Justification by Faith Alone: Catholics and Protestants Together?

http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/gospjust/faith_a.htm ^ | 1996 | James Akin

[Petrosius]

Justification by Faith Alone

by James Akin

Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to the idea of salvation sola gratia (by grace alone), but fewer are aware that Catholics do not have to condemn the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.

The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22, 23, James 2:19), to assurance (Acts 17:31), and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10). Of key importance is Galatians 5:6, which refers to "faith working by charity." In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fides formata or "faith formed by charity." The alternative to formed faith is fides informis or "faith unformed by charity." This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19, for example.

Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term "faith" is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).

However, if the term "faith" is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.

A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word "formed" to clarify the nature of the faith in "sola fide" renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

Why, then, do Catholics not use the formula faith alone in everyday discourse? There are two reasons:

First, whenever a theological tradition is developing, it must decide which way key terms are going to be used or there will be hopeless confusion. For example, during the early centuries it was decided that in connection with Jesus identity the term God would be used as a noun rather than as a proper name for the Father. This enables us to say, Jesus is God and be understood. If the term God were used as a proper name for the Father in this regard, we would have to say, "Jesus is not God." Obviously, the Church could not have people running around saying "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God," though both would be perfectly consistent with the Trinity depending on how the term "God" is being used (i.e., as a noun or a proper name for the Father). Hopeless confusion (and charges of heresy, and bloodbaths) would have resulted in the early centuries if the Church did not specify the meaning of the term "God" when used in this context.

Of course, the Bible uses the term "God" in both senses, but to avoid confusion (and heretical misunderstandings on the part of the faithful, who could incline to either Arianism or Modalism if they misread the word "God" in the above statements) it later became necessary to adopt one usage over the other when discussing the identity of Jesus.

A similar phenomenon occurs in connection with the word "faith." Evangelical leaders know this by personal experience since they have to continually fight against antinomian understandings of the term "faith" (and the corresponding antinomian evangelistic practices and false conversions that result). Because "faith" is such a key term, it is necessary that each theological school have a fixed usage of it in practice, even though there is more than one use of the term in the Bible. Evangelical leaders, in response to the antinomianism that has washed over the American church scene in the last hundred and fifty years, are attempting to impose a uniform usage to the term "faith" in their community to prevent these problems. (And may they have good luck in this, by the way.)

This leads me to why Catholics do not use the formula "faith alone." Given the different usages of the term "faith" in the Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the latter for several reasons:

First, the Romans 14 sense of the term pistis is frankly the more common in the New Testament. It is much harder to think of passages which demand that pistis mean "faith formed by charity" than it is to think of passages which demand that pistis mean "intellectual belief." In fact, even in Galatians 5:6 itself, Paul has to specify that it is faith formed by charity that he is talking about, suggesting that this is not the normal use of the term in his day.

Second, the New Testament regularly (forty-two times in the KJV) speaks of "the faith," meaning a body of theological beliefs (e.g. Jude 3). The connection between pistis and intellectual belief is clearly very strong in this usage.

Third, Catholic theology has focused on the triad of faith, hope, and charity, which Paul lays great stress on and which is found throughout his writings, not just in 1 Corinthians 13:13 (though that is the locus classicus for it), including places where it is not obvious because of the English translation or the division of verses. If in this triad "faith" is taken to mean "formed faith" then hope and charity are collapsed into faith and the triad is flattened. To preserve the distinctiveness of each member of the triad, the Church chose to use the term "faith" in a way that did not include within it the ideas of hope (trust) and charity (love). Only by doing this could the members of the triad be kept from collapsing into one another.

Thus the Catholic Church normally expresses the core essences of these virtues like this:

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us . . . because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)

In common Catholic usage, faith is thus unconditional belief in what God says, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God. When we are justified, God places all three of these virtues in our hearts. These virtues are given to each of the justified, even though our outward actions do not always reflect them because of the fallen nature we still possess. Thus a person may still have the virtue of faith even if momentarily tempted by doubt, a person may still have the virtue of trust even if scared or tempted by despair, and a person may still have the virtue of charity even if he is often selfish. Only a direct, grave violation (mortal sin against) of one of the virtues destroys the virtue.

As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the great difficulty new converts often experience in these areas compared to those who have attained a measure of spiritual maturity).

However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are "saved by faith, hope, and charity." This does not disagree with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are "saved by faith alone" if the term "faith" is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.

One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define "faith"; that is, as an unconditional "placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit." The definition Protestants normally give to "faith" is the definition Catholics use for "hope."

However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which "works by charity" then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant's idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan "salvation by faith alone" becomes the Catholic slogan "salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone)."

This was recognized a few years ago in The Church's Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, put out by the German Conference of Bishops, which stated:

Catholic doctrine . . . says that only a faith alive in graciously bestowed love can justify. Having "mere" faith without love, merely considering something true, does not justify us. But if one understands faith in the full and comprehensive biblical sense, then faith includes conversion, hope, and lovegood Catholic sense. According to Catholic doctrine, faith encompasses both trusting in God on the basis of his mercifulness proved in Jesus Christ and confessing the salvific work of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Yet this faith is never alone. It includes other acts

The same thing was recognized in a document written a few years ago under the auspices of the (Catholic) German Conference of Bishops and the bishops of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (the Lutheran church). The purpose of the document, titled The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?, was to determine which of the sixteenth-century Catholic and Protestant condemnations are still applicable to the other party. Thus the joint committee which drafted the document went over the condemnations from Trent and assessed which of them no longer applied to Lutherans and the condemnations of the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles, etc., and assesses which of them are not applicable to Catholics.

When it came to the issue of justification by faith alone, the document concluded:

"[T]oday the difference about our interpretation of faith is no longer a reason for mutual condemnation . . . even though in the Reformation period it was seen as a profound antithesis of ultimate and decisive force. By this we mean the confrontation between the formulas 'by faith alone,' on the one hand, and 'faith, hope, and love,' on the other.

"We may follow Cardinal Willebrand and say: 'In Luther's sense the word 'faith' by no means intends to exclude either works or love or even hope. We may quite justly say that Luther's concept of faith, if we take it in its fullest sense, surely means nothing other than what we in the Catholic Church term love' (1970, at the General Assembly of the World Lutheran Federation in Evian).

If we take all this to heart, we may say the following: If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one word 'faith' what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13) sums up in the triad of 'faith, hope, and love.' But in this case the mutual rejections in this question can be viewed as no longer applicable today

"According to [Lutheran] Protestant interpretation, the faith that clings unconditionally to God's promise in Word and Sacrament is sufficient for righteousness before God, so that the renewal of the human being, without which there can be no faith, does not in itself make any contribution to justification. Catholic doctrine knows itself to be at one with the Protestant concern in emphasizing that the renewal of the human being does not 'contribute' to justification, and is certainly not a contribution to which he could make any appeal before God. Nevertheless it feels compelled to stress the renewal of the human being through justifying grace, for the sake of acknowledging God's newly creating power; although this renewal in faith, hope, and love is certainly nothing but a response to God's unfathomable grace. Only if we observe this distinction can we say in all truth: Catholic doctrine does not overlook what Protestant faith finds so important, and vice versa; and Catholic doctrine does not maintain what Protestant doctrine is afraid of, and vice versa.

"In addition to concluding that canons 9 and 12 of the Decree on Justification did not apply to modern Protestants, the document also concluded that canons 1-13, 16, 24, and 32 do not apply to modern Protestants (or at least modern Lutherans)."

During the drafting of this document, the Protestant participants asked what kind of authority it would have in the Catholic Church, and the response given by Cardinal Ratzinger (who was the Catholic corresponding head of the joint commission) was that it would have considerable authority. The German Conference of Bishops is well-known in the Catholic Church for being very cautious and orthodox and thus the document would carry a great deal of weight even outside of Germany, where the Protestant Reformation started.

Furthermore, the Catholic head of the joint commission was Ratzinger himself, who is also the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, which is the body charged by the pope with protecting the purity of Catholic doctrine. Next to the pope himself, the head of the CDF is the man most responsible for protecting orthodox Catholic teaching, and the head of the CDF happened to be the Catholic official with ultimate oversight over the drafting of the document.

Before the joint commission met, Cardinal Ratzinger and Lutheran Bishop Eduard Lohse (head of the Lutheran church in Germany) issued a letter expressing the purpose of the document, stating:

"[O]ur common witness is counteracted by judgments passed by one church on the other during the sixteenth century, judgments which found their way into the Confession of the Lutheran and Reformed churches and into the doctrinal decisions of the Council of Trent. According to the general conviction, these so-called condemnations no longer apply to our partner today. But this must not remain a merely private persuasion. It must be established in binding form."

I say this as a preface to noting that the commission concluded that canon 9 of Trent's Decree on Justification is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important because canon 9 is the one dealing with the "faith alone" formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up and down about). It states:

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

The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.

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."

And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc.

So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns "sola fide" if it is used "so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required" to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.

I should mention at this point that I think Trent was absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the Catholic faithful of the time. The term "faith" had long been established as referring to intellectual assent, as per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula "faith alone" had to be squashed in the Catholic community because it would be understood to mean "intellectual assent alone"

The Church could no more allow people to run around indiscriminately using the faith alone formula than it could equall confusing formulas. This formula can be given an orthodox meaning, that is not how it will be understood by the masses. There must be continuity in the language of the faithful or massive confusion will result.

In fact, one can argue that the problem of antinomianism in Protestantism is a product of the attempt by the Reformers to change the established usage of the term "faith" to include more than intellectual assent. The English verb "believe" (derived from Old High German) and the English noun "faith" (derived from French and before that Latin) were both formed under the historic Christian usage of the term "faith" and thus they connote intellectual assent.

This is a deeply rooted aspect of the English language, which is why Protestant evangelists have to labor so hard at explaining to the unchurched why "faith alone" does not mean "intellectual assent alone." They have to work so hard at this because they are bucking the existing use of the language; the Reformers effort to change the meanings of the terms "believe" and "faith" have not borne significant fruit outside of the Protestant community.

This is also the reason Evangelical preaching often tragically slips into antinomianism. The historic meaning of the terms "believe" and "faith," which are still the established meanings outside the Protestant community, tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community when people aren't paying attention, and antinomianism results.

This reflects one of the tragedies of the Reformation. If the Reformers had not tried to overturn the existing usage of the term "faith" and had only specified it further to formed faith, if they had only adopted the slogan "iustificatio sola fide formata" instead of "iustificatio sola fide," then all of this could have been avoided. The Church would have embraced the formula, the split in Christendom might possibly have been avoided, and we would not have a problem with antinomianism today.

So I agree a hundred percent with what Trent did. The existing usage of the term "faith" in connection with justification could not be overturned any more than the existing usage of the term "God" in connection with Jesus' identity could be overturned.

What both communities need to do today, now that a different usage has been established in them, is learn to translate between each others languages. Protestants need to be taught that the Catholic formula "salvation by faith, hope, and charity" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith alone." And Catholics need to be taught that (at least for the non-antinomians) the Protestant formula "faith alone" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith, hope, and charity."

It would be nice if the two groups could reconverge on a single formula, but that would take centuries to develop, and only as a consequence of the two groups learning to translate each others' theological vocabularies first. Before a reconvergence of language could take place, the knowledge that the two formulas mean the same thing would first need to be as common as the knowledge that English people drive on the left-hand side of the road instead of on the right-hand side as Americans do. That is not going to happen any time soon, but for now we must do what we can in helping others to understand what the two sides are saying.

(Needless to say, this whole issue of translating theological vocabularies is very important to me since I have been both a committed Evangelical and a committed Catholic and thus have had to learn to translate the two vocabularies through arduous effort in reading theological dictionaries, encyclopedias, systematic theologies, and Church documents. So I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I hear R.C. Sproul and others representing canon 9 as a manifest and blatant condemnation of Protestant doctrine, or even all Protestants, on this point.)

The fact "faith" is normally used by Catholics to refer to intellectual assent (as in Romans 14:22-23, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and James 2:14-26) is one reason Catholics do not use the "faith alone" formula even though they agree with what (better) Protestants mean by it. The formula runs counter to the historic meaning of the term "faith."

The other reason is that, frankly, the formula itself (though not what it is used to express) is flatly unbiblical. The phrase "faith alone" (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in the Bible, and there it is rejected:

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:24)"

Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, see below), the phrase "faith alone" is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase "faith alone" to the use of that phrase in the Bible.

Thus, if we are to conform our language to the language of the Bible, we need to reject usage of the formula "faith alone" while at the same time preaching that man is justified "by faith and not by works of the Law" (which Catholics can and should and must and do preach, as Protestants would know if they read Catholic literature). James 2:24 requires rejection of the first formula while Romans 3:28 requires the use of the second.

---

Copyright (c) 1996 by James Akin. All Rights Reserved.

---

[gscc]

Or is it that there are some Protestants that are more interested in proving that Catholics are wrong than in coming to a mutual understanding?

I am not a Lutheran but a member of an independent Bible Church of Evangelical persuasion.  I believe the above statement is not complete - I believe it should read "Or is it that there are some Protestants and Catholics that are more interested in proving that each other are wrong than in coming to a mutual understanding?"

 

[gscc]

I'm sure that was an oversight on your part.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***It is possible to create a kind of code language in which you declare that first, there is salvation, and then there are fruits of the salvation, and the fruits of the salvation are good works..***


Yes annalex, but what if this "code language" you refer to is not "created" but clearly taught in the Scriptures - clearly taught by Paul himself?




***But this is an innatural reading of the entire Gospel, because the Gospel is written not from the eternal view of God but from the practical view of man.***

I strongly dispute this point.

While it it true that certain portions on the NT are written from the practical viewpoint, there are large sections that are clearly lifting the veil and allowing the believer a glimpse of the spiritual reality and the heavenly viewpoint.

Are you unintentionally making, in the above quote, an unorthodox distinction between the Gospels proper and the Epistles?


I think we are in agreement about the necessity of good works. Think of the cries, motions and coos of a baby - these, like good works in the believer, are a sign that the baby is alive. If there are none, then most likely the baby is not alive. Similarly, if there are no good works in the life of a professed believer, then the person is spiritually dead.

But the cries and coos and motions of the baby do not GIVE it life - they are the result of it's life. Similarly, good works do not give us spiritual life, they are the result of the reality of the Holy Spirit living within us.

Good works can not earn us a relationship with God, they are the result of a relationship with God.

Jesus said, "Without me ye can do nothing".


Your thoughts?


(Please forgive the lateness of this response)

[Petrosius]

I will accept your correction.

You state that you are a member of an independent Bible Church of Evangelical persuasion. From this can I understand that you are more in the Calvinist tradition rather than Lutheran? Also, am I correct that there are indeed some Protestants, particularly Evangelical, that do reduce "faith alone" to mere intellectual assent or is this just a continuation of the misunderstanding?

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** But why "fear and trembling"?***

Because of the greatness of the God we serve.

Have you ever stood near a massive waterfall and felt its power shaking the earth and air around you? Did you not feel a certain about of fear to be in the presence of such awesome power, even though from your vantage point you might have been safe?

It is a natural thing to feel fear in the presence of such things. How much more right is it to feel fear in the presence of the one who made those things, who holds the stars themselves in His hand?


Listen to what Peter has to say....


"Therefore, preparing your minds for action,[a] and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, 16since it is written, "You shall be holy, for I am holy."

And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one's deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake, who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God." - 1st Peter.

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Again, on this thread I would like to limit the discussion on the definition of "faith." For Catholics it means only intellectual assent.***

We absolutely do not believe that faith is merely intellectual assent - for even the devils believe and tremble, yet they are not saved.

For a traditional protestant/evangelical view of faith see Hebrews 11

"What is faith? It is the confident assurance that what we hope for is going to happen. It is the evidence of things we cannot yet see. God gave his approval to people in days of old because of their faith."




Faith is the commitment to believe God will do what He says He will do - even if it seems uttely impossible to you.

Faith is Humility's response to a God Who declaires that He desires to save and cleanse an unworthy and wretched sinner.

Faith is Abraham saying yes to Gods offer to give him a child and to make of him a might nation even though he was clearly past the age of having children.

[gscc]

From this can I understand that you are more in the Calvinist tradition rather than Lutheran? Also, am I correct that there are indeed some Protestants, particularly Evangelical, that do reduce "faith alone" to mere intellectual assent or is this just a continuation of the misunderstanding?

Born in Scotland, raised in the Presbyterian Church, not a hyper-Calvinist and there are those that would dispute I hold to Calvinist doctrine at all.  This is not a matter of Orthodoxy with us.  We hold to the authority of the Scriptures.   We seek to develop a faith community where we are taught the Word of God and encouraged to obey it, so we may be transformed into the image of Christ.  The Bible is our all sufficient standard for faith and practice.  Salvation comes by God's grace through the means of faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The Word faith here is that all elusive word that needs to be correctly understood.  It is what everyone is dancing around trying to define, yet trying to avoid declaring that they are in agreement with those that they always felt they disagreed with on this issue.

 

[Logophile]

But why "fear and trembling"? . . . Because of the greatness of the God we serve.

Your interpretation may be correct, but I am unconvinced.

I would agree that the glory, power, and majesty of God would cause one to fear and tremble. But is that what Paul is talking about?

Consider again what Paul wrote:

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. (Philippians 2:12, KJV)

The key here seems to be the meaning of "work out." My dictionary gives the following definitions:

work out vt (1534)
1a : to bring about by labor and exertion [work out your own salvation—Phil 2:12 (AV)]
b : to solve (as a problem) by a process of reasoning or calculation
c : to devise, arrange, or achieve by resolving difficulties [after many years of wrangling, worked out a definite agreement—A. A. Butkus]
d : DEVELOP [the final situation is not worked out a definite agreement—Leslie Rees]
2 : to discharge (as a debt) by labor
3 : to exhaust (as a mine)

It is interesting that the first definition (1a) cites Philippians 2:12 as an example. I am inclined to agree that that is what Paul meant. Even if one of the other definitions is more apt, "work out" implies that the Philippians had to do something to bring about, devise, arrange, achieve, or develop their salvation. It was not yet assured to them.

If this interpretation is correct, then the reason for "fear and trembling" is quite clear. Until they have finished working out their salvation, they are in peril.

[gscc]

Is there a point then that one does finally work out one's salvation?

[Logophile]

Is there a point then that one does finally work out one's salvation?

I would suppose that one is finished when God says to him, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." (Matthew 25:21).

Until then, we must do as Paul advised: "let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us." (Hebrews 12:1)

Paul promised that God "will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life." (Romans 2:7)

[jude24]

I think, in large part, you have a point. When a Protestant talks about justification, he refers only to the transaction that occurs at conversion, when a person's relationship with God is initiated. To the Catholic, however, justification includes what the Protestant terms "sanctification," that is, the process by which a Christian becomes more and more holy.

Many Reformed Christians deny the existance of "carnal Christians," that is, Christians in whom there is no evidence of sanctification. It's not a terribly large leap from there to believe that justification is a process that includes sanctification. It's not my perspective, but I can understand where it could come from.

[gscc]

Does than the judgment depend on how one runs the race or how one ends the race (state of spiritual health upon passing)?

[Uri’el-2012]

Is there a point then that one does finally work out one's salvation?

John. 10:26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.
John. 10:27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
John. 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish;
no-one can snatch them out of my hand.
John. 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all;
[Many early manuscripts What my Father has given me is
greater than all] no-one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand.
John. 10:30 I and the Father are one.”
John. 10:31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,

b'shem Y'shua

[Cvengr]

Because "faith" is such a key term, it is necessary that each theological school have a fixed usage of it in practice, even though there is more than one use of the term in the Bible. Evangelical leaders, in response to the antinomianism that has washed over the American church scene in the last hundred and fifty years, are attempting to impose a uniform usage to the term "faith" in their community to prevent these problems.

For the believer in Christ, with the mind of Christ, we accept Scripture as the communication of His mind.

The above quote from the passage notes that there is more than one use of the term in Scripture. Obviously, it isn't for man to attempt to rewrite the mind of Christ into our natural perspective, but rather for us to further develop our thinking by His Word. If it has several different meanings in different contexts, then it's much more appropriate to learn how He intends us to think, rather than to formulate a uniform usage of the word to resolve contrived problems. The only solution to the problems perceived is to learn the Word of God with the mind of Christ which He has made available to us through faith in Him.

The second half of the quote assumes antinomianism is the only consequence to issues such as doctrine of the unlimited atonement. Amyrauldism is probably closer to what I have found to be a sound doctrinal stance as opposed to antinomianism, but studying the usage of faith and belief, as well as spirit, soul, nephesh, life, also have helped my growth in Him. I haven't found one simple English definition of 'faith' to be communicated by Scripture, but I do find Scripture to be reliable and where one might perceive difficulty in understanding its meaning, one has begun to track areas in Scripture where they need further study to exercise the mind of Christ.

[Cvengr]

I agree with your analogy.

[Uri’el-2012]

Amyrauldism is probably closer to what I have found to be a sound doctrinal stance as opposed to antinomianism, but studying the usage of faith and belief, as well as spirit, soul, nephesh, life, also have helped my growth in Him

I also believe that there is noel in tulip.

b'shem Y'shua

[Cvengr]

Noel or No 'l' ;^)

[Uri’el-2012]

NO "el" of cause.

Matthew 23:39 For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say,
'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'" [Psalm 118:26]

Barukh haba b'Shem Adonai
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord

Y'shua HaMashiach

[Cvengr]

Does than the judgment depend on how one runs the race or how one ends the race (state of spiritual health upon passing)?

Good prudent question!

I've found different denominations tend to base their interpretation and resolution of that question, frequently, upon more basic doctrinal foundations. Where those denominations may differ in those foundations, upon doctrines of election, justification, sanctification, redemption, atonement, repentance and faith, influences their conclusions.

IMHO, the doctrines I've found to best communicate the Word hold that upon initial faith, we are found positionally sanctified and we are regenerated in the spirit by the Holy Spirit. That new life might also be discerned from soul life or bodily life. Nevertheless, it is a life given us by God Himself and will not be removed.

Some Reformed positions believe it is possible to lose one's salvation, but I find that to not be sound doctrine.

Post-salvation sin exists and brings up issues of grieving the Holy Spirit and Quenching the Holy Spirit.

I understand two judgments will occur. One for believers in providing rewards in heaven. Another for all others, partly resolving many issues of good and evil, wherein any good void of divine righteousness will be deemed good for nothingness, resulting in unbelievers being cast into the Lake of Fire.

I firmly agree the doctrines of carnal believers exist and they strongly indicate that believers outside the mind of Christ merely grieve the Holy SPirit and leave many of the foreknown blessings reserved for us personally, to become eternal memorials to our foolishness when we rebelled against Him.

To answer your question directly, it only takes a little more faith than no faith for a saving faith. After our spirit is regenerated, we have everlasting life. Our continued sanctification depends upon us remaining in fellowship with Him on His terms, i.e. through faith in Him. Wheever we sin as believers, we actually have stepped away from faith in Him, but upon repentence and confession of our sins to Him, He is faithful and just to forgive us those sins. Our rewards then in heaven might have been placed there in escrow, so to speak, and where we fail to live up to our responsible account to remain faithful to Him, we fail to have sufficient grounds for claiming those blessings. Nevertheless, even we as believers, and even God Himself, lacks the power to remove our eternal life, simply because He is also immutable and omniscient and would never have given us that life initially upon our spiritual regeneration unless we were to retain it eternally. We cannot remove it ourselves, although we might rebel sufficiently to find us good for nothing while we are alive prior to the first death, thereby in His infinite wisdom, might find it better He call us home to Him, than allow us to live for no good reason.

How one runs the race or ends the race, is emphasized in a positive note in Scripture, and IMHO, I've found because He is a God of the Living, not a God of the dead. While we are here, there's no need to re-emphasize a negative aspect, in part because faith is better emphasized and continued to be taught by emphasizing how we may continue to be sanctified, even after post-salvation sin.

Passages relating to mortal sins might also be gleaned to communicate certain conditions which manifest a lack of faith and how certain rewards will not be provided.

Of course, if one interprets that complete avoidance of mortal sins is preferable to allowance for them, obviously the consequence will be for the believer to keep temptations of that sort in check, and perhaps a method to reinforce one's devotion to faithfulness. On that note, I don't find sufficient grounds to argue, but rather a reminder to remain faithful in Him in all things, so the issue becomes moot through faith in Him.

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** Careful you are sounding like a Calvinist and of course you are right.***

Or rather, Calvin was sounding scriptural!

:)