St Augustine on Salvation By Faith Alone

[alwayswill]

Please expound on the Parable of the Vines to me. If we can never fall, why does Jesus exhort us to remain in him? Who is Jesus addressing this parable to? According to you, it cannot be the elect, or the reprobate.

they will remain

the response to the If clause is the promise of yes

 

[rcwitness]

really?
it strains credibility to suggest that Trent was not in response to the Reformation views on on Faith alone.

there is no doubt the the Catholics over 400 years ago knew exactly what the Reformers meant by Faith…

to say in 2016-2017 that we actually agree is to wilful disregard history…

Is your view that Trent was in response to a straw man understanding of the Reformation?

Trent clarified the Church’s position on justification and salvation. It wasn’t the only matter, and not even necessarily the reason of division. Did individuals misunderstand justification and abuse other practices? Yes.

But this still goes on, and probably alwayswill (no pun intended)

 

[Duane1966]

---

read that again:

But whatever in the justified
precedes
or
follows the free gift of faith
is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.

nothing is basis of justification nor merits justification EXCEPT the free gift of faith that come from God:

You do realize this is exactly what Trent teaches?

consider what has been coming out of the Vatican for the last 50 years and try to understand what the Reformers have been saying all along

From this website:firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/03/a-betrayal-of-the-gospel-the-joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification

Ten years after it appeared, we still continue to hear that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was a “breakthrough” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. The media loves to perpetuate this myth. In fact, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is a fraud. **It was a sell-out by revisionist Lutherans to Rome.

Rome is not to be faulted in any of this. The Papacy maintained the historic position of the Roman Church, and did not change it.** Mainline liberal Lutherans, however, compromised the key doctrine of the Scriptures and the very heart of the Lutheran Confessions. When I served as Assistant to the President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, at the time this statement came out in 2000, we prepared an extensive set of documents illustrating precisely why the JDDJ is a fraud and a betrayal of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Was Trent set aside by the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification?

No, quite the contrary. **The Vatican was very careful to make it clear that it has not set aside the Council of Trent and that Trent still remains authoritative, binding dogma for the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Cassidy, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christianity Unity, the individual responsible in large part for Rome’s involvement in the Joint Declaration, went out of his way to clarify this point in a press conference held when the JDDJ was signed. Here is what he had to say:

“Asked whether there was anything in the official common statement contrary to the Council of Trent, Cardinal Cassidy said: ‘Absolutely not, otherwise how could we do it? We cannot do something contrary to an ecumenical council. There’s nothing there that the Council of Trent condemns” (Ecumenical News International, 11/1/99).
**
With this statement by Cardinal Cassidy in mind, one is led to wonder how a document that is alleged to be a faithful Lutheran statement of justification contains nothing that Trent condemned.

 

[Duane1966]

they will remain

the response to the If clause is the promise of yes

Who is he addressing? You have already said that it cannot be the saved, for they cannot leave. And you have said it cannot be the reprobate, for they were never there. You have just made this parable useless. You cannot remain somewhere you have not been. And there is no need to tell someone to remain if they cannot leave.

 

[Contarini]

really?
it strains credibility to suggest that Trent was not in response to the Reformation views on on Faith alone.

So you’re unwilling to deal in specifics?

there is no doubt the the Catholics over 400 years ago knew exactly what the Reformers meant by Faith…

Of course there’s doubt. Scholars have written hundreds of books debating just what Luther meant on this subject–why assume that a bunch of Catholic bishops in the sixteenth century got it absolutely right?

to say in 2016-2017 that we actually agree is to wilful disregard history…

No, it’s to choose not to be imprisoned by it. We understand the history, we understand that we have disagreed, but we can find a way forward that encompasses the truths defended by both sides.

Is your view that Trent was in response to a straw man understanding of the Reformation?

You weren’t asking me, but I’ll respond: yes, to some extent there was a caricature, I think. I would not claim that they had no understanding or that there was no real disagreement, but the polemical atmosphere of the sixteenth century didn’t really make for clear understanding.

Many people seem to have the strange notion that polemical passions clarify and ecumenical empathy fudges. It’s at least as likely to go the other way.

Edwin

 

[alwayswill]

So you’re unwilling to deal in specifics?

Edwin

it is a rabbit hole discussing the meaning of meanings and interpretation of interpretations.

It is obvious the understanding is be being clarified to have the exact opposite understanding as past centuries

In another thread this was brought up

That’s very true. But they – and I mean not just the ones here but even the more hardcore SSPX-type traditionalists – do in fact agree with the views that were held by some past popes.

I think the deeper issue, at least sometimes, is when Protestants study history and come up with questions but then are silenced by a we-never-change type response that doesn’t do justice to their questions.

it applies here

The Lutherans are changing their understanding the Catholic Church is.

Oct 2017 is coming

 

[Contarini]

it is a rabbit hole discussing the meaning of meanings and interpretation of interpretations.

It is obvious the understanding is be being clarified to have the exact opposite understanding as past centuries

So it’s too obvious for you to bother actually presenting evidence?

I smell a rat.

The Lutherans are changing their understanding the Catholic Church is.

Of course. Everybody changes their understanding all the time.

Edwin

 

[alwayswill]

So it’s too obvious for you to bother actually presenting evidence?

I smell a rat.

Of course. Everybody changes their understanding all the time.

Edwin

right; i don’t have the time

shocking!!

read this : let me know what you find out
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

"Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term faith in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

---

I love the way Jimmy Akin tells you what Trent really meant:

 

[rcwitness]

right; i don’t have the time

shocking!!

read this : let me know what you find out
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

"Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term faith in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

---

I love the way Jimmy Akin tells you what Trent really meant:

But you are claiming Trent to be in error.
If you don’t have time, then don’t pronounce judgments. Right?

 

[alwayswill]

But you are claiming Trent to be in error.
If you don’t have time, then don’t pronounce judgments. Right?

right: people will be here in a minute

this is the error

CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

this is correct

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

That is not the view from 450 to 50 years ago and the Traditionalists know it

 

[alwayswill]

But you are claiming Trent to be in error.
If you don’t have time, then don’t pronounce judgments. Right?

so then

When you ask for a yes or no response: do you really mean you do not want a yes or no response?

Alwayswill, do you believe that Trent and the Catechism have correctly Taught Justification?

Do you believe Trent or the Catechism has Taught Justification and Salvation correctly? Yes, or No?

see post 114

 

[Duane1966]

right: people will be here in a minute

this is the error

CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

this is correct

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

That is not the view from 450 to 50 years ago and the Traditionalists know it

Session 6 Canon 9 is condemning the notion that nothing at all is required on the part of the Catechumen to prepare to receive the grace of justification at baptism,1 that he need not repent of his sins or pray or love God or even resolve to seek baptism. In Romans 3:28, however, St. Paul is not speaking of what is required to prepare to receive the grace of justification in baptism, but rather of the impossibility of justification by works done apart from grace. Likewise, what Trent says about the necessity of preparing to receive the grace of justification in baptism is fully compatible with the truth St. Paul teaches in Ephesians 2:8-9, according to which saving faith is a gift from God and not from ourselves, and that saving faith is not merited by works. The Catholic Church affirms that faith is a gift from God, not from ourselves, and that faith is not merited by works. So both of those passages are fully compatible with what Canon 9 says.-calledtocommunion.com

 

[Cathoholic]

The “inheritance” IS guaranteed alwayswill.

But we are not just talking about the “inheritance”.

What is NOT guaranteed is that we ACCEPT and CONTINUE to accept that inheritance in this life.

An “inheritance” CAN be by free will, refused. Either immediately or later.

What is NOT guaranteed is that we persevere to the end.

None of the verses you cited teach or hint at once saved always saved (OSAS).

Appealing to “the elect” isn’t going to help either. Unless you can show where being “born again” is automatically being among the elect your argument will not be persuasive.

OSAS or other forms of Eternal Security is not Biblical teaching.

 

[alwayswill]

The “inheritance” IS guaranteed alwayswill.

But we are not just talking about the “inheritance”.

What is NOT guaranteed is that we ACCEPT and CONTINUE to accept that inheritance in this life.

An “inheritance” CAN be by free will, refused. Either immediately or later.

What is NOT guaranteed is that we persevere to the end.

None of the verses you cited teach or hint at once saved always saved (OSAS).

Appealing to “the elect” isn’t going to help either. Unless you can show where being “born again” is automatically being among the elect your argument will not be persuasive.

OSAS or other forms of Eternal Security is not Biblical teaching.

Romans 8
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Is there any who were justified that will not be glorified?

it comes down to this:

If you think that ultimately, you get to chose to be saved;
then it would follow that ultimately, you get to chose to be UN-saved;

I reject both on Biblical grounds

 

[Porknpie]

Romans 8
29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Is there any who were justified that will not be glorified?

it comes down to this:

If you think that ultimately, you get to chose to be saved;
then it would follow that ultimately, you get to chose to be UN-saved;

I reject both on Biblical grounds

Interesting is this book of Romans. Romans 8 must be reconciled with Romans 11. What’s your thoughts here Always on St. Paul’s words: “provided” and believers being “cut off” ?

22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

 

[alwayswill]

Interesting is this book of Romans. Romans 8 must be reconciled with Romans 11. What’s your thoughts here Always on St. Paul’s words: “provided” and believers being “cut off” ?

22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

Paul is referring to people-groups (ie Jews or Gentiles) not individuals.
Paul was talking about the nation/people of Israel being cut off and the Gentiles being grafted in.

 

[rcwitness]

When you ask for a yes or no response: do you really mean you do not want a yes or no response?

see post 114

I was asking for a simple, clear answer before moving to “the why”. In post 114, you seemed to possibly imply that the “understanding” of Trent’s teaching was wrong, but not necessarily the teaching itself. Thank for clarifying, and then providing the section you find to be in error. Sorry I haven’t been able to respond.

 

[rcwitness]

right: people will be here in a minute

this is the error

CANON 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”

this is correct

If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

That is not the view from 450 to 50 years ago and the Traditionalists know it

I think the language of Trent is definitely “funny” and a little foreign to us these days. What does this article mean by the “impious”?

By this definition:
lacking in reverence or proper respect (as for God or one’s parents)

So it seams to refer to a vain faith, or something. How could an irreverence for God be a proper reception of God’s Grace? It’s kinda funny that Trent even speaks like this, since it’s stating the obvious.

 

[rcwitness]

The “Canons” in the Trent documents are articles that summarize the previous chapters. I strongly suggest reading the chapters to understand the canons.

CHAPTER V.*
On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds.

***The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient[Page 33]*grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God.

CHAPTER VI.*
The manner of Preparation.

Now they (adults) are disposed unto the said justice, when, excited and assisted by divine grace, conceiving faith by hearing, they are freely moved towards God, believing those things to be true which God has revealed and promised,-and this especially, that God justifies the impious by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; and when, understanding themselves to be sinners, they, by turning themselves, from the fear of divine justice whereby they are profitably agitated, to consider the mercy of God, are raised unto hope, confiding that God will be propitious to them for Christ’s sake; and they begin to love Him as the fountain of all justice; and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation, to wit, by that penitence which must be performed before baptism: lastly, when they purpose to receive baptism,*[Page 34]*to begin a new life, and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written; He that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him; and, Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee; and, The fear of the Lord driveth out sin; and, Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost; and, Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; finally, Prepare your hearts unto the Lord.

 

[rcwitness]

CHAPTER VII.*
What the justification of the impious is, and what are the causes thereof.

This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.

Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instru-[Page 35]mental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation. For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.** For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body**. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. This faith, Catechumen’s beg of the Church-agreeably to a tradition of the apostles-previously to the sacrament of Baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestows life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow: whence also do they immediately hear that word of Christ; If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Wherefore, when receiving true and Christian justice, they are bidden, immediately on being born again, to preserve it pure and spotless, as the first robe given them through Jesus Christ in lieu of that which*[Page 36]*Adam, by his disobedience, lost for himself and for us, that so they may bear it before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ, and may have life everlasting.