M
- Status
R
rlg94086
Guest
Indeed. Not all Protestants believe it, but clearly some do. However, they are not following Christ’s teaching in doing so.
Catholics have faith that Jesus Christ is Our Lord and Savior. We believe that we must rely completely on His grace, not on our feelings or works, as I showed from the Catechism [2005]. So, on what basis could someone who follows Christ’s teaching tell a Catholic (or any Christian who has faith) that they are going to hell?
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Define what you believe faith is?
R
rlg94086
Guest
Already did… forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3651679&postcount=324
Define what you believe faith is.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
You post does NOT say what YOU think “faith is”
Here is what I believe faith is…
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1).
R
rlg94086
Guest
Interesting, so I quoted the Catechism which is a statement of our Catholic belief - which I wholeheartedly agree with, but you complain that it isn’t what I think. Then, to state what YOU think, you quote Scripture, which we both believe is true.
I agree with the quote from Hebrews that “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Now, do you believe that faith is a one time static state? Or, can someone’s faith become “weak” or “strong?”
The reason I ask, is that we pray for an increase in faith…IIRC, I prayed for that as a non-Catholic as well.
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
9:24; Lk 17:5; 22:32]; it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church. Gal 5:6; Rom 15:13; cf. Jas 2:14-26]
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Sure it’s one of the many things I pray for is for the Lord to continue in **His **sanctifying me which in my case is evident in a stronger faith I tend to live my WHOLE life trying to make every decision GODLY, that being said I am no more righteous, in the sense of satisfying a just God, in other words, I cannot achieve a righteousness that satisfies **His **requirement, still He will make me more and more holy… We receive right standing with God by accepting the fact that Christ obeyed the law perfectly for us. We follow Christ’s example because his death has given us right standing with God.
S
SyCarl
Guest
S
SyCarl
Guest
It appears that at least a couple of church fathers felt that the thief was saved by faith alone.
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
Hi Sycarl…
R
rlg94086
Guest
The last two sentence are why Catholics believe justification and salvation are intertwined. “Accepting the fact that Christ obeyed the law perfectly for us” includes “following Christ’s example.” I don’t believe that one follows the other. Regardless, since we both (Catholic and non-Catholic) have faith, are we not both justified?
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, I know. And I grew up there, so I should be more understanding. The problem is that I get so tired of everything being squeezed into a fundamentalist-vs.-Catholic mode. I don’t think this gets at the real, substantive issues. I was so happy to get out of that world and be in a situation where we weren’t just all throwing stereotypes at each other. I don’t take into sufficient account what it must be like to be a Catholic living in the fundamentalist culture I know so well.
Sorry if this sounds patronizing. I’m really trying to extend an olive branch here!
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Singing out “Lord, Lord” does not equate to believing in your heart.
Clearly no one who believes in Jesus Christ in the sense St. Paul is talking about will be damned. And just as clearly anyone who believes in Jesus Christ in that sense will behave in a certain way. That does not take away free will. You can always choose to turn away from Christ and deliberately give yourself to sin. That is to stop believing in Christ in the Pauline sense, though you are left with the “faith of demons” to which St. James refers.
Edwin
M
myfavoritmartin
Guest
I’d say if you have faith you are justified but according to trent and the newer catechism there are a laundry list of necessities to acheive the what I would call the * grace of justification*
And that is the intertwining of sanctification and justification I have been speaking of all along.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Ah, but here is the rub. I am asking why any non-Catholic believes a Catholic isn’t justified or saved. Since a non-Catholic doesn’t believe in the Catholic definitions of justification, “Trent and the newer Catechism” shouldn’t come into play, should they?
In other words, Catholics have faith, but they also believe that much more is required. If a non-Catholic doesn’t believe that more is required, then they should just say that Catholics are doing things which are unnecessary…not that their religion is leading them to hell.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
OK, what is the Pauline understanding of faith? Are you saying that giving into sin means you are turning away from faith? If so, I would agree with you.
For example, I have a hypothetical friend who has been married for over 30 years and has three children. He left his (lovely and faithful) wife for a younger woman with a child, who also left her husband, and is living with her. He still goes to mass every Sunday and stands in front of the church and sings. He doesn’t think he is doing anything wrong. He still thinks “Jesus saves.” Only God can read hearts aside, objectively the man is a sinner - mortally so. Has he turned away from his faith? I would say yes.
We are all sinners, but we must turn away from sin and repent. We sin again. The little sins don’t damn us, but the mortal ones do.
C
Contarini
Guest
Teflon,
I appreciate your substantive response here, and I apologize for my angry language earlier.
Furthermore, you chose to respond to SyCarl’s post not by saying that you didn’t believe in merit, but by saying (in post 239), “I would think the words of Jesus would be dispositive on that score.” I can understand that you thought you were responding to the general issue of whether works are necessary. But you were specifically responding to the word “merit,” and you can’t reasonably blame me for answering you on that basis.
I appreciate your substantive response here, and I apologize for my angry language earlier.
For the very simple reason that the Council of Trent uses the word “merit,” and many other Catholic sources do as well. It is not something made up by Protestants. I understand why you are saying this, because Protestants so often caricature this word and don’t bother trying to understand what it means in context. But there are real issues here. At the risk of reopening our old can of worms, the phrase “treasury of merits” used throughout Catholic tradition is deeply problematic for Protestants. This is not stuff we made up.
Furthermore, you chose to respond to SyCarl’s post not by saying that you didn’t believe in merit, but by saying (in post 239), “I would think the words of Jesus would be dispositive on that score.” I can understand that you thought you were responding to the general issue of whether works are necessary. But you were specifically responding to the word “merit,” and you can’t reasonably blame me for answering you on that basis.
No, since that’s not what I’m “blaming” Catholics for, or what I was “blaming” them for in the indulgence thread. Again, I think you are responding to me as if I were a fundamentalist. I don’t think that there is anything wrong with the proposition that works are rewarded. My issues with Catholic teaching are much more specific than that. (I do have a problem with the “jewels in the crown” teaching insofar as it’s separated from salvation entirely–and so, I would imagine, do you!)
It may be the point you are interested in arguing. But in that case why respond to SyCarl or to me? Why not respond to these fundamentalists who exercise you so much? Why impose that discussion on people who are trying to have a different kind of discussion? (I may be wrong about SyCarl, but he doesn’t strike me as a fundamentalist and his post was in and of itself quite reasonable.)
I have explained that they are not similar in the points that interest *me. *And surely I ought to be allowed to decide which aspects of Catholic doctrine I’m objecting to? I’m not objecting to the idea that works are rewarded. I don’t know how many times I have to say this before you believe me!
If you choose to make malicious suppositions about your separated brothers, it is not their responsibility to prove you wrong. Rather, it is your responsibility to show how I am inconsistent, which you don’t even try to do. I really don’t understand how you think I’m inconsistent. I am interested in hearing an argument to that effect.
The phrase “works salvation” is so vague as to be almost meaningless. I do not believe that either Catholics or Orthodox or any other major Trinitarian Christian tradition hold to a salvation by works apart from grace. I believe that the question of the proper relationship between faith and works is a complex one on which various Christian traditions hold a number of different views, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. I’m not convinced that the word “merit” is the best word to use to describe how our works are related to their reward. I think it lends itself to misunderstanding. However, I do not think that this is a church-dividing issue or that the Gospel is at stake. We agree that we are saved only by grace; that initial justification cannot be merited in any sense; and that saving faith is a faith that works through love. As far as I’m concerned, everything else is nuance. But nuance is important.
C
Contarini
Guest
Because I can’t see what’s wrong with it, except for the overly sharp distinction between reward and salvation. (In other words, I don’t see it as a form of works salvation–I think it’s a lame attempt to avoid ascribing final salvation to works in the sense that Scripture does. And as I’ve said many times, I don’t think indulgences are works salvation either. You appear to be so used to arguing with people who make this charge that you see it when it is not there.) I am happy to condemn other fundamentalist doctrines, such as the idea that a person can die without charity and go to heaven, or the related doctrine of OSAS, or the frequently expressed dictum that a person can be good and go to hell (they probably mean that no one who doesn’t believe in Jesus is good, but that’s often not what they say). But I think “jewels in the crown” is fairly innocuous.
I apologize for the foolish attempt at psychological explanation. But I don’t understand why you keep injecting fundamentalism into this discussion, given that neither of us is a fundamentalist.
Also, if the “fundamentalists” that you have encountered are Pentecostal Holiness, then I’m less likely to condemn them. Many of my objections apply primarily to Baptists and quasi-Baptists. The abominable prosperity gospel, however, is much more characteristic of Pentecostals than of fundamentalists (though in my experience not generally of rural Southern “Church of God” Pentecostals, who come from the Holiness tradition–but perhaps it is penetrating those circles).
Edwin
T
Tammy111
Guest
Martin, Smartness has very little to do with a system that consistently makes divisions doctrinally, semantically, and socially where none exist. Justification is a result of Jesus’s finished work of atonement. It is part and parcel of Catholic soteriology. Salvation is by works alone as James states; salvation is by grace as Paul states. Allow Sacred Scripture to teach you; allow Sacred Tradition to guide you to a biblical understanding of salvation. The understanding that the Apostles held; Jesus taught; the Holy Catholic Church still teaches. Do not continue to teach the half gospel of Protestantism.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Only one thing Tammy, Jesus’ atonement is perfect, but not complete until WE participate in it. (Eucharist).
- Status