scriptura. That doctrine can’t be found in Scripture

It isn’t unbiblical because it is not explicit in scripture. It isn’t doctrine because it isn’t explicit in scripture. There are lots of things done in the Church that are not explicit in scripture. That doesn’t make them unbiblical. It is a practice, a principle of hermeneutics. If you do not believe in the practice, you are not thereby condemned.

But, from sola scriptura, it has evolved to solo scriptura.

But it hadn’t evolved, implying that sola scriptura is gone. It isn’t. I reject solo scriptura as vehemently as you do.

Then, it is my understanding that Martin Luther did not teach double predestination. But Calvin evolved or devolved to double predestination.

And somehow that’s luther’s Fault? Luther teaches an essentially Catholic version of predestination and its his fault that Calvin preaches something different?

Well, except for the Orthodox. By Protestant, we mean those who followed Luther out of the Church.

And here is the non sequitur. “Calvin, the evangelicals and others followed Luther out of the Church. “. Really? Then why didn’t they follow him?
Answer: they didn’t follow him. They never followed him. They were not lemmings. I’d be Catholic before I’d be a Calvinist, but that doesn’t mean I think he was a mindless lemming. He made his own decisions all by himself. He was not a “Luther follower”.

 

[mcq72]

Because he’s referring to the Sacraments. He is basically saying, this is the New Testament, the Law of Christ, we are now saved in Baptism, wherein we die with Christ and are raised with Him to new life.

Don’t think Roman’s 2:13 is referring to NT sacraments when saying, " doers of the law shall be justified". He is going to compare the law of works and the law of faith. He is beginning to build his case that by deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified Roman’s 3:20. To me Paul is building case for sola fide. The two seemingly contradictory statements are reconciled by understanding faith comes first , then we keep the law in and thru Christ Jesus.

 

[TULIPed]

That’s a new one. I’ve more often heard Protestants say that they don’t want to be yoked with Catholics.

Respectfully, I’ve spent my whole life as a Reformed Protestant. I’ve never heard anyone say that they don’t want to be “yoked” with Catholics. Some of my best friends - and family - are Catholics. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ. I participate in a men’s group at my (Reformed) church. We meet weekly, and there are different speakers each week who speak about Christian spiritual issues. A Catholic priest speaks to us on one of those weeks each year. He gets a standing ovation every time he speaks.

There’s a big difference.

If Joe Protestant disagrees with a Pastor, he leaves and goes to another one.

This wasn’t the point I was responding to, rather it was judging the efficacy of a doctrine or believe based upon the acts of the believer. Nevertheless, I’ll respond to yours.

You are exactly right. At our worst, Protestants are constantly in search of entertainment (in the form of “good music” and an “interesting sermon”) rather than true, reverent worship. We are dazzled by lasers and smoke machines. We search for a church whose theology we “agree” with. We expect sermons to be more about “self help” than about selflessness. And when we don’t find what we’re looking for, we move on - forgetting about our covenant. In the immortal words of Maximus Decimus Meridius, “Are we not entertained?”

At our best though, our worship is creative. We maintain orthodoxy while incorporating modern music and liturgy that stirs the souls and motivates us to serve our great King. We are aware that the “audience” in worship is Him, and not us. We ensure that those with special needs - the “least of these” - are introduced to Christ by hiring Believers who are experts in the field to focus on their spiritual growth. Our churches post their budgets publicly so we can see how much of we spend on ourselves vs. those in need. We’re all challenged and expected to read and really study God’s word for ourselves. There are things I think we do well too - in spite of ourselves.

When it comes to authority, discipline and commitment though, we have much to learn from our Catholic brothers and sisters.

 

[TULIPed]

I’d be Catholic before I’d be a Calvinist, but that doesn’t mean I think he was a mindless lemming. He made his own decisions all by himself. He was not a “Luther follower”.

Here we go again with “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. We’ve hit the inevitable “at least we both hate the Calvinists.” Ok fine. As the token Calvinist on this forum, I made my bed, I’ll lie in it. Fire away

 

[HopkinsReb]

As the token Calvinist on this forum

At least you’re only a four-pointer.

 

[Wannano]

De_Maria:

You can’t get more unbiblical than sola Scriptura. That doctrine can’t be found in Scripture

It isn’t unbiblical because it is not explicit in scripture. It isn’t doctrine because it isn’t explicit in scripture. There are lots of things done in the Church that are not explicit in scripture. That doesn’t make them unbiblical. It is a practice, a principle of hermeneutics. If you do not believe in the practice, you are not thereby condemned.

But, from sola scriptura, it has evolved to solo scriptura.

But it hadn’t evolved, implying that sola scriptura is gone. It isn’t. I reject solo scriptura as vehemently as you do.

Then, it is my understanding that Martin Luther did not teach double predestination. But Calvin evolved or devolved to double predestination.

And somehow that’s luther’s Fault? Luther teaches an essentially Catholic version of predestination and its his fault that Calvin preaches something different?

Well, except for the Orthodox. By Protestant, we mean those who followed Luther out of the Church.

And here is the non sequitur. “Calvin, the evangelicals and others followed Luther out of the Church. “. Really? Then why didn’t they follow him?
Answer: they didn’t follow him. They never followed him. They were not lemmings. I’d be Catholic before I’d be a Calvinist, but that doesn’t mean I think he was a mindless lemming. He made his own decisions all by himself. He was not a “Luther follower”.

Jon, I have no time today, but if you could give your explanation again of what comprised Protestantism it would be helpful.

 

[Hodos]

1. Luther wasn’t a Bishop.
2. Therefore, he couldn’t ordain priests.
3. Therefore, the sacraments could not be validly administered.

Pretty straight forward to me. Where do you see a contradiction?

The part where the Catholic Church in the 3rd Century affirmed the ability of the Donatists to perform valid baptisms (a sacrament) and even for lay persons to perform valid baptisms (a sacrament), but then insist that the sacrament of the altar is invalid since Luther, an ordained priest given the authority to administer the Sacrament of Holy Communion is not efficacious to administer the sacrament of the altar to those who gather around word and sacrament. Also, the part where the Church does not retain the authority to appoint people to office to minister on behalf of the Church as a corporate body. There is no logical consistency in any of that, nor scriptural support for the claim that the efficacy of the sacrament is dependent upon the work of the priest rather than on God who is performing all the work in the sacrament.

 

[De_Maria]

It isn’t unbiblical because it is not explicit in scripture.

Not only is it not in Scripture, it contradicts Scripture.

It isn’t doctrine because it isn’t explicit in scripture.

The word “doctrine” simply means “teaching”. It is a Protestant teaching which contradicts Scripture.

There are lots of things done in the Church that are not explicit in scripture. That doesn’t make them unbiblical.

But anything done in the Church which contradicts Scripture, is unbiblical.

It is a practice, a principle of hermeneutics. If you do not believe in the practice, you are not thereby condemned.

It is an unbiblical Protestant practice, an unbiblical Protestant principle of hermeneutics which leads to erroneous interpretation of the Word of God and which allows many heretics to support their errors by their own authority.

But it hadn’t evolved, implying that sola scriptura is gone. It isn’t. I reject solo scriptura as vehemently as you do.

You should reject both. And Sola Scriptura is the parent of Solo Scriptura.

And somehow that’s luther’s Fault?

Calvin followed Luther out of the Church. Without Luther, we may question whether Calvin would have done so, as Luther’s action made many feel they had the license to follow suit.

Luther teaches an essentially Catholic version of predestination and its his fault that Calvin preaches something different?

I didn’t lay blame, you have jumped to that conclusion yourself. But Calvin took sola fide and jumped to the idea of double predestination.

And here is the non sequitur. “Calvin, the evangelicals and others followed Luther out of the Church. “. Really? Then why didn’t they follow him?

Because he gave them the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, wherein anyone can decide for himself what to believe based upon their reading of Scripture.

Answer: they didn’t follow him.

If they didn’t follow him, why didn’t they remain Catholic?

They never followed him. They were not lemmings. I’d be Catholic before I’d be a Calvinist, but that doesn’t mean I think he was a mindless lemming. He made his own decisions all by himself. He was not a “Luther follower”.

Is that an opinion? I think it is. I consider him a Luther follower because he followed Luther’s example and left the Church. We can prove that easily by their birth dates and the fact that Calvin was a mere youth, still in the Catholic Church, when Luther broke away. Years later, he followed Luther out of the Church. I doubt he would have done so if there were no precedent set by Luther. That is clear and proven historically. That he developed a different theology, is also proven historically. So, he did not continue to follow Luther.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Because he’s referring to the Sacraments. He is basically saying, this is the New Testament, the Law of Christ, we are now saved in Baptism, wherein we die with Christ and are raised with Him to new life.

Don’t think Roman’s 2:13 is referring to NT sacraments when saying, " doers of the law shall be justified".

That is precisely what happens in the Sacraments.

He is going to compare the law of works and the law of faith. He is beginning to build his case that by deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified Roman’s 3:20.

Still the Sacraments. The Law of Works is part and parcel to the Law of Faith. With good deeds, faith is made perfect.

To me Paul is building case for sola fide.
St. Paul never mentions sola fide. Protestants read that into the text.

The two seemingly contradictory statements are reconciled by understanding faith comes first , then we keep the law in and thru Christ Jesus.

The two seemingly contradictory statements are reconciled by understanding the Sacraments. In the Sacraments, those who keep the Law are justified when they call on the name of the Lord.

 

[JonNC]

Not only is it not in Scripture, it contradicts Scripture.

No, it doesn’t.

The word “doctrine” simply means “teaching”. It is a Protestant teaching which contradicts Scripture.

No, doctrine binds the conscience of the believer. No one is condemned for not affirming SS.

It is an unbiblical Protestant practice, an unbiblical Protestant principle of hermeneutics which leads to erroneous interpretation of the Word of God and which allows many heretics to support their errors by their own authority.

The greatest schism in the history of the Church was not the result of SS.

Because he gave them the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, wherein anyone can decide for himself what to believe based upon their reading of Scripture.

No, he didn’t. They made their own choices to use the praxis. Beyond that, your misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura is tiring, since you know that the description you give here is solo scriptura.

 

[De_Maria]

Respectfully, I’ve spent my whole life as a Reformed Protestant. I’ve never heard anyone say that they don’t want to be “yoked” with Catholics. Some of my best friends - and family - are Catholics…When it comes to authority, discipline and commitment though, we have much to learn from our Catholic brothers and sisters.

Very good. It’s hard to find anything with which I disagree in here. I guess I can only say that our experiences are extremely different. It’s good to meet someone like you, who doesn’t always have Catholics in the cross hairs.

 

[JonNC]

. I consider him a Luther follower because he followed Luther’s example and left the Church.

Was he a Huss follower? Maybe he was a follower of Pope Leo IX who could be said to have left the Church.
The fact is Calvin was never in communion with Luther, never a follower of Luther

We can prove that easily by their birth dates and the fact that Calvin was a mere youth, still in the Catholic Church, when Luther broke away. Years later, he followed Luther out of the Church. I doubt he would have done so if there were no precedent set by Luther.

Do, how long was he in communion with Luther? That would be what a follower is.

That he developed a different theology, is also proven historically. So, he did not continue to follow Luther.

He developed a different theology. In other words he was not a follower of Luther.

 

[De_Maria]

The part where the Catholic Church in the 3rd Century affirmed the ability of the Donatists to perform valid baptisms (a sacrament) and even for lay persons to perform valid baptisms (a sacrament), but then insist that the sacrament of the altar is invalid since Luther, an ordained priest given the authority to administer the Sacrament of Holy Communion is not efficacious to administer the sacrament of the altar to those who gather around word and sacrament.

First, anyone can perform a valid Baptism.
Second, the only ones that can ordain priests, are Bishops.
Third, Luther may have had the authority to confect the Eucharist. Until he was excommunicated.
Fourth, since Luther was not a Bishop, he could not ordain priests.

Also, the part where the Church does not retain the authority to appoint people to office to minister on behalf of the Church as a corporate body.

The Catholic Church retains the authority to bind and loose given her by Christ.

There is no logical consistency in any of that, nor scriptural support for the claim that the efficacy of the sacrament is dependent upon the work of the priest rather than on God who is performing all the work in the sacrament.

It’s not as though it were magic. Only those authorized by God can effect the Sacraments. Those whom God authorized, are members of His Church.

 

[Hodos]

faith is made perfect.

If you read the Greek you would understand that this verb translated as “made perfect” is difficult to translate into English. The best way to translate it is more along the lines of bring to fulfillment or completion. In other words, in the context of the passage where the concept is show me your faith, the faith already exists, and for the person observing your works brings your faith to visible completion. This is why Protestants hold the view they do, especially in light of the Pauline corpus, and this is how Paul and James are reconciled one to another.