Sola Fide is driving me crazy!!

[SojournerOf78]

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

To me it seems like certain individuals dont care when Catholics tell them they do or do not do something, or if they can prove the Chruch’s teaching from the Catechism, they still WANT to believe whatever it is they want to believe about the Catholic Church, its truly amazing e.g. You guys worship Mary, now we dont, yes you do…Hey that gives me an idea for a new thread

 

[Trelow]

You all are insane.

Go back up and read BLB_Oregon’s reply in this thread. This is all a matter of using the same words for different meanings.If you want I can get out a crayon and draw a picture to explain it so everyone can understand.

 

[Shibboleth]

shannin:

Sola Fide?

Satan has faith and he knows without a doubt that Jesus is the Son of God and yet he chooses to be totally evil. Is faith alone enough for him??? Certainly NOT.


Shannin

If you understood the Catholic Faith a little better you would not say this… at least not in this way. Without God’s Grace one cannot have true faith. I am not sure but I would say that Satan has rejected God and therefore does not have true faith. So although he believes in Jesus he does not have faith in Jesus and his absolute Sacrifice.

Likewise people that are not in God’s Grace can do good things – of course. Feeding the homeless and the like are not necessarily “works.” Agnostics, Muslims, Pagans… all of these people have done good things – it does not mean that it is an expression of God’s Grace.

O.K. from the Lutheran standpoint…

We are saved by God’s Grace alone and not due to any merits on our part. God’s grace gives us the gifts of “faith” and “works.” What is the difference – faith is an internal manifestation of God’s grace and works is an external manifestation. If one does not reject God and is in his good Grace then they will have true Faith and will bear good fruit.

Now, sin and sinning does not mean that we are no longer in God’s good Grace nor does it drive us from God. We will all sin but our faith is such that we know that Jesus gave his absolute sacrifice for our sins.

If we are saved all glory to God if we are damned it is our own damn fault.

 

[Brad]

Shibboleth:

If you understood the Catholic Faith a little better you would not say this… at least not in this way. Without God’s Grace one cannot have true faith. I am not sure but I would say that Satan has rejected God and therefore does not have true faith. So although he believes in Jesus he does not have faith in Jesus and his absolute Sacrifice.

Likewise people that are not in God’s Grace can do good things – of course. Feeding the homeless and the like are not necessarily “works.” Agnostics, Muslims, Pagans… all of these people have done good things – it does not mean that it is an expression of God’s Grace.

O.K. from the Lutheran standpoint…

We are saved by God’s Grace alone and not due to any merits on our part. God’s grace gives us the gifts of “faith” and “works.” What is the difference – faith is an internal manifestation of God’s grace and works is an external manifestation. If one does not reject God and is in his good Grace then they will have true Faith and will bear good fruit.

Now, sin and sinning does not mean that we are no longer in God’s good Grace nor does it drive us from God. We will all sin but our faith is such that we know that Jesus gave his absolute sacrifice for our sins.

If we are saved all glory to God if we are damned it is our own damn fault.

In order to have faith, you must perform the work of accepting God’s grace. There is one place in the Bible that mentions “faith alone” and that is when James said that we need works and NOT “faith alone”.

Jesus, in numerous parables and stories, talks about how we must feed the poor, clothe the naked etc. in order to enter the Kingdom. These are works.

The concept of Sola Fide is ridiculous. The concept was developed to draw distinctions from the Catholic Church and thereby justify existence of a competing church. Nice try, not Biblical.

 

[RBushlow]

brianberean:

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.
Your “theory” is disproven by history.

Hi Brian,

The Duterocanonical books are just that. Lacking Canonical status. That’s what “dutero” means (please see definition below).That’s why they are deuterocanonical instead of Canonical.

Websters: Main Entry: **deutero- **Etymology: alteration of Middle English *deutro-, *modification of Late Latin *deutero-, *from Greek *deuter-, deutero-, *from *deuteros; *probably akin to Greek *dein *to lack, Sanskrit *dosa *fault, lack
: second : secondary

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Shibboleth:

If we are saved all glory to God if we are damned it is our own damn fault.

:bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes: :bigyikes:

I HOPE you don’t kiss your mother with that mouth!

 

[RBushlow]

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.

It seems that most of our brethren from other denominations have a large number of incorrect and erroneous misconceptions about the Catholic Church.

 

[RBushlow]

brianberean:

I think the RCC does teach that good works done in Grace help to earn (merit) salvation

morashb:

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.

 

[Trelow]

Alright here we go let’s explain how this is a big fat misunderstanding.

Take your crayon ( or pen, pencil, marker whatever) and draw a triangle.

On on leg of the triangle write “faith”, on the next write “hope”, and on the next “charity”.

So that triangle would be what you need for salvation, correct?

Now use a different color crayon and write “faith” in the middle. That is the Protestant “Faith”, same word different meaning. It cannot exist if any of the legs are missing.

We believe the same things, just use different terminology. Hence the ignorance that we have hashed out at each other for hundreds of years. It’s as simple as that.

The Council of Trent did more to divide Christians than anything else, rather than discussing the issues at hand, rash decisions were made, and hence the reformation. If they could have waited a bit, and handled things in a civilized manner, coming to understand what the other was saying the Church would not be split today.

Our mission as Christians should not be to only bring others to Christ, but to also bring the whole body of Christ together. It is quite sad that today we still harbor the ignorance that tore us apart.

We all should be working together to get rid of the damnable lies that each side speak against the other. IF Protestants and Catholics just fought the secular world as much as each other then we wouldn’t be living in Babylon II today.

 

[RBushlow]

Trelow:

. . . . This is all a matter of using the same words for different meanings.If you want I can get out a crayon and draw a picture to explain it so everyone can understand.

Please do and address it to brianberean and headman13. I feel like I am beating my head against a wall.

 

[Shibboleth]

Brad:

In order to have faith, you must perform the work of accepting God’s grace. There is one place in the Bible that mentions “faith alone” and that is when James said that we need works and NOT “faith alone”.

Jesus, in numerous parables and stories, talks about how we must feed the poor, clothe the naked etc. in order to enter the Kingdom. These are works.

The concept of Sola Fide is ridiculous. The concept was developed to draw distinctions from the Catholic Church and thereby justify existence of a competing church. Nice try, not Biblical.

We do not contribute to our own salvation. Catholics and Lutherans believe in infant baptism. We do not choose to accept God’s Grace it is given to us weather we choose to accept it or not. Baptism is not even due to the merits of our parents because without God one would only be pouring water over our heads and without Faith through Grace one would not even be baptizing someone in the first place.

From the Joint Doctrine of Justification

1. In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: **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.

1. The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification described in paras. 18 to 39 are acceptable. Therefore the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths.

1. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: **The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. ** The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

 

[Hans_A]

brianberean:

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

Who were these Catholics in good standing? Which bibles were endorsed by Popes that did not contain the full canon?

In Christ,
Hans

 

[Brad]

Shibboleth:

We do not contribute to our own salvation. Catholics and Lutherans believe in infant baptism. We do not choose to accept God’s Grace it is given to us weather we choose to accept it or not. Baptism is not even due to the merits of our parents because without God one would only be pouring water over our heads and without Faith through Grace one would not even be baptizing someone in the first place.

From the Joint Doctrine of Justification

1. In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: 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.
2. The understanding of the doctrine of justification set forth in this Declaration shows that a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics. In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification described in paras. 18 to 39 are acceptable. Therefore the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths.
3. Thus the doctrinal condemnations of the 16th century, in so far as they relate to the doctrine of justification, appear in a new light: The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

Yes, this document explains what the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church have in common regarding justification. One point is that we can do nothing outside of God’s grace. Without God’s grace, noone would be saved. We are utterly dependent on God’s grace.

At this point, we must choose whether to accept or reject God’s grace. Do God’s thing or do our own thing. This is a work. The work of accepting God’s grace is required for us to enter into full communion with God and enter into Heaven.

Because of the grace we can have the faith. But we can choose to not participate with the grace, reject it and reject the faith.

 

[Shibboleth]

Brad:

Yes, this document explains what the Catholic Church and Lutheran Church have in common regarding justification. One point is that we can do nothing outside of God’s grace. Without God’s grace, noone would be saved. We are utterly dependent on God’s grace.

At this point, we must choose whether to accept or reject God’s grace. Do God’s thing or do our own thing. This is a work. The work of accepting God’s grace is required for us to enter into full communion with God and enter into Heaven.

Because of the grace we can have the faith. But we can choose to not participate with the grace, reject it and reject the faith.

In my first post I stated that Faith is the internal manifestation of God’s grace. All that you have referred to is that internal manifestation or “Faith.” I still have some guff with what you are saying though because we are never given credit for accepting God’s Grace.

I cannot accept God’s Grace any more than I can accept the Blood in my body. I can reject that blood by cutting myself and letting it spill but I can do nothing by myself to replace the blood in my body. Once I stop cutting myself or rejecting my Blood, the Gifts that god gave me will replenish that which was lost. I do nothing to assist in its replenishment.

My friend describes it as such…

From our conception, we are in enmity with God. Salvation is freely offered to all from the minute we come into being. God has chosen the normal means of grace for that. It is baptism.

I think the first time we can say one is typically “saved” (yes, there are exceptions) is as soon as they have been made a disciple and have been joined to the body of Christ in baptism. In Lutheran theology, baptism is not an “acceptance” of a gift, because God does all of the work in baptism. That work is spiritual, but nonetheless real and not symbolic. So, semantically speaking, I think even God does the unwrapping. The clergy, Christian community, and sponsors are merely vehicles of God’s deed. Lutherans do put a heavy emphasis on baptism; and place it within the normal “equation” for salvation.

So, the gift metaphor would work more like this, I think: Before we are even conceived, there is a gift with our name on it. It was carefully wrapped for us 2,000 years ago. God unwraps that present for us (as one would a gift for an infant- despite our age) in the waters of baptism. Even when we reject the gift, God never discards it; but continually holds it before us.

The problem with the metaphor is this: do we ever grab the gift back? No, we never do any meritous work towards our salvation. I think of it more like eternal sunshine: God continually showers us with the gift of salvation. We are able to erect a parasol and “hide” from that grace (reject it); but we are never in charge of the on/off switch of the sun’s light and we are not given the credit for our rosy cheeks by our not using a parasol: because God’s is the sunshine that caused them.

 

[Brad]

Shibboleth:

In my first post I stated that Faith is the internal manifestation of God’s grace. All that you have referred to is that internal manifestation or “Faith.” I still have some guff with what you are saying though because we are never given credit for accepting God’s Grace.

I cannot accept God’s Grace any more than I can accept the Blood in my body. I can reject that blood by cutting myself and letting it spill but I can do nothing by myself to replace the blood in my body. Once I stop cutting myself or rejecting my Blood, the Gifts that god gave me will replenish that which was lost. I do nothing to assist in its replenishment.

My friend describes it as such…

I agree with what you are saying in that God does all the work to save us, just as Jesus did all the work on the cross and then proclaimed “It is Finished.” Sure, God does all the work in providing grace and God would do all the work in replenishing blood. But we have to stop cutting ourselves or else we will die.

 

[brianberean]

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

You are missing my point. I fully concede that the Council of Trent doesn’t say Catholics earn justification by doing good works “on their own”. Thats a given okay? I think the RCC officially teaches that once a person is initially justified then the good works they perform in the state of Grace increase their justification and salvation. (Now I would argue that certain other RCC dogmas, doctrines, and practices contradict even this teaching but that is another post.)

Canon 1 talks about initial justification as RCs define it. Canon 33 is speaking of one already justified as RCs define it. Check the underline parts of both canons to see my point. Now you can see that canons 1 & 33 are addressing slightly different subjects and that canon 33 can be read in its own context without contradicting canon 1. So, before I just repeat myself again, can you tell me what you think of canon 33 now?

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.

Brian

 

[Shibboleth]

Brad:

I agree with what you are saying in that God does all the work to save us, just as Jesus did all the work on the cross and then proclaimed “It is Finished.” Sure, God does all the work in providing grace and God would do all the work in replenishing blood. But we have to stop cutting ourselves or else we will die.

You can choose to die, but you cannot choose to live becuase we do not give ourselves life.

 

[brianberean]

Hans A.:

Who were these Catholics in good standing? Which bibles were endorsed by Popes that did not contain the full canon?

In Christ,
Hans

christiantruth.com/Apocrypha3.html

“Catholics in good standing” are listed throughout the article. Bible editions and popes are towards the end. Happy reading!

Brian

 

[MariaG]

posted by brianberean
So, before I just repeat myself again, can you tell me what you think of canon 33 now?

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.

I would see this in the same light as the tract Reward and Merit available from our host. I hope you will read it. It explains it all very well there. The Bible tells us we will be rewarded for our works.
“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).

catholic.com/library/Reward_and_Merit.asp

God Bless
Maria

 

[RBushlow]

“Catholics in good standing” are listed throughout the article. Bible editions and popes are towards the end. Happy reading!Brian

Sorry Brian, but Will Webster completly misinterprets the Catholic positon. The Church never held that the Duterocanonical books were Canonical.

The Duterocanonical books are exactly that. Lacking Canonical status. That’s what “dutero” means (please see definition below).That’s why they are deuterocanonical instead of Canonical.

Websters: Main Entry: **deutero- **Etymology: alteration of Middle English *deutro-, *modification of Late Latin *deutero-, *from Greek *deuter-, deutero-, *from *deuteros; *probably akin to Greek *dein *to lack, Sanskrit *dosa *fault, lack
: second : secondary

Why do I have to keep repeating the same explanations over and over again?