The opposite of Protestant Justification is not Roman Catholicism but Eastern Chrisitianity

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

JonNC:

catholicray:

When you really dig down to the nuts and bolts though what I truly mean by works is that my simple yes in response to God is the work and it merits salvation.

This is where we would disagree profoundly. It excludes the necessity of Christ’s passion, in my view, if all that is needed is our simple yes.

Just as Mary’s yes was the means by which God freely gave us the grace of His only Son our Salvation. My yes merits salvation this is the root of my cooperative work. I have the freedom to say no.

I am perplexed as to how we can claim merit for something we cannot do without grace.
One must return to Ephesians 2:

8 For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

2 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins … But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus

Paul here is alluding to baptism. We were dead, and through baptism are raised to new life in Christ. It is not a comprehensive treatment of salvation, just high level. We did not receive the grace that moved us to baptism by any good work we did or because we were particularly righteous. No men should boast that they were called because of their righteousness.

Amen… but that reliance on grace continues throughout our growth as a Christian, not just at our baptism. We depend on grace in word and sacrament.

Yes. Catholics and Orthodox are not monergists.

 

[Wesrock]

catholicray:

Our rejection or our no to grace is our own but we would not have the opportunity to say no if God did not exist or if God did not create us with free will. Furthermore our no would be meaningless if not for God who merits perfectly our yes.

Here, again, you are speaking of His grace. The fact of His existence and grace is not in question. What is in question is if anything we do earns merit.
My contention is nothing we do earns merit.

Nothing we do on our own earns merit. Things we choose to do under our own agency through the grace of God can.

 

[JonNC]

Yes. But we’re not monergists.

I think that’s the difference. I recognize that we must respond to grace, but that response is a result of the work of the Spirit. Rejection of grace is our work.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Wesrock:

JonNC:

catholicray:

When you really dig down to the nuts and bolts though what I truly mean by works is that my simple yes in response to God is the work and it merits salvation.

This is where we would disagree profoundly. It excludes the necessity of Christ’s passion, in my view, if all that is needed is our simple yes.

Just as Mary’s yes was the means by which God freely gave us the grace of His only Son our Salvation. My yes merits salvation this is the root of my cooperative work. I have the freedom to say no.

I am perplexed as to how we can claim merit for something we cannot do without grace.
One must return to Ephesians 2:

8 For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

2 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins … But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus

Paul here is alluding to baptism. We were dead, and through baptism are raised to new life in Christ. It is not a comprehensive treatment of salvation, just high level. We did not receive the grace that moved us to baptism by any good work we did or because we were particularly righteous. No men should boast that they were called because of their righteousness.

Amen… but that reliance on grace continues throughout our growth as a Christian, not just at our baptism. We depend on grace in word and sacrament.

Yes. Catholics and Orthodox are not monergists.

Are you a monergist at home he beginning of faith? Baptism?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

JonNC:

Wesrock:

JonNC:

catholicray:

When you really dig down to the nuts and bolts though what I truly mean by works is that my simple yes in response to God is the work and it merits salvation.

This is where we would disagree profoundly. It excludes the necessity of Christ’s passion, in my view, if all that is needed is our simple yes.

Just as Mary’s yes was the means by which God freely gave us the grace of His only Son our Salvation. My yes merits salvation this is the root of my cooperative work. I have the freedom to say no.

I am perplexed as to how we can claim merit for something we cannot do without grace.
One must return to Ephesians 2:

8 For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

2 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins … But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved. 6 And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus

Paul here is alluding to baptism. We were dead, and through baptism are raised to new life in Christ. It is not a comprehensive treatment of salvation, just high level. We did not receive the grace that moved us to baptism by any good work we did or because we were particularly righteous. No men should boast that they were called because of their righteousness.

Amen… but that reliance on grace continues throughout our growth as a Christian, not just at our baptism. We depend on grace in word and sacrament.

Yes. Catholics and Orthodox are not monergists.

Are you a monergist at home he beginning of faith? Baptism?

No. We cannot assent to faith without God’s grace, but his grace is what gives is the capacity to assent. It is a work of the Holy Spirit, and we could not move ourselves to faith without it, but God leaves the door open for our “yes” or “no”, our agency. So the movement is impossible without God, but neither does the movement happen without our cooperation. And to be clear, this isn’t saying that the call is given to those who “earn” it through their own works, either.

Of course, we also believe in God’s predestination and foreknowledge, but not in a way that removes man’s agency.

 

[Wesrock]

Here are some citations from Session 6 of the Council of Trent just to support what I’m writing as the Catholic position. (Note that some canons from this session certainly protestants will agree with as they condemn Pelagianism and its forms, too, but canons 4 and 9 are regarding what we’re discussing regarding being moved to faith.)

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.-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.

I’ll add that Catholics don’t consider the anathemas to be in effect for the current era or circumstances, but the canons otherwise remain sound statements of doctrine.

 

[JonNC]

We cannot assent to faith without God’s grace, but his grace is what gives is the capacity to assent. It is a work of the Holy Spirit, and we could not move ourselves to faith without it, but God leaves the door open for our “yes” or “no”, our agency. So the movement is impossible without God, but neither does the movement happen without our cooperation. And to be clear, this isn’t saying that the call is given to those who “earn” it through their own works, either.

It continues to sound like semantic differences.
Thanks

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

We cannot assent to faith without God’s grace, but his grace is what gives is the capacity to assent. It is a work of the Holy Spirit, and we could not move ourselves to faith without it, but God leaves the door open for our “yes” or “no”, our agency. So the movement is impossible without God, but neither does the movement happen without our cooperation. And to be clear, this isn’t saying that the call is given to those who “earn” it through their own works, either.

It continues to sound like semantic differences.
Thanks

I think we can boil it down to two questions.

(1) Is man’s will, moved and excited by God’s grace, active or passive in assenting to faith?

(2) Is man’s will, moved and excited by God’s grace, active or passive in doing good works?

Per the all-knowing-never-to-be-doubted* Wikipedia’s article on Monergism:

Lutherans thus confess that salvation is monergistic, saving faith being the work of the Holy Spirit alone while man is still the uncooperative enemy of God, but man’s damnation is synergistic - Scripture states repeatedly that man participates in and bears the responsibility for resisting God’s grace of the free gift - not enforced gift - of salvation. Thus, you will see Calvinists incorrectly accuse Lutherans of Arminianism and Arminians incorrectly accuse Lutherans of Calvinism.

The Wiki is stating that Lutherans believe man’s will is passive in assenting to faith and when doing good works, but active in rejecting faith and good works. Catholics believe that the will is active in both, though one can do neither without grace.

*I’m being tongue-in-cheek. Wikipedia must be taken with a grain of salt, and if it needs correction please let me know.

 

[ZMystiCat]

Any thoughts?

I’m not familiar enough with EO soteriology to know if it really is more different from Protestantism than Catholicism is, but given the portions of a creed cited by @Genesis315, it doesn’t seem like our soteriologies are that different.

With that said, given what I’ve seen of Protestants when challenged with the Eastern churches, they don’t seem phased. Some dodge the challenge, while others take it as proof that the Church was corrupted very early on. Some are moved by it, though, and they’re probably going to end up moving closer to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, even if just in a more Catholic-like Protestant denomination.

The first portion of this creed states that one is not justified through faith.

No, it didn’t. It said, “…not simply justified through faith alone.”

I mean, how do you get from that to “not justified through faith”?

The Protestant position is that espoused by Paul that we are justified freely by faith apart from works.

In case you missed it, they end the first sentence by citing Paul. They also follow up with a clear reference to James, so…two to one, they win.

Doesn’t sound funny to me. It’s called sanctification.

Well, this is one of the challenges of the justification debate. The language is very different, so that some of what we consider justification is completely separated into sanctification in Protestantism. I actually remember when looking into Catholicism finding the idea of justification as a process that included some of what I thought to be just sanctification weird.

Obviously, I came to find the Catholic understanding more convincing. If anything, I’d say it’s practically necessary in order to not read Paul and James as contradicting each other while still taking both at their word, not twisting the words of Paul or, as happens more often, James.

 

[JonNC]

I’m being tongue-in-cheek. Wikipedia must be taken with a grain of salt, and if it needs correction please let me know.

Oh, no. Wikipedia is part of the Lutheran confessions. I’ve heard it is part of the Catholic Catechism, too.

Generally true. The real ()Lutheran confessions are very clear about the necessity of good works.

 

[EZweber]

From what you have said, I am hoping that you agree to this understanding of salvation.

1. Without the merits of Christ’s Passion and death, man is entirely powerless to reach heaven.
2. To access heaven, man must die with the three supernatural virtues in his soul.
3. Faith, defined as the supernatural assent of the intellect to the truths that God has revealed, primarily because He has revealed them, is the first supernatural virtue. Without faith, hope and love are impossible, but faith without hope and love is dead.
4. Hope is the second supernatural virtue. Hope sees the attainment of heaven as desirable, difficult, and possible. Hope is dependent on faith and love is dependent on hope.
5. Love is the will to do as God wills, even in the face of suffering.
6. Although our own works are never good without God’s grace, they can have redemptive power when united to Christ, since God in His wisdom has chosen that our race will be a unified whole in which no part may be wholly independent of the others in their fortune or misfortune.

 

[Hodos]

You have to interpret the Orthodox paragraph within the larger context of its history and faith. The most basic understanding of Orthodox soteriology is the concept of theosis, or the inner transformation of the human person via God’s grace. It can even be called divinization or deification. This will sound funny to people aren’t familiar with their own lango, but the idea is that the Holy Spirit is truly at work to transform the person inside-out. Hence the sacramental life but also the ascetical life.

Understood. However, the books of the Bible that specifically deal with justification describe it just as Luther did, as the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. That being said, they also speak of walking in the spirit, which indicates that the justified believer undergoes the process of being shaped by our life of faith, which is why the passages I provided from the Augsburg Confession reads as they do. We are justified by faith alone, and good works are still necessary in the Christian life for the sake of our neighbor. Thank you for bringing up the topic of theosis. I am familiar with this concept.

 

[EZweber]

But if you have faith and totally hate God, are you justified? If your answer is either yes or you cannot be in that state, I would like to see your definition of faith. My definition is above.

 

[JonNC]

But if you have faith and totally hate God, are you justified? If your answer is either yes or you cannot be in that state, I would like to see your definition of faith. My definition is above.

Of course not. That is mere belief, a mere intellectual assent. Belief that hates God is not saving faith. Where is the hope in a God one hates? Where is true contrition for sins, or desire for forgiveness? Who wants to live eternally with a God one hates?

[Justifying] faith is a living, bold [firm] trust in God’s grace, so certain that a man would die a thousand times for it [rather than suffer this trust to be wrested from him]. And this trust and knowledge of divine grace renders joyful, fearless, and cheerful towards God and all creatures, which [joy and cheerfulness] the Holy Ghost works through faith; and on account of this, man becomes ready and cheerful, without coercion, to do good to every one, to serve every one, and to suffer everything for love and praise to God, who has conferred this grace on him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire.
-Luther

 

[JonNC]

Without the merits of Christ’s Passion and death, man is entirely powerless to reach heaven.

Amen.

To access heaven, man must die with the three supernatural virtues in his soul.

Saving faith must have these three, but we access justification by faith.

Faith, defined as the supernatural assent of the intellect to the truths that God has revealed, primarily because He has revealed them, is the first supernatural virtue. Without faith, hope and love are impossible, but faith without hope and love is dead.

Agreed. And a saving faith includes these.

Hope is the second supernatural virtue. Hope sees the attainment of heaven as desirable, difficult, and possible. Hope is dependent on faith and love is dependent on hope.

True. Faith is the founding of hope and love.

Love is the will to do as God wills, even in the face of suffering.

I can accept that as a definition.

Although our own works are never good without God’s grace, they can have redemptive power when united to Christ, since God in His wisdom has chosen that our race will be a unified whole in which no part may be wholly independent of the others in their fortune or misfortune.

Elaborate, please.

 

[JonNC]

No. We cannot assent to faith without God’s grace, but his grace is what gives is the capacity to assent. It is a work of the Holy Spirit, and we could not move ourselves to faith without it, but God leaves the door open for our “yes” or “no”, our agency.

I was baptized at a month and a day old. Through baptismal regeneration, I received the Holy Ghost, and faith has its early start.
How do I have assent to this?

So the movement is impossible without God, but neither does the movement happen without our cooperation.

I would say the movement stops when grace is rejected.

And to be clear, this isn’t saying that the call is given to those who “earn” it through their own works, either.

I recognize that Catholics do not believe in works righteousness.

Of course, we also believe in God’s predestination and foreknowledge, but not in a way that removes man’s agency.

Predestination, as opposed to double predestination, which we both reject.

 

[EZweber]

Although our own works are never good without God’s grace, they can have redemptive power when united to Christ , since God in His wisdom has chosen that our race will be a unified whole in which no part may be wholly independent of the others in their fortune or misfortune.

My good actions, with grace as their source and their end can be a source of grace for others. For example, our friendly discussion here helps both of us grow in knowledge and appreciation of each other’s veiw points and those who hold them. This in turn helps us to grow in love, which benefits us in the struggle for salvation. Also, if the one who is right convinces the other of their own belief, then it results in an increase of faith, hope, and love in that person (if properly responded to).

 

[EZweber]

It seems to me that by saving faith you mean all that Catholics mean by the supernatural virtues. Therefore, there is no disagreement on the matter that (saving) faith justifies us. I should reaffirm that love is dependent on hope, which is dependent on faith (my definition of faith).

 

[JonNC]

It seems to me that by saving faith you mean all that Catholics mean by the supernatural virtues. Therefore, there is no disagreement on the matter that (saving) faith justifies us. I should reaffirm that love is dependent on hope, which is dependent on faith (my definition of faith).

Precisely what Pope Benedict said

 

[EZweber]

Well, I’m not arguing with him.