Justification by Faith Alone: Catholics and Protestants Together?

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

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

Indeed St. Paul speaks of the fruits of the spirit. I believe it was clear from the context in 15 that I did not mean the "code language" to be incorrect. In fact I think, with Jimmy Aikin, that a lot of the controversy is specious, as when Protestants and Catholics define words they use, they discover that there is a large area of agreement. The entire theology of the elect (excluding the predestination of the reprobate, which is heretical) is in agreement with the Catholic theology. What Catholicism objects to is the arrogant idea that someone can make a declaration of faith and form then on consider himself saved. As the article clearly explains, work-formed faith is alone sufficient for salvation, but declarative faith is not.

I definitely do not make a distinction between the Epistles and the Gospels (I should also have quoted Matthew 19), nor do I say that the New Testament contains spiritual truths. Perhaps my expression was awkward. What I mean was that Christ teaches through parables and Paul teaches through correction of a particular issue. We do not have systematic theology laid out in the scripture; we need to interpret the scripture within the apostolic tradition of the Early Church.

good works do not give us spiritual life, they are the result of the reality of the Holy Spirit living within us.

Again, this is true as long as it is not forgotten that just like I can drive or wreck my Toyota, I can wreck my salvation throuhg sin or deepen my spiritual life through the works of devotion and charity.

It is not so much the Protestant teaching on sola fide that is objectionable, it is that when it is combined with a flat and robotic view on the free will that it becomes either antinominalism ("I was saved last year, what about you?") or puritan legalism ("Christians don't smoke or drink"), and often a mixture of both.

I gave you scripture, you ignored it or spun away from it. See again, #15. However, these are words of Christ (Matthew 19):
16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?

17 Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

20 The young man saith to him: All these have I kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?

21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Now, if a mere proclamation of faith were sufficient for salvation, you would think Christ would have said so. Instead, He laid out quite a program of charitable works, culminating in a life of poverty and discipleship. Christ directly instructed us that faith must be formed by works.

So ... if you really believe that Jesus is defining for this young man what is necessary to be saved ... then I guess that you're living a penniless life of charitable service for your fellowman, right ?

BTW ... if Jesus is really God ... you'd think He would have said so ... wouldn't you ?

He certainly had plenty of opportunity to say so ... didn't He ?

Sometimes we have to be a little more discerning in our spiritual understanding.

Having a more complete understanding of scripture will help us in this.

This episode in Jesus' ministry has always struck me as one where Jesus is really saying more ... than it appears He is saying.

For instance ... when the young man first comes to Jesus, ... and greets Him by saying ... "Good Master, ... " and Jesus responds, firstly, to the young man's greeting by saying ... "Why do you call Me good ? ... for there is only One Who is good, ... and that is God ... "

Now we (that's Protestants and Catholics) ... who believe in the Deity of Jesus ... can understand that Jesus is here making an implicit reference to His own deity.

After all .. the correct answer to the question posed by Jesus is ... "Well ... You are God, after all, ... so there's no problem in calling you good."

Well ... I believe that Jesus is making the same type of implicit statement ... when He answers the young man's question about what he must do to have eternal life.

He says to the young man ... "Obey the commandments ... "

This, actually, is exactly the answer to to the question that the young man asked ...
"What good deed must I do to have eternal life.
What Jesus, essentially, says to him is ... "Well, if YOU are going to do it ... then YOU must be perfect."

And as an example of how that young man could not hope to live perfectly, ... when Jesus asked him to sell all that he had to give the proceeds to the poor, ... the young man balked, and went away sadly, ... for he knew that he could not do it. It was impossible for him.

When Jesus later spoke to His disciples regarding the difficulty for a rich man to get into heaven, ... His disciples got the message too.

If the ultimate challenge to obey God perfectly would be similar to the young man's challenge to give up his riches, ... then the disciples understood that any hope of living ... so as to merit salvation ... was an impossible dream.

They said to Jesus ...
Matthew 19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?

26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
So ... the true lesson here is that ... if you're depending upon yourself for your salvation (i.e. what you can do), ... you're in an impossible situation.

OTOH, ... if you're depending on God for your salvation, ... then the impossible has just become a sure thing.

How one can lose their salvation for lack of proper works

One who dies in a state of mortal and unconfessed sin has lost his salvation, which had been his prior to the act of sinning.

So then .. what you're saying here is ... that when you commit a mortal sin ... you lose your salvation ... (well ... at least until you get it back), right ... ?

Well ... how can this be ... when the writer of Hebrews says that ... if you lose your salvation ... you cannot get it back ... ?
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible ... for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, ... to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting? 17 Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness. 19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 20 The young man saith to him: All these have I kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me? 21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. Now, if a mere proclamation of faith were sufficient for salvation, you would think Christ would have said so. Instead, He laid out quite a program of charitable works, culminating in a life of poverty and discipleship. Christ directly instructed us that faith must be formed by works.

If you want to claim this scripture... then BEFORE you hold to all those good works, you better keep the law PERFECTLY

In this scripture a young law keeper that believes he is worthy of salvation based on his idea of law keeping. He approaches Christ to be his RABBIE NOT HIS SAVIOUR . He expected praise for his "goodness" . Instead Christ confronted him with truth.

We know that this fact means he is spiritually BLIND , because what did Christ tell Peter? That the knowledge of Christ as Lord is given by the Holy Spirit.(Matt 16:17)

Jesus is pointing out that the man does not recognize Christ as God by saying "why do you call me good? Only God is good"

He was plainly telling the spiritually blind "I am God" and still he did not hear

The young man believed he was a law keeper.. but Jesus pointed out that he was NOT he had an idol, his possessions.

If you break one of the laws you have broken them all .(James 2:10) So in his idolatry of his money and goods he had in fact broken all the laws.

Jesus in teaching his disciples following this encounter did not say "unless you do good works you will not be saved"

Here is what He said

Mat 19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

This final verse reinforces salvation by God not the works of men ...

Works do not add to a gift of salvation that was won on the cross by the finished work of Jesus. Works are the fruits that flow from the regenerated life. To believe that we can earn salvation is to believe that Jesus' work on the cross did not fully pay our sin debt. How can we believe that we can in any way do anything that could in any way add to or substitute for Christ's sacrifice?

I agree entirely: Our works do not add to or substitute for Christ's sacrifice. Jesus did for us what we cannot do for ourselves. It is a gift that none of us can earn.

My point is that God has offered us this gift of salvation through his Son; it is up to each of us to accept that gift. Accepting it requires faith in Jesus Christ, and entails repentance from sin, denying oneself, and taking up the cross.

The life that does not bear the fruits of obedience to Christ's teachings and does not show the compassion of good works towards others as he commanded, may very well attest to a lack of saving grace and therefore and unregenerated heart.

Again, I agree. The question is, can a person receive this saving grace and later turn away from it, thereby losing his salvation? I believe so; others do not.

***I believe it was clear from the context in 15 that I did not mean the "code language" to be incorrect.***

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood.

***that a lot of the controversy is specious***

A lot may be specious, but quite a bit is real. As far as I can see, the main conflict circles around the role of the Church.

***What Catholicism objects to is the arrogant idea that someone can make a declaration of faith and form then on consider himself saved.***

Would you be surprised to find something like this clearly taught by the Scriptures?

***We do not have systematic theology laid out in the scripture; we need to interpret the scripture within the apostolic tradition of the Early Church.***

Systematic theology is often more of a barrier to the truth than an aid. The Bible itself contains a significant amount of interpretation. It is, in many ways, self interpreting. Consider the very summation of the Gospel in 1Cor15:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,"

"...what I also received: that Christ died"
(Fact - the "What")

"...for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures"
(Interpretation - the "Why")

*** I can wreck my salvation through sin or deepen my spiritual life through the works of devotion and charity.***

With the exception of the case of apostasy, I would disagree. A believer can wreck their spiritual life through sin, they can break their fellowship with God, they can live in such a way as to have no eternal rewards, but the free gift of salvation is not given based on our goodness or good works - how therefore can it be lost because of a lack of good works.

Before a person enters into salvation they are the enemy of God. If He did for us while we were still His enemies, how much more will He do for believers after they have been brought into right relationship with Him. Or as Paul says...

Romans 5:10
"For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."

***it is that when it is combined with a flat and robotic view on the free will that it becomes either antinominalism ("I was saved last year, what about you?") or puritan legalism ("Christians don't smoke or drink"), and often a mixture of both.****

Salvation is ultimately not what we say about ourselves or what others think of us, it is the reality of the Holy Spirit's abiding and indwelling presence in the heart of an individual. Unless a person has undergone a supernatural, spiritual transformation as a result of hearing and believing the Gospel then they are not part of God's kingdom.

Romans 8:9
"You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you.

Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him"

Your thoughts?

quite a bit [in the controversy] is real

Not the entire controversy with the Protestants is specious, just the faith vs. works part, as our conversation, I think, shows.

Would you be surprised to find something like [a declaration of faith sufficient for salvation] clearly taught by the Scriptures?

I am sure you can point me to isolated verses that mention faith seemingly in that sense. As Aikin points out, one needs to see if faith formed by charity is really the meaning, not a declaration of faith; or if an act of faith (e.g. attempt to touch Christ's garment) accompanied the declaration. Surely each such verse needs to be viewed in the light of Luke 6:46 "And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?". Also, one needs to distinguish between a faith of a child not capable of any real work and a faith of an adult with strength and/or assets -- about which we have a very clear teaching I quoted yesterday.

Systematic theology is often more of a barrier

True; I was merely pointing out that the approach of the Apostles and the Evangelists is effective to teach a community of faith that knows the basics of faith from the liturgical tradition. Since we are separated from the tradition by time or anti-clerical prejudice, we have limitations in how we can effectively discuss the Scripture.

the free gift of salvation is not given based on our goodness or good works - how therefore can it be lost because of a lack of good works.

It does not follow. Christ offers salvation and man chooses sin. Different actors, different results. The Calvinist logic would have Christ giving salvation to some and damnation to others, not a scriptural view:

[God our Saviour] Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)

Unless a person has undergone a supernatural, spiritual transformation as a result of hearing and believing the Gospel then they are not part of God's kingdom.

True, except it is Christ, not the Gospel as such, that we are transformed by. The Samaritan woman did not read any Gospel. But this does not contradict the view that the transformation is under constant attack by the Devil, the struggle against whom is the essence of all work of charity.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.