Some Catholics accept justification(initial ) by faith alone per

[mackbrislawn]

No, the intent and desires of the heart are not the same for the justified and unjustified. The unjustified cannot please God with their actions and instead seek to please the world, the flesh, and the devil.

The discussion is, why do believers do good works? Is it with the intent and desire to be saved, or do we do good works with the intent and desire to show we are saved? (Because by definition those who are saved do good works.)

Again, in either case, absence of good works = absence of salvation.

(It was said, “God judges by the intents and desires of the heart.” What is it that God judges and to what purpose does He judge?)

 

[Anthony_V]

… Dave Armstrong. Actually if you desire to be consistent with Scripture you have to affirm it in some way, because it is clear from the Scripture that some were justified by faith alone. For example:

That supposes the Holy Spirit means “faith alone,” but that requires the backdrop of systematic theology. For a Catholic, if it were taken to mean that they were justified, it would mean that on account of their hearing, which they accepted, they were infused with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, i.e. sanctifying grace, and it was the indwelling which justified them. Or, we might say, prevenient grace stirred up their wills and they cooperated in making an act of perfect charity by loving the God which they had just come to believe, i.e. an act of living faith.

There were nothing these individuals were doing besides listening.

I think you are interpreting that into the text, for it does not positively say that they were doing nothing else.

This is also the point the Apostle Paul makes to the Galatians:

Believing the Gospel is a necessary but not sufficient condition for justification. We are certainly saved by faith, rather than by works of the old law, but we are not saved only by faith, but by faith inasmuch as it is alive with supernatural charity. It is charity specifically that makes us like unto God, and pleasing to him (I Corinthians 13:2; I John 3:14). St. Paul can be clarified by his own words in Galatians 5:6. However, charity is never apart from faith, for we cannot love what we do not know, and so faith is necessary for our salvation.

So how can Catholics completely deny justification by faith alone in any sense? … Who disagrees and why?

Please realize this disagreement is not based upon a mere difference of scriptural interpretation. What lies behind the issues are more deeply rooted tendencies from classical Protestant theology or scholastic Catholic theology, depending on who is doing the interpretation. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et. al., interpreted scripture as they did because it logically followed from the positions they took theologically. Granted, Luther’s system started of course with his tower experience, which was from a meditation on Romans 1:17, but what he abstracted from that verse was a theological principle, which he spun out to its logical conclusions. That’s why Lutheran soteriology is logically valid for the most part, even if I think it is unsound in its premises. Then, Luther took that framework and used it as a tool for interpreting scripture accordingly, which is to say, in light of his inspiration. Perhaps here and there he tweaked things, but he was consistent, and as much as I disagree with him, he wasn’t just an eclectic thinker who became haphazardly inspired now and again with better ways of interpreting scripture passages, one by one. Everything was connected in a more systematic way. Now, with Calvin, who was a lawyer, things were bound to be far more methodical, and they certainly were. And the rest of the Reformers already had the basic framework set up for them, despite their quarrels over specific doctrines.

With that said, Catholic theology disagrees with the sola fide position for a number of systematic reasons, not dealing directly all that much with scriptural interpretation, although that can play into it. Protestant theology, because commonly adopts sola scriptura, tends to overplay the use of scripture in its theological method, but this does not eradicate the theological baggage which stands behind specific scriptural interpretations. Catholic theological method is very clear that there are branches of theology distinct from scriptural theology – for example, moral theology, dogmatic theology, ascetical-mystical theology, &c. With that caveat, our best luck would come from addressing some of these underlying theological claims.

So I would go ahead and ask you a few questions:
(1) How should we define an “act of faith,” according to your tradition?
(2) How should we define “salvation,” according to your tradition?
(3) How is an act of faith, as defined, sufficient to bring about salvation, as defined?

 

[LatinRight]

So I would go ahead and ask you a few questions:

(1) How should we define an “act of faith,” according to your tradition?

(2) How should we define “salvation,” according to your tradition?
(3) How is an act of faith, as defined, sufficient to bring about salvation, as defined?

God bless Anthony V,

(1) An “act of faith.”

FIRST CONDITION

To have the faith to believe I’m among the elect of God.

SECOND CONDITION

The act must be decided freely (without the fear hell if I don’t act).

For example: To proclaim the Gospel to an atheist out of love for the atheist and God, the act done for the Glory of God as well.

At the same time knowing, I don’t have to do this act for my salvation as my salvation as I’m God’s elect is eternally secure.

My above statement based on the Scripture, the DE FIDE Dogma of the Catholic Church,

Predestination of the elect and in the RCC teachings on the Conditions of good works/supernatural merit.

**The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a *DE FIDE *Dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty).

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

THE CATHOLIC DOGMA. – The predestination of the elect**

Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, has

been IRREVOCABLY FIXED FROM ALL ETERNITY. Nor could it be otherwise. For if it

were possible that a predestined individual should after all be CAST INTO HELL or that

one not predestined should in the end REACH HEAVEN, then God would have been

MISTAKEN in his foreknowledge of future events; He would NO LONGER be omniscient.

God’s unerring foreknowledge and foreordaining is designated in the Bible by the beautiful

figure of the “Book of Life” (liber vitæ, to biblion tes zoes). This book of life is a list which

contains the names of ALL THE ELECT and admits NEITHER ADDITIONS NO ERASURES.

(2) The second quality of predestination, the DEFINITENESS of the number of the elect,

follows NATURALLY from the first. For if the eternal counsel of God regarding the

predestined is UNCHANGEABLE, then the number of the predestined must likewise be

UNCHANGEABLE and DEFINITE, subject NEITHER to ADDITIONS nor to

CANCELLATIONS. Anything indefinite in the number would eo ipso imply a lack of

certitude in God’s knowledge and would DESTROY His omniscience.

End quote Emphasize added.

Continue

 

[LatinRight]

CONDITIONS THAT OUR WORKS (OUR DEEDS) COUNT FOR ANYTHING

Conditions MUST BE PRESENT to make SUPERNATURAL MERIT possible.

The meritorious work must be morally good, that is, in accordance with the moral law in its

object, intent, and circumstances.

It MUST be done FREELY, WITHOUT any EXTERNAL COERCION or INTERNAL NECESSITY.

It MUST be SUPERNATURAL, that is, AROUSED and ACCOMPANIED by ACTUAL

GRACE, and proceeding from a SUPERNATURAL motive.

Strictly speaking only a person in the STATE OF GRACE can merit, as defined by the

Church (Denzinger 1576, 1582). End quote. Emphasis mine.

JUSTIFICATION IN CATHOLIC TEACHING by Jimmy Akin

Quote: “The essence of supernatural love is unselfishness—doing something **NOT

BECAUSE IT WILL HELP US SOMEHOW,** but because we want to do it out of SHEER

LOVE for the other person, whether that person is God or one of our fellow human beings

out of the love of God.

This is THE ONLY KIND of love that ultimately pleases God and therefore the **ONLY

KIND** that ultimately gets us a reward IN heaven.” End quote. Emphasis mine.

If I act for the reason to get my salvation or to keep my salvation or to **“complete my

salvation,” **my works are wood, hay and straw, rejected by God and I will enter to heaven

without an act of good work and without any reward of God. – 1 Cor.3:12-15.

Someone may ask: How do you know, you are among the elect?

My answer: I believe the above teachings of the Catholic Church, I also believe the Scriptures includes John 5:24; 1 John 5:13.

I also did the test. God has given me a command in 2 Cor.13:5-6 to do the test of my standing. – This is a universal command of God for all of us.

We can obey and do the test or we can reject God’s command given to us in 2 Cor.13:5-6.

God not only given me/us the command to do the test, God has also given me/us the ability to do the test and to know the test result.

The condition to do an “act of faith” is the condition to know the positive test result of our standing.

How can anyone do an “act of faith” if he doesn’t have the faith to believe he is among the

elect??? – Simply cannot, because he doesn’t know he is an elect or he is a reprobate.

The command given to us in 2 Cor.13:5-6 to test our standing.

Also the same command given to us in 1 Cor.11:27-30 to test/examine ourselves before we partake in the Eucharist.

The Eucharist is only for the elect.

As the Eucharist is only for the elect and if we don’t have faith to believe we are among

the elect, yet if we still partake in the Eucharist our participation in the Eucharist is a

FAITHLESS ACT and we are participating in the Eucharist in an unworthy manner and **we

are guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.**

God’s commands given to us in 1 Cor.11:27-30 and in 2 Cor.13:5-6 is a very serious matter.

If we want our works “acts of faith” and we want to our Eucharist an “act of faith” **first we

must have the faith to believe we are among the elect.**

If we don’t do the tests and we don’t have the faith to believe we are AMONG THE elect,

we CAN NOT do even one “act of faith” and if we still participate in the Eucharist we

are participating in the Eucharist in an **unworthy manner and we are guilty of profaning

the body and blood of the Lord.**

Our Eucharist is a faithless act instead of an “act of faith.”

Would be lack of knowledge to believe, God has given us REPEATED COMMANDS to

test our standings (elect or reprobates) and He has failed to given us the ability to do the

tests and to know the test’s results.

God bless,

LatinRight

 

[Duane1966]

Well, there are two ways our actions are viewed. One way is horizontal, which is in regard to our fellow man. In that sense it is a pleasing and good thing and is a testimony of the law of God written on their heart, even though they deny there is a God. But there is another aspect to our actions, and that is the vertical or in relation to God. It is in this sense that the action is not pleasing to God and what the Scripture means when it says the following:

Hebrews 11: 6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Romans 8:6-7
6The mind governed by the flesh is death, but the mind governed by the Spirit is life and peace. 7The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.

So if the atheist is not acting out of faith in God or is governed by the flesh instead of the Spirit do you think his action is pleasing to God?

So in this situation, God does not care whether the atheist lets the Christian drown? It can’t be pleasing to him, in your interpretation, and you said he doesn’t condemn the action.

 

[Anthony_V]

Latin Right,

Thanks for your reply.

However, I was anticipating a reply from SolaScriptura.

 

[Michael68]

… Dave Armstrong. Actually if you desire to be consistent with Scripture you have to affirm it in some way, because it is clear from the Scripture that some were justified by faith alone. For example:

There were nothing these individuals were doing besides listening. This is also the point the Apostle Paul makes to the Galatians:

So not only did the Apostle Paul experience this as did the Apostle Peter, but he used it as evidence against the Judiazers that one is justified by faith without works.

So how can Catholics completely deny justification by faith alone in any sense? At least Dave Armstrong tries to incorporate this biblical teaching into what Catholics teaching on justification by acknowledging initial justification can be by faith alone. Who disagrees and why?

Can you explain why Protestants believe this? I have never understood the mindset that says, “I have faith and I don’t want to help God’s work”. Can you please explain this selfishness?

 

[JonNC]

Can you explain why Protestants believe this? I have never understood the mindset that says, “I have faith and I don’t want to help God’s work”. Can you please explain this selfishness?

Source, please, where any particular communion teaches that this is okay?
Or, to balance this,
Can you explain why -]Protestants/-] Catholics believe the following? I have never understood the mindset that says, “I have-] faith/-] works and and can earn my way to Heaven?”

Neither question is justifiable based on the teachings of any western Christians. Catholics teach that faith justifies. “Protestants” teach that good works are necessary.

Jon

 

[Michael68]

Source, please, where any particular communion teaches that this is okay?
Or, to balance this,
Can you explain why -]Protestants/-] Catholics believe the following? I have never understood the mindset that says, “I have-] faith/-] works and and can earn my way to Heaven?”

Neither question is justifiable based on the teachings of any western Christians. Catholics teach that faith justifies. “Protestants” teach that good works are necessary.

Jon

Hi Jon
I on occasion talk to Protestants IRL and on Protestant forums. The overwhelming consensus is, they said their “saving prayer” and that is it! They consider any good work a work of the law. Check out Christianchat.com. There are numerous threads on this subject. Some even believe in “hyper-grace” which allows them to do nothing. These people also believe they have a license to sin as in OSAS.
I don’t think the issue is as plain as you see it.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon
I on occasion talk to Protestants IRL and on Protestant forums. The overwhelming consensus is, they said their “saving prayer” and that is it! They consider any good work a work of the law. Check out Christianchat.com. There are numerous threads on this subject. Some even believe in “hyper-grace” which allows them to do nothing. These people also believe they have a license to sin as in OSAS.
I don’t think the issue is as plain as you see it.

Okay. I guess there are those that do. Can you name a communion they represent?

I go back to Luther’s commentary on Galatians 5:6

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

 

[Kliska]

The overwhelming consensus is, they said their “saving prayer” and that is it! They consider any good work a work of the law. Check out Christianchat.com. There are numerous threads on this subject. Some even believe in “hyper-grace” which allows them to do nothing. These people also believe they have a license to sin as in OSAS.
I don’t think the issue is as plain as you see it.

I’m from a non-liturgical protestant background, so let me see if I can shed some light on this. An informed evangelical wouldn’t ever say that any good work is a work of law, but rather any truly good work a believer does *is a work of the Holy Spirit *since there is none good but God. The teaching is that justification comes first, and then sanctification follows. That sanctification isn’t seen to come from the person, but rather God working on and through the person.

The prayer isn’t what they believe saves them, but rather the faith “behind” or “before” the prayer. If someone mouths a prayer and that’s it, and they don’t believe, the vast majority of evangelicals would deny that they “are saved.” “With the heart man believes unto righteousness” is a popular phrase in evangelical circles. Yes, there are those that teach faith is all it takes on the part of humans, since grace flows through faith. So, God saves by grace through faith, and faith here would be defined in evangelical circles as trusting.

OSAS takes on different forms. Yes, there are groups that teach a person literally cannot sin, or do sinful things after salvation. There are groups that teach a person can do sinful acts, yet those sins are not laid to their charge… in effect being “pre-paid” by Jesus on the Cross. It is a bit different from the heresy in Paul’s day that said we actually should sin so that grace would flow.

Rightly or wrongly if someone shows up and says they are allowed to murder because “OSAS,” the vast majority of evangelicals would say that person isn’t saved because while works don’t save you, fruit can give you hints if someone is saved or not.

 

[Michael68]

I’m from a non-liturgical protestant background, so let me see if I can shed some light on this. An informed evangelical wouldn’t ever say that any good work is a work of law, but rather any truly good work a believer does *is a work of the Holy Spirit *since there is none good but God. The teaching is that justification comes first, and then sanctification follows. That sanctification isn’t seen to come from the person, but rather God working on and through the person.

The prayer isn’t what they believe saves them, but rather the faith “behind” or “before” the prayer. If someone mouths a prayer and that’s it, and they don’t believe, the vast majority of evangelicals would deny that they “are saved.” “With the heart man believes unto righteousness” is a popular phrase in evangelical circles. Yes, there are those that teach faith is all it takes on the part of humans, since grace flows through faith. So, God saves by grace through faith, and faith here would be defined in evangelical circles as trusting.

OSAS takes on different forms. Yes, there are groups that teach a person literally cannot sin, or do sinful things after salvation. There are groups that teach a person can do sinful acts, yet those sins are not laid to their charge… in effect being “pre-paid” by Jesus on the Cross. It is a bit different from the heresy in Paul’s day that said we actually should sin so that grace would flow.Rightly or wrongly if someone shows up and says they are allowed to murder because “OSAS,” the vast majority of evangelicals would say that person isn’t saved because while works don’t save you, fruit can give you hints if someone is saved or not.

Thank You!!! This answers some of my questions in a clear way!
I had to stop visiting those sites because I was getting so confused. I was actually banned from Christianchat.com for, get this, "ongoing spreading of Catholic Heresy "! Can you believe it?
I very much agree with you about prayer and our attitude towards it. It is so true how passionate prayer is answered!!!

 

[Kliska]

Thank You!!! This answers some of my questions in a clear way!
I had to stop visiting those sites because I was getting so confused. I was actually banned from Christianchat.com for, get this, "ongoing spreading of Catholic Heresy "! Can you believe it?

I can believe it, because I’ve seen it happen. I’m sorry that happened to you. I also have to add that, as you know, there are Catholics who don’t know all that the RCC teaches and holds true, or they don’t understand it; that is also the way it is with evangelicals too. Many don’t actually understand what their pastors are actually preaching. It’s just harder to clear up with evangelicals because they have nothing at all like a catechism containing all teachings to point to.

I very much agree with you about prayer and our attitude towards it. It is so true how passionate prayer is answered!!!

I think that is something most practicing Christians can agree on!

 

[mackbrislawn]

QUOTE=Kliska;14388092

The prayer isn’t what they believe saves them, but rather the faith “behind” or “before” the prayer. If someone mouths a prayer and that’s it, and they don’t believe, the vast majority of evangelicals would deny that they “are saved.” “With the heart man believes unto righteousness” is a popular phrase in evangelical circles. Yes, there are those that teach faith is all it takes on the part of humans, since grace flows through faith. So, God saves by grace through faith, and faith here would be defined in evangelical circles as trusting.

The sinner’s prayers that I have seen samples of (and which I have said myself) contain a number of promises, as well as accepting Jesus into your heart as Lord and Savior.

However, I haven’t really heard any explanations of what accepting Jesus into your heart really means to an evangelical. Now, to me it would seem that accepting Jesus into your heart should mean that you need to obey Jesus. That is, before Jesus can be your savior, He first must be your Lord, which would mean being under the law of Christ, as Paul was himself.

But again, to many evangelicals, the emphasis appears to be on the Savior part of “Lord and Savior” and the Lord part is forgotten. So, what if the promises in the sinner’s prayer are not lived up to, and one doesn’t follow the law of Christ?

 

[Usagi]

So in this situation, God does not care whether the atheist lets the Christian drown? It can’t be pleasing to him, in your interpretation, and you said he doesn’t condemn the action.

There is actually a Catholic way of phrasing this that comes to a similar conclusion, though perhaps one not quite as harsh.

The atheist’s action is good in accordance with natural virtue, so obviously God is not displeased that this good act has occurred and someone’s life has been spared.

However, the atheist’s action is (most likely) not infused with grace so as to be an example of supernaturally virtuous behavior. And therefore it earns him nothing in terms of salvation or sanctification. The action (not being preceded by faith and done out of grace) cannot be supernaturally pleasing to God and therefore has no effect on the performer’s eternal destiny.

Nobody (well, probably some people, but as JonNC puts it, no communion of believers with consistent teachings) believes that it’s a matter of going to Heaven by piling up your own good works, then presenting them before God with a claim to have justly earned Heaven. Our good works are God’s good works in us, and any merit or reward accorded to them is not a matter of God doling out what we deserve in justice but a matter of God choosing graciously to reward what He has done in us, while we at best cooperated by getting our own wills out of the way so He could work.

Present-day Catholics do tend to have a fairly liberal (in the literal sense of “generous” rather than as a political position) view as to whether that atheist just might actually have been acting under the prompting of grace without recognizing it and therefore might have performed a supernaturally good act (or rather, allowed God to perform one through him) after all. That might be another reason why Catholics are quicker to agree on “grace alone” than on “faith alone,” since the question of whether you have to know and profess that it’s Jesus you’re following in order to “count” seems to be rather more settled among (some? most?) Protestants than among us.

 

[rinnie]

… Dave Armstrong. Actually if you desire to be consistent with Scripture you have to affirm it in some way, because it is clear from the Scripture that some were justified by faith alone. For example:

There were nothing these individuals were doing besides listening. This is also the point the Apostle Paul makes to the Galatians:

So not only did the Apostle Paul experience this as did the Apostle Peter, but he used it as evidence against the Judiazers that one is justified by faith without works.

So how can Catholics completely deny justification by faith alone in any sense? At least Dave Armstrong tries to incorporate this biblical teaching into what Catholics teaching on justification by acknowledging initial justification can be by faith alone. Who disagrees and why?

If you are justified by faith alone, why do you need God. And where did you get your faith from yourself? Because the RCC has always taught there is no such thing of Faith ALONE. All Faith comes from the GRACE of God. And with that faith is the grace of God to use it to do good works. Faith without good works is USELESS. How did St Paul and St Peter experience this. They had faith without works? What did you call giving up all they had and preaching the Gospel if not good works??

 

[rinnie]

Thank You!!! This answers some of my questions in a clear way!
I had to stop visiting those sites because I was getting so confused. I was actually banned from Christianchat.com for, get this, "ongoing spreading of Catholic Heresy "! Can you believe it?
I very much agree with you about prayer and our attitude towards it. It is so true how passionate prayer is answered!!!

If you are Roman Catholic, here is what you should do, it worked for me. Read about the teachers of our faith. Read books on the RC faith, Pope, etc. Scott Hawn helps us understand things easier. But the main thing is when you want a answer to a question look up what does the RCC teach on this, that etc. See its so easy to interpret scripture on our own, and we are usually wrong. I know I always was, and like you always got me i a pickle.

 

[Peter_J]

If you are Roman Catholic, here is what you should do, it worked for me. Read about the teachers of our faith. Read books on the RC faith, Pope, etc. Scott Hawn helps us understand things easier. But the main thing is when you want a answer to a question look up what does the RCC teach on this, that etc. See its so easy to interpret scripture on our own, and we are usually wrong. I know I always was, and like you always got me i a pickle.

Hi rinnie. I haven’t read very many of your posts in the last few years, but after reading this one I’ve got to say thank you for posting that – I just wish that more Catholics would take that advise. Honestly, I am convinced that there are a huge number of people for whom Internet discussion forums do more harm than good.

 

[Mammoths]

Philippians 2:12King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

 

[Mammoths]

If you are justified by faith alone, why do you need God. And where did you get your faith from yourself? Because the RCC has always taught there is no such thing of Faith ALONE. All Faith comes from the GRACE of God. And with that faith is the grace of God to use it to do good works. Faith without good works is USELESS. How did St Paul and St Peter experience this. They had faith without works? What did you call giving up all they had and preaching the Gospel if not good works??

What does “alone” mean? In this discussion there is going to be a language barrier. Protestantism (although you may find that the poorly catechized practitioner does not articulate it well) does not teach that faith is an independent force we can use to our personal gain. It is not a Jedi force. Actually, faith is something God graciously allows, or predestines. It is not that faith is the savior but rather God credits the believer with righteousness as a gift of grace because of their faith. The apostle Paul uses Abraham as a case in point who was credited as righteous before his son was born and offered. James then points out that Abraham actually did offer his son. If he had not believed God he would not have offered his son and his faith would have been vain. So the position is that in the life of a believer God initially by His son’s crucifixion redeems, washes and justifies the repentant sinner. Repentance isn’t a work leading to the penetent deserving or earning Righteousness. God freely gives of his own character to those who can never deserve. God’s grace continually teaches motivates and empowers the new Christian through the Holy Spirit to live righteously as called. These works don’t make us worthy so much as becoming a child of God makes us act like Him. If the transformation doesn’t occur, then it is apparent that the new birth did not either. That is what is meant by ‘faith alone.’ The catholic position seems to be, and I am no expert, that God gives his grace through the sacraments. Not because He is obliged by contract but because he wills it. So here again the catholic does not earn or obligate God to anything but God of the riches of His character responding to the obedience of faith gives righteousness to the catholic. In both views God is working to restore undeserving man. In both cases there is cooperation on the part of man. In both cases the very act of goodness demonstrated by the redeemed is to the credit of Him who alone can make a sinner righteous again. So faith alone doesn’t mean a man can use his faith to make God save him. It means God saves those who believe from His own storehouse of Grace apart from the self-achieved worthiness of the repentant sinner.