Sola Fide is driving me crazy!!

[RBushlow]

brianberean:

Brian

Just so we can get a understand where you’re coming from. What is your faiith background. Are you Evangical Protestant, Pentacostal, mainstream Protestant (Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, Episcopol, Baptist)? Thanks.

 

[MariaG]

Is it that hard to see? Not when you read it in context and read the whole thing. This is from the Council of Trent. First is the definition of justification. All stems from this initial definition. Read for yourself here: forerunner.com/chalcedon/X0020_15._Council_of_Trent.html

CHAPTER VIII

HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.[46]

Further

CHAPTER XVI

THE FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, THAT IS, THE MERIT OF GOOD WORKS, AND THE NATURE OF THAT MERIT

Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.[93] For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name;[94] and, Do not lose your confidence, which hath a great reward.[95] Hence, to those who work well unto the end[96] and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.[97]

For this is the crown of justice which after his fight and course the Apostle declared was laid up for him, to be rendered to him by the just judge, and not only to him, but also to all that love his coming.[98] For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches,[99] continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace,[100] since Christ our Savior says: If anyone shall drink of the water that I will give him, he shall not thirst forever; but it shall become in him a fountain of water springing up into life everlasting.[101]
Or in the same form you posted, here is canon #1. A Full list can be found here which includes #32 (XXXII) ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ195.HTM

CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION

Canon 1. **If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. **

Definitions and teachings build upon one another. You cannot understand the 32nd one unless the #1 is taken first and understood. The Catholic church teaches that you cannot **earn **your way to heaven in any way shape or form.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Works without faith are dead works.

 

[twf]

The Church teaches that justification is by grace through faith and works. Sola fide (faith alone) is rejected by the Church as heresy, but sola gracia (grace alone) is upheld as sound teaching. We must realize that neither faith nor works can save us. All the faith in the world would be nothing, without grace. Likewise, all the works under the sun would be, as you said in the other thread, like filthy rags without grace. This is where the distinction must be made. Both faith and works are worthless if they do not flow from God’s grace. Our salvation is only made possible because Christ took our eternal penalty on the tree at Calvary; however, this perfect work of Christ must be applied to each of us. God has given us freewill, so we must accept this gift and co-operate with him. Not just once (the moment you accept Christ), but all through our lives. Catholics can say that we merit salvation, but only in a secondary and derivative sense. The grace that Christ gives us leads to faith. This grace-empowered faith leads to works. The two go hand in hand. Our faith and works become our way of co-operating with God’s plan for our salvation, and become worthy of merit before God because Christ’s merit is applied to us through his grace. The faith and works in and of themselves are nothing, but when they flow from the grace Christ has given us, they become creditable.

One thing that really hit home for me was the realization that even the Evangelical position requires human effort to obtain salvation. If we are to say that there is nothing we can do to be saved, then logically, all human beings should be saved automatically…as Christ’s grace would be universally applied; however, we know that this is not the case. Even in the Evangelical view, one must make an conscious act of the will, exert a mental effort, to decide to accept Christ and to repent of one’s sins. In a sense, this is a work, as it is an act of the will, and takes effort on our part. But this is only made possible by grace in the first place (remember, the Father must draw us to His Son before we can accept Him), so we can not take credit for it, even though our effort was involved. So once you realize that even the Evangelical view requires human effort, it falls into place (at least for me) that works, those that are the fruit of the grace God has given us, can also play a role in our part in salvation.

If you are to say that salvation involves no effort on our part, then even personal repentance should be unnecessary. Every step of the way, we must choose to continue to co-operate with God, or to reject His grace. We should not be terrified, however, for we trust that God will always provide us with the grace necessary to persevere.

I’m sure there are many more, but the following are some passages and verses that speak volumes against the idea of ‘sola fide’.
Matthew 7:19
Matthew 7:21-23
John 14:15
John 15:10
James 2:14-26
John 15:1-8
Matthew 18:23-35
Matthew 6:14-15
Matthew 25:14-46
Luke 13:6-9

 

[dream_wanderer]

Catholics do not believe that you can be saved by grace though faith and then sit around and do nothing. That is a dead faith. You claim to be saved but there are hungry people in the streets by your house and you ignore them. See the book of James.

Neither do we believe that one day we wake up and think…“I want to go to heaven. I’ll open a soup kitchen and peform good works and feed those hungry people and make it that way on MY terms!” and then we on our OWN peform good works in our OWN power and hope its good enough. Without faith, without grace. Its an "I’m so great a person and I deserve heaven because of all I have done’ position that is warned about…the thing we boast about even though it will do us no good.

We believe we are saved by grace through faith and are filled with the compassion of the Holy Spirit and our eyes are opened to the suffering around us because now we see with the eyes of Christ… and then we might be called upon to open a soup kitchen and are given the grace to accomplish that task and we then should obey and then do the good work. Then we have a living faith…its not dead.

dream wanderer

 

[headman13]

Corpus Cristi:

From what you said, you don’t know what indulgences actually are, you don’t know what Catholics believe about salvation, and you probably know a lot less than you think. .

I find your TONE offensive, dear friend, completely lacking in any form of charity. Be ashamed. What a judgemental way to respond to any one, especially a fellow Christian. Just because you disagree with someone gives you no right to talk down to them. Again, be ashamed. I spoke in a spirit of love and fellowship and you throw it back in my face. Shame on you for treating a guest that way. Moses tells us to “show kindness to the stranger within our gates”. Shame.You might take a lesson from the Blessed Apostle Paul, who counsels us to be kind and hospitable to strangers, “for thereby men have entertained angels without knowing.”

“Body of Christ” in Latin is spelled “Corpus CHristi” by the way

 

[dream_wanderer]

How can you possibly know what a person’s tone is from the written word?? I read over the post and it appears that Corupus Cristi is speaking the truth. There were no personal attacks on you…there were no offensive words used…no name calling. No one ‘talked down’ to anyone. Just a simple statement that it appears that you don’t know what Catholics really believe. There is nothing uncharitable about that. If I were wrong about something and was corrected I would welcome it. There is no reason for Corpus Cristi to feel shame.

And from the outside looking in it looks like you are trying to misdirected this discussion by making it a personal attack on Corpus Cristi.

Now if you find my statement uncharitable and un-Christian I’m sorry…I myself don’t know any other way to say it.

dream wnaderer

 

[brianberean]

Uh, no Brian,

The “simple fact of history” is that the canon of Scripture was set WAY before Luther, in the 4th Century at the council of Hippo (or Carthage, I can’t remember which one was first), with the Dueterocanonical books intact. Every council thereafter reaffirmed this same canon. It was reaffirmed again at Trent, in response to Luther’s removing the 7 deuterocanonicals.

None of the councils before Trent “set” the canon “infallibly”. If you spend more than five minutes talking to an RC apologist you learn that it is common knowledge that unless something has been “infallibly” set, it is not binding. The Catholic Encyclopedias (old and new) both acknowledge that the canon wasn’t infallibly set until Trent. There are many examples of RCs in good standing who openly disagreed with the canons fallibly set at Hippo and Carthage. There are also examples of RC bible editions produced at the eve of the Reformation that still sharply seperated the deuterocanonicals as less than Scripture.

Therefore, if the canon wasn’t “infallibly” set and bibles were still being produced by RCs in good standing, these same bibles were dedicated to and endorsed by popes, these same bibles sharply seperated the deuterocanonicals as less than Scripture, then how can you say Luther removed the books? You can say it, but its an error and you are wrong.

One of the bible editions I’m referring to above was the Biblia Compultensia produced by Cardinal Ximenes and published by the authority and consent of (and dedicated to) Pope Leo X in the 15th century. The preface of this edition contains a sharp admonition concerning the deuterocanical, saying among other things they are not canonical Scripture. If you don’t beleive me, look it up.

Are Cardinal Ximenes and Pope Leo X guilty of removing books from the canon?

For a history of the whole canon of Scripture (old and new testaments), as well as the Church’s treatment of the Bible over the centuries, read Henry Graham’s Where We Got The Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, available from Tan Press; or, check out the tracts on this website on the subject.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I’ve read quite a bit on the canon and still have a few more books on my list concerning the canon. I recognize that God used the early church to recognize and protect Scriptures. I also recognize that God used the Catholic Church to protect the bible through middle ages. Yes, we all owe a dept to the Catholic Church. Just the same way we all owe a debt to the Jews for God used them to recognize and protect the OT canon for hundreds of years before Christ.

Brian

 

[brianberean]

MariaG:

Is it that hard to see? Not when you read it in context and read the whole thing. This is from the Council of Trent. First is the definition of justification. All stems from this initial definition. Read for yourself here:

The proof texts you cited were addressing what RCs call initial justification.

How about you just answer this question:

Does the RC plead only the merits of Jesus for salvation or do they also beleive their own works (done in grace) add merits for their own justification and salvation?

I don’t beleieve the RCC teaches its faithful to plead only the merits of Jesus for salvation and I beleive that is an error.

I’m not saying Christians don’t have to do good works, as a matter of fact we are commanded to do good works. Good works are also the best evidence to tell if others are true beleivers because, unlike God, we can’t read a persons heart.

Brian

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

headman13:

I find your TONE offensive, dear friend, completely lacking in any form of charity. Be ashamed. What a judgemental way to respond to any one, especially a fellow Christian. Just because you disagree with someone gives you no right to talk down to them. Again, be ashamed. I spoke in a spirit of love and fellowship and you throw it back in my face. Shame on you for treating a guest that way. Moses tells us to “show kindness to the stranger within our gates”. Shame.You might take a lesson from the Blessed Apostle Paul, who counsels us to be kind and hospitable to strangers, “for thereby men have entertained angels without knowing.”

“Body of Christ” in Latin is spelled "Corpus CHristi" by the way

Excuse me, but I don’t think you realize what you posted. You said that Catholics believed something you THOUGHT they did, but they don’t actually. Charity wasn’t the subject of my post. I told you flat out you probably didn’t know what indulgences were, and you most likely didn’t because you said that Catholics believe we can be SAVED THROUGH them. That isn’t what we believe. If you would like to make a post knocking Catholic teaching in a Catholic forum, protestant forum, or any type of forum, please do it with knowledge of what you’re saying. You wanna disagree with what I believe, fine. You don’t have to agree, BUT DISAGREE WITH WHAT I REALLY BELIEVE, NOT WHAT YOU PICKED UP THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE, JUST THOUGHT UP, OR WERE TAUGHT BY SOMEONE ELSE. You can’t blame me for being frustrated when almost every single time someone posts something like this, they don’t know what they’re talking about, they make arguments on what Catholics believe that DON’T reprsent the Catholic faith, and they don’t even ask questions to get answers.

Oh, and about my username, yeah, it’s Corpus Christi minus the h, AND DON’T WEAR IT OUT!

 

[headman13]

Corpus Cristi:

Excuse me, but I don’t think you realize what you posted. You said that Catholics believed something you THOUGHT they did, but they don’t actually. Charity wasn’t the subject of my post. I told you flat out you probably didn’t know what indulgences were, and you most likely didn’t because you said that Catholics believe we can be SAVED THROUGH them. That isn’t what we believe. If you would like to make a post knocking Catholic teaching in a Catholic forum, protestant forum, or any type of forum, please do it with knowledge of what you’re saying. You wanna disagree with what I believe, fine. You don’t have to agree, BUT DISAGREE WITH WHAT I REALLY BELIEVE, NOT WHAT YOU PICKED UP THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE, JUST THOUGHT UP, OR WERE TAUGHT BY SOMEONE ELSE. You can’t blame me for being frustrated when almost every single time someone posts something like this, they don’t know what they’re talking about, they make arguments on what Catholics believe that DON’T reprsent the Catholic faith, and they don’t even ask questions to get answers.

Oh, and about my username, yeah, it’s Corpus Christi minus the h, AND DON’T WEAR IT OUT!

I have no intention of wearing out your name, dear friend, because MY post WAS about civility and charity to strangers, two concepts that seem to be foreign to you, and you continue to disregard both. Even if you disagree with someone, you can do so civilly. This does not seem to be in your grasp. That is a pity. You will have to answer for the way you respond, not me. I suggest your Mother get her money back that she spent on sending you to charm school. There is never any need to be rude. Talk about a waste of time and energy. You have a nice day.

 

[SojournerOf78]

headman13:

I have no intention of wearing out your name, dear friend, because MY post WAS about civility and charity to strangers, two concepts that seem to be foreign to you, and you continue to disregard both. Even if you disagree with someone, you can do so civilly. This does not seem to be in your grasp. That is a pity. You will have to answer for the way you respond, not me. I suggest your Mother get her money back that she spent on sending you to charm school. There is never any need to be rude. Talk about a waste of time and energy. You have a nice day.

:banghead:

All together now!!!

I love you, you love me, were a happy family,
With a great big hug and a kiss from me to you,
Won’t you say you love me too?

 

[RBushlow]

brianberean:

None of the councils before Trent “set” the canon “infallibly”. If you spend more than five minutes talking to an RC apologist you learn that it is common knowledge that unless something has been “infallibly” set, it is not binding.

Actually the cannon was set in the Fourth Century and remained unchanged for over 1000 years. Most matters are not “set” until there is some dispute, since, by default they are accepted. That is why Nicea was called, to “set” the concept of the Holy Trinity. It was only “set” when it was challanged. The Cannon was “set” in response to Luthers attempt to remove James and other books.

 

[brianberean]

RBushlow:

Actually the cannon was set in the Fourth Century and remained unchanged for over 1000 years. Most matters are not “set” until there is some dispute, since, by default they are accepted. That is why Nicea was called, to “set” the concept of the Holy Trinity. It was only “set” when it was challanged. The Cannon was “set” in response to Luthers attempt to remove James and other books.

This does not explain how or why many RCs in good standing could continue to exclude the deuts as less then canonical throughout history up until Trent. This also does not explain how bibles can be produced by RCs in good standing that contain admonishments against the deuts as being less than canonical and how these bibles can be endorsed by and dedicated to popes.

This also doesn’t explain how many bibles throughout the middle ages can contain a Gloss Ordinaria (commentary) that includeds Jerome’s admonishments against the deuterocanonicals.

Your “theory” is disproven by history.

Again, please provide proof that Luther tried to remove the book of James or stop making the claim.

Brian

 

[dream_wanderer]

headman13:

I have no intention of wearing out your name, dear friend, because MY post WAS about civility and charity to strangers, two concepts that seem to be foreign to you, and you continue to disregard both. Even if you disagree with someone, you can do so civilly. This does not seem to be in your grasp. That is a pity. You will have to answer for the way you respond, not me. I suggest your Mother get her money back that she spent on sending you to charm school. There is never any need to be rude. Talk about a waste of time and energy. You have a nice day.

Corpus Cristi disagreed with you. That is showing a lack of civility and charm and is being rude.

Still don’t see it.

Hmmm…

dream wanderer

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

headman13, for the last time, CHARITY TOWARDS OTHERS IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARGUMENT BETWEEN YOU AND ME. It is, however on what IS Catholic teaching, and what ISN’T Catholic teaching. I can’t help it if you’re in the wrong coming in here talking about how Catholics believe such-and-such when they don’t and talking **** that isn’t true about us. You wouldn’t like it if someone went telling lies about you to other people, much less them coming around and saying things that aren’t true about you to your face when you’re around others, BUT YOU SEEM TO NOT LIKE IT EVEN WHEN PEOPLE COME AND TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT YOU EITHER.

 

[MariaG]

Originally posted by brianberean
Does the RC plead only the merits of Jesus for salvation or do they also beleive their own works (done in grace) add merits for their own justification and salvation?

I don’t beleieve the RCC teaches its faithful to plead only the merits of Jesus for salvation and I beleive that is an error.

I believe you are mixing up two separate isssues here. The first issue is no, Catholics do not believe good works done with the grace of God add to their Salvation. We are saved by Christ alone.

However, there are rewards for good works, the word being used by Catholics being merit. Merit=Reward. The Bible says:
“For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).

I think our host can explain this better here: catholic.com/library/Reward_and_Merit.asp

There is also another tract on justification that may help although I think the answer you are looking for is in the first tract Reward and Merit. catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp

God Bless,
Maria

 

[morashb]

SojournerOf78,

The next time some one says to you, "… you Catholics believe in a “Works based righteousness”…, hand them the Catechism. Ask them to find in it where it states the Catholic Church teaches that we can work our way into heaven. … One individual came back to me 7 weeks after I gave him a copy of the Catechism to see if he could prove his false allegation. Not only could he not, he also stated he saw he had several other misconceptions about Catholic Church teachings.

 

[brianberean]

MariaG:

I believe you are mixing up two separate isssues here. The first issue is no, Catholics do not believe good works done with the grace of God add to their Salvation. We are saved by Christ alone.

I think the RCC does teach that good works done in Grace help to earn (merit) salvation and increase justification. See below:

Council of Trent:
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

However, there are rewards for good works, the word being used by Catholics being merit. Merit=Reward. The Bible says:
“For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).

This is true, there are rewards for good works. But, again, the RCC uses the word merit as a synonym for “earn” above. You are sounding a little protestant, better be careful

Brian

 

[MariaG]

Hi Brian,

I will point out to you again that you must take the entire list in context. #1 of the same list you supply is:
Canon 1. **If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. **

Then there are II thru XXXIII. number XXXII must first take into account the first canon that clearly states that no one can do it on their own, Christ is the way.
And thank you, I take the fact that you see what I say sounds Protestant as a compliment. As a Catholic Christian, I respect my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ.

And the point here is, you can continue to *think *the Catholic Church teaches that we earn our way to heaven, but that simply is not true. I cannot explain it any clearer. I’m truly sorry.

God Bless,
Maria