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.

1. No I haven't studied the lives of saints. That being said, I'm pretty sure most of the saints lives sort of fit this general pattern: They believe deeply in Christ and dedicate their lives to him (or I guess some to Mary instead)...they do the best they can to live holy lives, yet are sinners like me. In time they are able to grow stronger in their faith however and are great examples for any Christian in trying to live a life God desires...many were martyred, others died naturally, others fought the enemies of Christ and died...all in all, the saints provide models for what we all should do...focus all our energy in trying to be holy, as God is holy. Were you hoping for a saint bashing answer because I'm not Catholic?

2. I don't know you and my general comments are not about you specifically. Please don't take general comments and apply them to yourself as if I am accusing you of something. If I am going to make a comment about you, I will ensure it is directed to you. When the word "we" is used it is a general concept...if you feel you are included, fine, but please don't bother asking me why i think this or that about you because I don't know anything about you and will not judge you in general but will make comments on your comments.

3. Regarding the poem: (this is a comment only for you by the way) All saints are sinners, but will be perfect in Christ if they have the true faith..that was the point of the poem. It matters not if one is a "saint" (I am speculating you mean saint in terms of the RCC definition) or if one is not for we all are offered the same salvation through Christ and will be part of the communion of saints through our faith in Christ and his sacrifice. Should we try to emulate the "saints"...absolutely, but if we don't reach that level we can still be saved. The saints all understood this and that gave them hope for salvation through their trust and faith in Christ and as a result that hope helped them persevere and they wanted to glorify God so they performed charity as a result of this faith and hope in Christ.

A long weekend and a busy week, so I'm slow responding.

"God requires that we obey all of his commands. And who can hope to accomplish this in this life ? Do you ?"

That's the goal, Quester, absolutely, and I will stake my soul on nothing less. The Lord is gracious to those who love Him and keep His Commandments and he gave us Commandments, not options.

"Do you truly believe that your salvation depends upon your perfect execution of God's Will ? Wasn't that Jesus' task ?"

I think this is confusing two separate issues--the redemptive work of Christ, and the responsibility of the believer. If Salvation depends solely on the Holy and Perfect Sacrifice of Christ on the cross, then it would follow that everyone is saved, regardless of their actions and beliefs. If on the other hand, the individual has responsibility, then we may well ask what that is. In the context of the passage at hand, the question is put quite explicitly to Jesus. If I will inherit eternal life, then what must I do?

I must keep the commandments, "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."; And if I want to be perfect, this passage indicates to me, that I must give away everything I have, and follow Christ. Seems like a good trade to me. Going back to Matthew 19:

""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 ... you must be perfect."

Let's not alter the Scripture. What he says is: if you want to inherit eternal life, keep the Commandments. He does not say that if you are going to enter eternal life, you must be perfect, although he does indeed tell the young man what he may do in order to be perfect.

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

It certainly would not have been impossible for him to give away everything he owned and follow Christ, Peter explains a few verses later that he and the rest of the Apostles have done exactly that, and Jesus assures him that they will be richly rewarded and recieve eternal life. Rather, the young man is called by Christ to follow Him, and refuses to answer the call because his wealth is more important to him than following Christ. There is no assumption that the young man's questions are being answered by assuming Christ will not offer himself up as a Holy and Perfect Sacrifice. God asks nothing impossible of us. In this passage, the young man is told by Christ that if he would enter eternal life, he must keep the commandments. He responds saying that he has done this. Christ does not challenge him and say it's impossible, rather, in response to the young man's question, "what more must I do," he tells him to come and follow Him.

"So ... the true lesson here is that ... if you're depending upon yourself for your salvation, you're in an impossible situation. "

This is not the message of this passage, at all. This passage is explicitly addressing the question of what the individual must do to enter eternal life. The question is not being asked hypothetically of what would have to be done in the absence of the Sacrifice on the Cross, it is specifically addressing the responsibility of the believer. In this case, it is something hard, but not impossible, for as it tells us in this passage in verse 26, with God, all things are possible.

"And we are saved ... to love ... God and our neighbor."

Respectfully, I would say that we are created to Love God and our neighbor, and that God will save those who do so.

"The imperative for the saved individual ... is love.

Again, I'm not seeing the part about individuals being already saved in the NT, perhaps you could show me where you are seeing that.

"If one does not manifest love, ... than it can be fairly reasoned that one has not received that gift of love from God. "

Not sure what you mean by saying that one has not received the gift of love from God, perhaps you could clarify. I would assert, however, that it is entirely possible to receive a gift from God, and to not use it, as the parable of the talents illustrates. As far as the passage in question, 1 Cor: 13, it tells us that faith without love is meaningless, hence the problem with the formulation that we are saved by faith alone. " if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1 Cor 13) Heaven is a place that has been prepared for those who love the Lord, and again, I'm not seeing the passage that says that people have been guaranteed salvation already following their initial conversion to Christ. Rather we must persevere through trials in order that we will be saved.

"Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him." (James 1:12)

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

annalex: I am sure you can point me to isolated verses that mention faith seemingly in that sense.

****

I could point you to more than just isolated verses.

The entire body of the Epistles presupposes that believers have entered into and stand in a present tense experience of justification. This is not seen as something they will receive at the end of their lives if they have been good - it is something they posses RIGHT NOW.

Rom 5 - "Therefore, *since we have been justified* by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Romans 5:9
Much more then, *being now justified* by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans 5:8-10
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.

***The Calvinist logic would have Christ giving salvation to some and damnation to others, not a scriptural view:***

I do not argue for Calvinist logic.

PM: 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.

annalex: It does not follow. Christ offers salvation and man chooses sin.

If the gift of eternal life is a free gift then it must never "require" good works as payment (or even as upkeep) - past, present or future.

Listen to this clear statement from Paul...

"But what does it say?
"The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"
(that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

annalex, where is the requirement of good works? Why does Paul not say, "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, [...and do a lot of good works] you will be saved."

Good works invariably follow in the wake of justification but they do not contribute to nor earn one justification.

***The Samaritan woman did not read any Gospel. ***

Ah, but she did! She read the whole Gospel in the face and words of Jesus Christ.

It's all there...

1. "There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink."

(Salvation process initiated by Jesus)

2. "Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water."

(Eternal life offered - as a gift asked for and received)

3. "The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:"

(Self-revelation and humiliation)

4. "Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he."

(Realization and acceptance of Jesus as Messiah)

5. "Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?"

(Immediate desire to spread the good news of Jesust)

It's all there annalex.

[There are no people walking around in the New Testament asking each other, "when did you git saved?" ]

Peter certainly treats the idea of having been saved as a 'fait accompli' ...

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Quester, there is nothing here, that says they have been saved, nor that they have received a guarantee of salvation. In fact, St. Peter is quoting the old testament here, entirely. The Holy nation and royal priesthood is from Exodus 19:6 where God tells the people of Israel, though all the earth is His, "you shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation." This does not mean that the Israelites have all received a guarantee of salvation, rather it means that they have been set apart by God as a Holy nation to worship God. Same as are we, as Peter points out.

"10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:10)

Again, this says nothing about a guarantee of salvation, it continues upon the theme and points out that God has been merciful to us.

***and I will stake my soul on nothing less***

You are staking your soul on your ability to obey the commands?

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

***If Salvation depends solely on the Holy and Perfect Sacrifice of Christ on the cross, then it would follow that everyone is saved, regardless of their actions and beliefs.***

The work of Christ is only effective for those who accept it by faith - no one else.

***If I will inherit eternal life, then what must I do?... I must keep the commandments, ***

You will surely fail.

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." - Gal 3

Have you kept the 10 commandment perfectly - even for one day - in your entire life?

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

Yes, although perhaps pleasantly so. I'm looking at the verses quoted in this post, however, and they all refer to being saved in the future. The translation you're quoting uses the word "shall" mine says "will". Either way, that's future tense.

Rom 5 - "Therefore, *since we have been justified* by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

I see that it says we have been justified (made righteous) but it does not say we have a guarantee of going to heaven based upon this. Rather it says we have been obtained access to His Grace through Christ by faith, and we stand in that Grace. I think we do well to read this in light of 1 Co 10:12

"Therefore, whoever thinks he stands must be careful lest he fall!""

"Romans 5:9
Much more then, *being now justified* by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans 5:8-10
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."

(My bible has this as "having been reconciled, we will be saved")

Listen to this clear statement from Paul...

"But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart"(that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved."

All of these refer to being saved in the future tense: we shall be saved, we will be saved. Moreover, in the last quote, it says we will be saved for a present tense action. That is, we confess and we believe in His Lordship, present tense. This sentence does not say, once you have confessed with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and once you have believed in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you have been saved.

It seems clear to me that it is those who persist in believing in and witnessing to the Lordship of Christ will be saved, and that this is not referring to a one time event. (Deathbed conversion being a possible exception.)

I'm particularly disturbed that anyone might be reading that last sentence as an indication that we can say, "I'm saved!" in the sense that it would mean,"I have been saved" ie I've received a guarantee to go to heaven when I die, regardless of my actions (as some seem to understand this.) That's saved, passive tense, not saved present perfect tense. It's describing how things work in general, not something that has already occurred. ie, Patients at the medical center are cured by doctors, cars are driven by owners, carpets are cleaned by janitors. It does not mean that the particular carpet, or car or person has been cleaned, driven, or cured, nor does this mean that they will never need to undergo this process again. In short, it does not say we have been guaranteed to go to Heaven when we die.

To be honest, I'm totally puzzled by the use of the term, "I am saved" Is it me, or is this a grammatical atrocity? In what sense is the word "saved" being used here?? It seems to me that what is meant is that one has been saved. Scripture, on the other hand, seems to have a strong preference for saying we will be saved (in the future) or we are being saved (through an ongoing process.) It seems to me that someone has taken the passive tense of these passages, and used a very ungrammatical reading of it to re-construct a guarantee of salvation based upon the conversion experience. I think this is reflected in the typical way that people phrase this, ungrammatically: "I got saved." Has bad grammer lead to bad theology?

I don't see as a Scriptural teaching the idea that a guarantee of salvation flows automatically from the conversion experience. Rather, we are always dependent upon the grace and mercy of God.

I must keep the commandments, "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."; And if I want to be perfect, this passage indicates to me, that I must give away everything I have, and follow Christ. Seems like a good trade to me."

Have you done so ... ?

Have you allowed the Lord to have perfect control over every area of your your life ?

Does what you want ... never ... take first priority ... over what God wants ?"

The student of the scriptures understands that there are (2) valid answers to the question ... "What must I do to have everlasting life ?"

There is the "Old Testament" answer ...

... and there is the "New Testament" answer.

The Old Testament answer is ... "Be perfect in following the commands of God ... and you will be saved."

The New Testament answer is ... "Accept God's gracious offer of His Son's sacrificial death as an atonement for your sins ... and you will be saved."

Jesus gave the "Old Testament" answer to the young man ... because He discerned that the young man was not ready to receive the "New Testament" answer.

However, ... if you check out chapter three of the gospel of John, ... you will see that Jesus gives Nicodemus, another seeker ... an entirely different answer ...
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Now Nicodemus does not immediately understand what Christ is saying ... so he asks further of Him ...
John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
And Jesus goes on to further declare ...
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Now ... clearly the answer Jesus gave Nicodemus ... is a dirrent one from the one He gave the young ruler.

Once again ... this is because there are (2) valid answers to the question.

The answer Jesus gave the young man, the "Old Testament" answer ... is according to the law.

OTOH, ... the answer Jesus gave Nicodemus, the "New Testament" answer ... is according to grace.

Both answers to this question are still valid today.

Which answer we choose ... depends on who we want to do to work ... for us to attain everlasting life.

If we are going to do the work ... as when the young man said, ... "What good deed must I do ... ?" ... then we must perfectly obey the cammandments of God.

However, ... God had graciously granted us the option ... of allowing Jesus to do the work for us.

Jesus lived a perfect life, ... and so, ... qualifies as that perfect sacrifice ... by which our sins may be atoned for to God.

Per Jesus' own words, ... we only need put our trust in Him to save us (i.e. believe on Him) ... to be gifted with God's gift of everlasting life.
John 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

You know ... the reality for us as the sons and daughters of Adam ... is that we are drowning in a sea of sin.

The further reality is that ... we cannot save ourselves from sin.

But, exactly like a faithful lifeguard ... Jesus has come to us in our dilemna ... and desires to save us.

Now ... life guards will tell you that ... when they swim out to to save a person that is drowning ... for that person to be saved ... the drowning person must give up on trying to save themselves ... for them trying to save themselves ... makes the lifeguard's task impossible.

To be saved ... the drowning person must cease his/her own struggles to save him/herself ... and allow the lifeguard to do everything that needs to be done.

That's how people are saved from drowning.

And ... that's how we are saved from sin.

But the truth is ... you can continue to struggle on your own.

Only ... as Petronius has stated ... you will surely fail.

Or ... you can allow Jesus to do for you ... what you cannot do ... and be saved.

The choice ... is up to you.

You know ... Jesus told the Jewish religious leaders to ...
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39
Search the scriptures ... Jesus is there.

If you will search the scriptures ... I believe that you will find that what I have presented to you is true ...

... and even if not ... you will surely find Jesus ... and His truth.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

---------------------------------------------------------

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Regarding the letter to Romans, I will spare you a separate response and refer you to the excellent #172 by InterestedQuestioner.

Generally, when discussing such quotes from (in particular) St. Paul, let us keep in mind, first, the important distinction made by Aikin in the head article, between faith formed by work of charity and declarative faith, and second, the distinction between the works of law and the works of love. Both the Galatians and the Romans tend to discuss the contrast between the works of Old Testament law and the unmerited and liberating gift of salvation. These epistles do not discuss the false dichotomy of faith vs. works.

Does the unmerited and liberating gift of salvation require payment? Of course not. That would be salvation by works, clearly argued against in the Letter of St. James. Does it require "upkeep"? Well, yes. Most gifts do. Christ saved both thieves. One dies cursing Him, the other, praying to Him. Only one thief is saved; the other did not do the work of prayer and dedicated suffering. Let me hasten to add that a deathbed conversion is one case where declarative faith, if sincere, is sufficient for salvation; a faith of a child is the other. In both exceptions the opportunity to do charitable work is not there; or, perhaps, the prayer of repentance is all the work that is available and needed.

You bring up, to another poster, the test that correctly indicates that excepting Christ and Mary, we all have sinned against the commandments. This makes me think that perhaps you are arguing against a strawman. The Church does not teach (1) that an obedient to commandments totality of life is a requirement for salvation or (2) obedient to commandments end of life is a requirement for salvation, or even (3) works of charity per se is a requirement for salvation. Rather, the Church teaches that faith tested and formed by freely chosen works of obedience and charity is a requirement for salvation. Examples:

- A Pharisee that has obeyed every item in the Law of Moses out of submission to the law is not thereby saved;

- A Methodist who has tirelessly volunteered in every charity he could find because it gave him psychological satisfaction is not thereby saved;

- A Baptist who sincerely proclaimed his faith to the congregation in a charged with fervent emotion moment is not thereby saved;

- But either a Pharisee, a Methodist or a Baptist will be saved at the hour of his death if he has lived a lifetime of conversion to Christ working in love; or if his faith was tested by martyrdom.

The Samaritan woman experienced conversion and went on to do the work of evangelization. Her encounter was with Christ. Surely Christ is the Word. But we distinguish the books of the Holy Scripture, which she did not read or heard proclaimed (excepting possibly the Old Testament in the course of Samaritan worship, which was a sect of Judaism) and the Word. My comment was prompted by your "spiritual transformation as a result of hearing and believing the Gospel", and I corrected it by replacing "Gospel" with "Christ". Surely you don't think that the Gospel as a book, rather than as a manifestation of Christ, converts?

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.