Why are the Protestants so misinformed with "works"?

[Michael16]

@Hodos

I’m not the one in doctrinal error or conflict. The text is clear and you’re being obstinate.

The reason why we’re debating this ad nauseam is that I know my Scripture and I know my Catechism and I’m holding my ground against your error.

The translation I’m using is the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition. It’s a good translation.

Speaking of poor translations: As Luther admittedly altered Scripture when he translated the Bible into German and removed the seven books from their order and placed them in an apocrypha section. He’d have altered the New Testament, including removing Saint James; if it wasn’t for his allies in his movement.

So, I wouldn’t trust any translation done by Luther or those of his movement.

Going back over Romans 6:22, I find the phrase “ sanctification, and it’s end; eternal life. “ I know that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. In my studies into Aristotelian philosophy; I know that the Greek word, telos; means end or goal. So, the text in Romans 6:22 says it’s end, eternal life. It’s goal.

Even your own statement of the verse renders as result. Sanctification: the result or end; is eternal life.

The battlefield remains held by the Catholic Church. You’re the one on the defensive and there’s no way you can attack me that I can’t refute.

As I have explained, Saint Paul was laying out works based justification as impossible in the Early chapters of Romans. Once Saint Paul states faith apart from works, the basis Of justification is faith. Saint Paul never states that justification is caused by works. It’s caused by faith.

Through faith in Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit’s interior helps in our struggle with sin. The issue is still up in the air: Sin/Death or sanctification/Life. We battle and we have to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in our sanctification with the end result being eternal life.

Justification, as the Church teaches; can be lost we mortally sin. When we mortally sin, we lose our justification. With mortal sin on the soul, Confession becomes necessary.

Confession and Absolution restores justification.

A question to put you is: If justification by faith alone saves and sin doesn’t remove justification; ( Because sanctification only grows holiness and conformity with Christ and in no way helps or hinders justification. ) why does Luther retain Confession and Absolution?

Even though he denied that the Pope has the the authority to confer Absolution in Confession?

 

[TULIPed]

We battle and we have to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in our sanctification with the end result being eternal life.

Fair enough. I get where you’re coming from. Question on how you view sanctification: How sanctified do you have to be at the end? Said another way, do you have to be totally righteous when you die to achieve the result? Or are you totally sanctified after you die? (No trick questions here - I’ve read the RCC, and the timing around this isn’t clear to me (which is odd, because I think for the most part the RCC is well written.))

 

[Hodos]

I’m not the one in doctrinal error or conflict. The text is clear and you’re being obstinate.

I agree the text is clear. If I seem obstinate it is because the text is clear and you have not presented any persuasive argument why my conclusions based on the grammar, syntax, and context of the passage should be interpreted otherwise. I see that you have moved on from an exegetical discussion of the passages in question and have begun with ad hominem and slanderous attacks on Luther. Let me know if or when you would care to engage in a more civil discussion of the text. This appears to be a pattern on this site, so I can wait until you have calmed down.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

I’ll admit: I’m a Protestant preacher’s worst nightmare. I’m a well informed Catholic who knows his Scripture, knows his Catechism, knows Church history, knows Catholic theology, knows his classical philosophy and studies the opposition and has a good sense of discernment.

I’m not an ignorant and ill catechized Catholic that can be easily taken in by Protestant rhetoric.

When I know I’m right, I hold my ground.

What I seek is an actual scholarly discussion of back and forth Q and A where both parties seek to understand the other and both parties can admit the possibility that they can be wrong.

What I see with you when I hold my ground on what I know is right; you often accuse me of being intellectually dishonest or some other trickery, while you back off the field while I “ calm down “ and you return to the field later and try to convince me again.

As for my statements about Luther: It’s not slander if the facts can be substantiated. I didn’t even go ad hominem. I simply stated facts that can be found on the public record.

Now to assert my basic point.

For 1,500 years before Luther, the Church held justification by faith completed by works and all the other doctrines you accuse of being innovations and corruptions. Faith alone wasn’t even an issue until Luther came along and reinterpreted Saint Paul and created and organized his movement, convincing others to join his movement and viciously turning on those that didn’t; in opposition to the Church because he couldn’t convince the Magisterium of his views.

Ever since, Protestants have appropriated justification by faith, as if they have the monopoly on it; while attacking us for our supposedly teaching works only justification and we’ve had to defend ourselves for 500 years against Protestant polemics, prejudice, oppression and conversion efforts.

Now that I’ve read the Catechism and read Romans; I understand the truth that we’ve taught justification by faith the whole time and it’s you that has to defend against us your innovations and misinterpretations. We hold the ground.

 

[Michael16]

@TULIPed

I get you and I understand that you’re not offering any trick questions.

To answer you:

To be saved; all you need is to have no unconfessed mortal sins on your soul by the time you die.

 

[TULIPed]

Ok. Making sure I understand here.

Faith and works are required for salvation. You have to do good works - in combination (and starting) with faith to be justified in God’s eyes. When you die, as long as you have no un-confessed mortal sins on your soul, you should be in good shape in terms of salvation (I say should because, nobody but God knows who’s really going to heaven), regardless of how many good works you’ve done? Is this about right?

Again - since we’re writing and not speaking, this may come off as pejorative. If it does, I apologize in advance. I am asking these questions honestly to get where you’re coming from - sort of from a macro level.

 

[Hodos]

For 1,500 years before Luther, the Church held justification by faith completed by works and all the other doctrines you accuse of being innovations and corruptions.

Already demonstrated this wasn’t the case and that Luther didn’t coin the term Faith Alone, it was a pre-existing term used to describe justification by faith since at least the 200s by multiple Church Fathers.

Ever since, Protestants have appropriated justification by faith, as if they have the monopoly on it; while attacking us for our supposedly teaching works only justification and we’ve had to defend ourselves for 500 years against Protestant polemics, prejudice, oppression and conversion efforts.

Not sure where you are getting the idea that a Protestant was attacking you given the title of the thread. Since it alleged Protestants are misinformed about justification I responded to the OP stating that there are misrepresentations of each other’s doctrines on both sides, and gave an exegetical explanation of Romans since it is Paul’s systematic explanation of justification by faith, and provided relevant quotes from our confessions clarifying what we confess about justification. I have merely defended the ground as you say as you have attacked that explanation, even where you have engaged in non sequiturs, intentional straw man argumentation, and ad hominems. It is interesting that you have little by little had to concede key points that verses you used to prooftext such as Romans 2:13 were demonstrated to be out of context given your usage. You have had to shift the goalposts multiple times to other sections of Romans, only to be shown through grammar, syntax, and context that even these verses are being misused. Under the circumstances not seeing how you are “on the defensive.” Also, last clarification, I have not accused you of believing in “works only” justification. If somehow I gave you that impression then I apologize, as that has not been the thrust of my argumentation. My position from the beginning is that there is a distinction between justification and sanctification, that these two things should not be confused, and clarified from our confessions and from scripture the role of works in each of those processes.

 

[Michael16]

@TULIPed

I really appreciate the questions and your approach. You’re fine.

As for your question, you generally have it right. Except that, if you die in a state of grace ( No unconfessed mortal sins ), we can be reasonably sure you are saved.

Now, there’s two post mortem destinations for the saved.

If you lived a life of heroic virtue and charity, you go straight heaven post mortem. That’s a Saint.

If you died in a state of grace but not a saintly life; you go to Purgatory. Don’t worry about Purgatory. It comes from the Latin that means a purging. In Purgatory, the saved soul undergoes a purgation: A purging from the soul from attachments to sin. Once the purging is done, the soul then leaves Purgatory and goes to Heaven.

Prayers for your soul in Purgatory and any indulgences you performed, or someone performed on your behalf; speeds up the process and shortens the time spent.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

As for my point concerning your assertion regarding the Early Church and the Church Fathers; the historical record bears me out and doesn’t support you. As I said: If there was any proto or crypto Protestantism in the Early Church or the Church Fathers; the Church’s doctrinal development would have shown it. Don’t cherry pick and see what you want to see.

As for Saint Paul and his soteriology in Romans.

Comparing the two soteriologies, Catholic and Lutheran; we see generally the same thing.

Works based justification is impossible. Man simply cannot merit justification on his own efforts. Romans 1-3.

Faith apart from works makes its first appearance in Romans 3 and replaces works as the basis of justification with the caveat that righteousness through faith doesn’t overturn the law, but upholds the law.

Thus, we see the first appearance of the necessary obedience of faith. One must act in obedience to faith.

In Romans 4, we see the illustration that Saint Paul makes with Abraham and then goes on to state that the covenant promise is inherited by those righteous in faith.

Chapter 5 goes on to say that through faith in Christ, we have access to grace and the Holy Spirit and that Christ died for sinners and reconciled us to the Father.

Chapter 6 says we died to sin when we are baptized into Christ’s death and reborn into new life with His Resurrection. Therefore, we are to act as dead to sin and not let sin reign in our bodies. Chapter 6 concludes with the comparison of being slaves of sin and slaves of righteousness; yielding ourselves up to either. The return of sin is death and the return of sanctification, it’s end; is eternal life.

Obedience to faith, sanctification; leads to eternal life.

Chapter 7 expounds upon law and sin, leading up to Saint Paul’s struggle with sin. The battle between the impulses of the body with the impulses of the Spirit.

Chapter 8 goes onto talking about the law of the Spirit of life in Christ has set me free from sin and death. Later, Saint Paul goes on to compare living according to the flesh and living according to the Spirit and that setting one’s mind on things of the flesh is death and setting one’s mind on things of the Spirit is life. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. Thus, the converse holds: Those who are in the Spirit please God.

Chapter 8 ends with Saint Paul saying that those led by the Spirit are the sons of God and receive the spirit of sonship.

So: Where the Catholic Church reads that all this lays out that both justification and sanctification end in eternal life; Luther somehow splits justification and sanctification.

As we see; Saint Paul doesn’t make this split. Only Luther does.

Now you assert that Saint Paul makes a case that only faith saves. We see, in multiple verses within Romans; that Saint Paul continually refers to sin as death and sanctification as life.

So, with righteousness in faith as the basis; we see constant battle in the soul between death and life. That we rely on the interior helps of the Holy Spirit to master the body and sin to be obedient to God.

Saint Paul sounds more Catholic than Lutheran.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

I’m not adding anything to the text. All I’m doing is reading clearly and drawing conclusions. I’ll summarize.

The Lutheran makes the assumption in Romans 3 that faith apart means faith alone; reading faith alone into the text; whereas the faithful Catholic makes careful note.

Then we see that faith doesn’t overturn the law; faith upholds it.

We see that faith replaces works as the basis of justification.

Then we see the struggle between death and life in the soul.

We see that life and death struggle with sin, after we are justified; why would there be a possibility of death?

We see that both justification and sanctification lead to eternal life. If they both lead to he same end; they harmonize together. They’re not separate and unaffected by the other. In effect: Yielding to sin or God effects my salvation. Works effect salvation.

Thus: Faith and works.

So, the basic point on how Protestants are so misinformed about works seems to be found in two areas:

1: Faith alone justification. Works, while undeniably good and commanded by God; don’t effect salvation. Sure, the faithful Protestant does good works because he loves and obeys God and because he believes in him.

The funny thing is: When I go into Protestant churches; I see plenty of good and faithful people who do good works. The thing is; in practice, the Protestant does faith and works, contributing to his salvation with good works; as we Catholics do. Almost like their theory says one thing; but in practice; they do what we do. Why make the distinction? Just simplify; admit what you’re doing and accept it.

2: Good works are an undeniable benefit to oneself and others; bettering oneself into a better person and helping others. How can this not please God and lead to my salvation?

We can see that good and holy people are saved and the evil are damned.

Now, the Lutheran seems to say: “ All you need to do to be saved is believe. Sin doesn’t jeopardize your justification. “

The Catholic says: “ I must believe and do to be saved. If I don’t repent and become a good and holy person; I have chosen hell. “

In other words: What we do effects where we go when we die. Our Lord Jesus Christ makes that quite clear in the Gospels.

 

[TULIPed]

Thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it.

Thus: Faith and works.

The initial question posed was "Why are Protestants so misinformed with “works”? @Hodos and I - as Protestants - are responding to that question. Protestants are trained to go to the Bible first about questions of doctrine. We are trained that with careful study and the help of the Holy Spirit, anyone can discern the truth of the Gospel. We are also trained that the first place we go when we are interpreting scripture is other scripture.

St. Paul said “justification is by faith apart from works.” Jesus used the exact same word in the Gospel of John - “apart from me you can do nothing”. We would discern from this then that the word “apart” means “separate” or “without” - at least in the manner that Jesus used it, no? Why did St. Paul not simply say “we are justified by faith AND works”? Or, why not “we are justified by faith FIRST and THEN works?” I suppose you could argue that Paul meant to use it differently from the way Jesus (or John) used it, but that would be odd, no? Especially since that word is used very sparingly in the Bible.

However, we can argue semantics all day long. I think the key question is an empirical one. Why did Paul use the word “apart”. How can we be a new creation at the same time as we continue to sin? (This is why I asked the earlier question about sin and salvation.) How can we be dead to sin and alive in Christ, and yet be angry in the car ride home from church (or even be angry with the people whispering behind us right after we sit down from communion)? Protestants believe that Paul reconciled the reality of our lives and our beliefs by using the word “apart”, instead of “with” in terms of our justification. Said another way, the older I get and the more I grow in my faith, the more aware of sin I become. Without the word “apart”, this would seem to be backwards - at least for me.

Having said all that, I’m here to promote understanding and ecumenism. When I see questions about Protestants, I try and pitch in in my amateurish manner (vs. @Hodos, who’s much smarter and wiser than I am - when in doubt, take his word for it (except when what he says veers towards Armenianism of course ) In that spirit, I really do appreciate your kind recognition of the good works we do and the way we love Jesus, even - and especially - if we disagree on the best way to do it.

 

[Michael16]

@TULIPed @Hodos

You’re welcome for the words. I understand that I can get pretty cranky and confrontational in my own apologetics. Thank you for bearing with me and I’m sorry if I offend.

I understand that you guys are trained by your faith traditions to go straight to the Bible. I understand and respect it.

My methodology is pretty simple: I read the text and let pictures and concepts form in my mind and see how they relate together with the rest of the text and other parts of the Bible. I rely on context.

If I’m doubt; I go to the Catechism. It’s written by men who are better trained and experienced in living a holy life in the Holy Spirit than I am.

That being said, last year, Hodos had me up against a wall and I nearly fell to his argument. The only thing that kept me from falling was my faith that the Church had to be right. Saint James made it quite clear about faith alone doesn’t save.

So, I reread Romans 3 and I noted that Saint Paul says faith apart; not faith alone. Luther claimed that’s what the text said. It doesn’t. Clear as day.

So, read further into Romans with this faith apart is not faith alone in mind.

In my reading; I discovered that this understanding, faith apart isn’t faith alone; harmonizes with the rest of the text in an easy and simple manner.

The way I can put it now, one year later; is that Saint Paul writes about the life and death struggle against sin after one is justified by faith. So, for this part of the text to harmonize with justification by faith; victory or defeat in the life and death battle against sin still result in damnation or salvation.

Otherwise, why would Saint Paul wrote of sin as death? After being justified by faith?

The answer lies in Romans 6:22. The return of sin is death and the return of sanctification, it’s end; is eternal life. Sanctification ends in or results in eternal life. Victory or defeat, or choosing sin or God; results in damnation or salvation.

Then, looking at the Gospels, Jesus makes reference to to those doing the Father’s Will enter heaven; evil doers don’t and that not doing works of mercy result in people going to hell; just two examples alone.

Now, if faith alone justifies ( And I can clearly see it doesn’t ) then why would action or inaction result in damnation or salvation?

The only way to resolve the question is that faith alone doesn’t save; as Saint James says.

Otherwise: If faith alone saves as Luther taught; what Jesus said doesn’t make sense, the battle of life and death that Saint Paul describes is pointless and Saint James is in conflict with Saint Paul. The only way to resolve Saint Paul with Saint James, in faith alone doctrine; is to ignore what Saint James says that faith alone doesn’t save and that my works shows you my faith.

You see, taken in context; with clear meanings derived from the text, and in relation to other parts of the Bible; faith alone doctrine makes paradoxes and inconsistencies between the Epistles and the Gospels, as well as Saint Paul contradicting himself; that have to require exegetical gymnastics to resolve.

The simpler solution is that faith and works, taken together with faith as the basis; saves.

 

[TULIPed]

You’re welcome for the words. I understand that I can get pretty cranky and confrontational in my own apologetics. Thank you for bearing with me and I’m sorry if I offend.

No offense taken.

I understand that you guys are trained by your faith traditions to go straight to the Bible. I understand and respect it.

Thank you.

Saint James made it quite clear about faith alone doesn’t save.

Again - I answer in response to the OP’s question about how we look at this - or at least one way we look at it:

“For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.”

If you remember back to your elementary school days and diagramming sentences, the verb “is” is non-action verb. Therefore, when we diagram it, we always “point back” to something. For example “John is big”. The verb points the adjective “big” back to and describes John.

In the sentence from James the word “dead” points back to both the word “body” in the first clause, and the word “faith” in the second clause. So, the phrase could also be - “faith is dead without works”, no? The question then that James asks ultimately is (from our perspective) - is your faith in Christ alive? The way to tell is that we should see good works emanating from our faith in Christ. In any case, it’s focused on faith and not works.

What we (Protestants) don’t see in this passage is that James is saying that you have to have faith AND works to be justified with God. We know this because Paul says clearly (grammatically at least in the Greek) that faith apart from works - separate or without using the word similarly to the way Jesus used it - saves. We thus come very close to what His Holiness Pope Benedict said here:

“Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14).”

 

[Michael16]

@TULIPed

I’m really enjoying our talks, TULIPed. The more we talk; the more my Catholic Faith is sharpened, honed and refined. And the more I understand your point.

I can see that both Catholics and Protestants affirm the need of good works and how it’s incumbent for us as faithful Christians to do them. I’m happy to see that and we have common ground on that at least.

I can see that the essential point is that faith is the basis of justification for both sides. We both see that works flow from faith.

The problem remains is we divurge on how works figures into salvation.

I can see that you guys focus right on faith and stop there. We Catholics see faith as the basis from which good works flows and that these fruits of faith are required for salvation.

You quoted Saint James and the Holy Father Pope Benedict. I see that when you guys can’t convince us on Scripture; you guys use the Church against us. I also see that you guys pay an awful lot of attention to the Church.

I’m not going to address the grammatical diagramming of sentences. It’s an interesting diversion and a clever tool to make your case. I appreciate it.

But, it ignores the clear sense of Saint James: Faith without works is dead. We both can agree that faith without works shows a faith that’s dead and worthless. Might as well not be there.

You have to look at the rest of Saint James from 2:14-26.

Saint James used the phrase faith apart from works and says in 2:20-21 that faith apart from works is barren and that Abraham was justified by his works. He later goes on in 2:21-24 that faith was active along with works and faith was completed by works, that Scripture was fulfilled and Abraham was reckoned righteous and called a friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Then Saint James completes the point with faith apart from works is dead.

You see the careful point Saint James made?

Faith as the basis and is completed by works.

The only way to harmonize Saint Paul and Saint James to combine the two into a synthesis. Faith and works combine for justification.

I figure your counter argument could be: “ Faith is the foundation and works derive from that faith; so a faith alive with works is all that matters. “

I answer:

If your answer is that a faith alive with works is all that matters; you’re saying a very Catholic thing and completely in line with the Catechism.

The burning misconception you have is a very subtle misunderstanding. Your focus is only on faith. You miss works in your focus on faith.

As for the Holy Father’s quote: He said a very beautiful and Catholic statement on faith and works.

Faith through works through love. Saint James said: Faith completed in works.

It’s a subtle and easily missed distinction in the rush to prove faith alone.

 

[C.Longinus]

St. Paul said “justification is by faith apart from works.”

The question Paul was answering was, “Does one have to be a Jew to become a a Christian?” You deleted a very important qualifier. Paul said justification is apart from works of the Law.

 

[TULIPed]

The burning misconception you have is a very subtle misunderstanding. Your focus is only on faith. You miss works in your focus on faith.

I would say that yes, it’s definitely possible and even probable for us to focus on “just having” faith. I am certainly guilty of this. It’s also possible and probably for we Protestants to make an idol of the Bible, again, guilty as charged. We are all wretched sinners in need of His grace after all.

To say though that we are we focused “only on our faith” is simply not true. Go to this Protestant founded charitable organization as one example:

Living Water International - Cultivating Sustainable Water

Or this one, that introduces the gospel to special needs kids and families:

https://campblessing.org/

You see, we take our Lord’s words very seriously, and I know you do as well. Whatever we do for the least of these, we do for Him. If we ignore his words, our faith is dead indeed. And so we are constantly looking for evidence of Him in our lives. How much of our income do we give to the church joyfully? How do I treat my wife and kids? How much time am I spending with God in prayer and study of His word? How am I doing at making my body a temple for the Holy Spirt?

 

[TULIPed]

Indeed. We covered this a while back. I referenced the U.S. Council of Roman Catholic Bishops. Have a look at their analysis of the text.

 

[C.Longinus]

The commentary was an ecumenical one, so it reflects Protestant insight as well.

 

[Michael16]

@TULIPed

You misunderstand me. I’m not saying you guys don’t do good works. As I said previously, I see it all the time when I step into a Protestant church and see the good works being done.

The point I was making is that you guys recognize that faith must be alive with works; while denying that works are in tandem with faith to save.

Catholic and Protestant dialogue is hampered with the 500 years’ history of misunderstandings and polemics.

The Catholic often is anxious to prove works as a part of justification and rushes past that he is justified by faith. I know for the longest time; I was one of them.

All I was saying is: In practice, Protestants complete their faith in works and will even employ that in their apologetics with us against the Catholic counter charge of antinomianism. That charge is unfair and shows our misunderstanding of your doctrines. On behalf of all Catholics; I apologize.

What the Catholic has to do is meet the Protestant apologist with the knowledge that we teach justification by faith and show you guys that you misunderstood justification by faith as justification by faith alone.

 

[TULIPed]

Which I very much appreciate. We could do a much better job on our side reciprocating.