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.

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.

Quester, there is only one answer, God is God, and Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and for always. Paul's writings extensively deal with this--we are saved by the same that Abraham was saved--by Grace through faith working in Love.

"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."

First of all, the Bible says nothing about Jesus "discerning the young man was not ready for the "New Testament answer." Let's accept Scripture at face value and not dodge it's direct statements or it's meaning. In Matthew 16, Jesus is asked quite directly:

"....Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" (Matthew 19:16)

His response could not be more straightforward.

".....If you would enter life, keep the commandments." (Matt 16:17)

The answer could not be more clear: if you want to go to Heaven, you must keep the commandments. This is a very clear teaching directly from our Lord. Presumably since the Jewish Law contains many statues, the young man seeks to clarify. Of the many hundreds of laws, which ones must be kept? An excellent question, to which Jesus replies:

"...And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 19:18,19)

Jesus is not giving an "Old Testament" answer. He doesn't point toward the keeping of the entire Jewish ceremonial Law, rather his answer is totally consistent with the answer that St. Paul gives in Romans. He points directly toward the moral law: Don't steal, don't bear false witness against your neighbor, honor your parents, and Love your neighbor. Very specific, very simple, very concrete. If you're religion teaches that God has not given you the necessary Grace to keep these Commandments of His, I would very bluntly suggest finding a religion that does not put your soul in danger of hell. Salvation by faith alone is a man-made tradition of the 16th century, and it is not Biblical. God's Word and God's Commandments trump it in all cases, this being no exception. To continue on with the passage, the young man responds:

"The young man said to him, "All these I have observed;"

I've pointed this out to someone before, but apparently, it bears repeating. This young man has just told God that he has kept the Commandments. Does Christ respond as the man Calvin would, "That's impossible, you're a totally and utterly depraved little human. You can't do that!" Rather, when the young man asks what more does he need to do, Jesus responds:

""If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me."

Jesus says that he must give away what he has and come follow Him. A simple prescription for perfection, and an amazing Call. Now you have before asserted that this is impossible to do, yet it seems quite simple to me, and the Bible explicitly states in this passage that others have done exactly that. Remember, this is the Gospel according to Matthew, and we know that when he himself was called, he immediately walked away from a lucrative job on the spot, and offered to repay anyone he had overcharged three times what he had taken. None of this sounds impossible to me, does it to you? Of course not. This is the true meaning of faith that Paul juxtaposes against the Jewish ceremonial law (circumcision, dietary restrictions, etc.) in his writings. One puts one's cards on the table and does not hedge one's bets. Given this world or the next, you bet the house, and everything else, on Jesus Christ.

"Then Peter said in reply, "Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life."

This should be the last time I need to point out the obvious: nowhere does Jesus say keeping His Commandments or sacrificing all else in order to follow Him is impossible. He says it will be done, and he makes it clear that if one will inherit eternal life, he must keep the commandments. Correct? This is the plain meaning of Scipture, and there is no need to alter them in order to derive consistency with the man-made doctrine of salvation by faith alone. Jesus describes a total commitment to Himself, and the terms thereof. We see here in this passage an example of someone who has kept the Commandments that Jesus specifies, and we see an entire group which has given up everything to follow Christ. "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. (Mt 6:24 ) Total commitment is what Jesus is calling for here, and with God, all things are possible.

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

No, there is only one answer.

"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.' "

Scripture says no such thing. I find it odd that you put that statement in quotes, as if it actually came from the Bible. Let's stick to what the actually Bible says.

"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 "

Nope. Nicodemous has not asked a question, he simply makes the statement that it is known that Jesus is a teacher who has come from God. Jesus replies that no man can see the kingdom of Heaven unless he is born from above. Same God making two consistent statements. These become different statements only if one follows the man made tradition of "salvation by faith alone." I'll stick to the Scripture, as all these "alones" seem to be confusing people. There is no "belief alone", "born again alone" or "keep God's Commandments alone" in Scripture: God calls us to do all of these things. A difficult teaching for some who cleave to comfortable man-made traditions that mere belief is required, but nonetheless, the Biblical teaching.

Both statements are totally consistent. One must believe in God and accept his Lordship, and Lordship implies subjecting oneself to Him. Whereas formerly we were "free" to disobey the commandments, now we are subject to Christ, and we must do what he Commands.

"Now ... clearly the answer Jesus gave Nicodemus ... is a dirrent one from the one He gave the young ruler.

Again, Jesus is not answering the same question, in fact, he's not answering a question at all in John 3:2, he's responding to a statement. His statements are different, but consistent. My suspicion at this point is that the term "born" is loaded with connotations and implications for you, and perhaps you are reading more into it than what Scripture says. Someone on this forum recently asserted that "born again" = saved. I don't see that equivalence in Scripture, perhaps you could point me in that direction of you do.

"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."

Again, this is a false dichotomy, and it's unScriptural. Moreover, Jesus has most definitely not told the young man to keep the Jewish Law (Jewish Law contains many hundreds of laws, some derived from Scripture, others derived from longstanding tradition, and all are now held to be equally binding.) Rather, He has told him to keep the Commandments, and has been very specific in delineating which ones He means. I think Paul's teachings about salvation may be summed up by saying that we are saved by Grace through faith working in love--that is, if we insist on reducing them to a formula. Paul juxtaposes faith vs. works of the Jewish Law to make a point that there is totally consistency between the old Testament teaching and the New Testament teaching. It creates a false dichotomy to twist these statements in such a way as to say that faith opposes works. Faith opposes non-Faith, but faith and works must go together, as a faith without works is dead. It is not the action itself that saves us, for we are saved by God, but it is through the work of faith that we respond to his Grace and are saved.

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."

Again, Quester, if we follow the logic that all that is required for salvation is the Holy and Perfect Sacrifice on the Cross, then nothing would be required of us, correct? All would be saved, regardless of belief and action. Scripture, on the other hand, clearly points us to the responsibility of the individual in accepting the gift of Salvation, as the verses you cite from John's Gospel clearly point out. However, whereas you seem to be asserting that belief alone qualifies us for eternal life, that statement nowhere occurs in Scripture. Belief, yes, AND also Love of God and fellow man also are required. Scripture also tells us quite explicitly that we must keep the commandments if we are to have eternal life. It follows simply that if Jesus is indeed you're Lord, you keep his commandments.

Respectfully, I think the lifeguard analogy is off topic here. It rests upon a false dichotomy, that it is either all Jesus, or all the individual. Rather, we are saved by God, and yet the individual is obligated to respond to God if he is to be saved. We agree on this. Our difference is in the nature of the response. You say it is belief alone, I say it is belief that acts, that is, we are saved by grace through faith working in love, and not by faith alone.

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39"

I bite my tongue and try to avoid quoting that verse every time someone tells me that the Bible is the sole rule of faith.

"Search the scriptures ... Jesus is there."

Indeed, I love the Word of God.

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

Amen, Brother!

After some consideration and much needed rest, I have decide that I do wish to comment upon upon a few of the points you made in your last posting.

My initial reaction to your response was that it was rather thick (i.e. wordy) and difficult to get one hands around.

I was (and am) concerned that the discussion was kind of spiraling beyond what I could hope to keep up with (after all … I’m no Luther).

But, ultimately, … I did decide to make a few comment upon some of the points in your response. These comments follow. I’ve chosen to address these points in separate postings.

It seems that a main point of difference between us springs from our differing understanding concerning Jesus’ meeting with the rich young ruler (Matthew).

You seem to place a high premium on the idea that Jesus gave a straight-forward answer to the rich youg man, … as if that were something that Jesus was apt to do.

On the contrary, Jesus often cloaked the truths He spoke, … to the point where His own disciples questioned Him …
Matthew 13: 10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
And, ... getting back to the event at hand, … it is also questionable that the rich young man was being as forthcoming as he could have been.

When Jesus lays before him the need to obey the commandments (for him to accomplish his salvation), … the young man states, … almost without hesitation, it seems, … that he has kept these since his youth.

Now, if we were to assume the simplest meaning to what Jesus meant by the commandments, … we could simply reference the Ten commandments.

So, then … we could reasonably assume that the young man was saying that he had kept the Ten commandments since his youth.

Now, without passing any moral judgement whatsoever, … I can simply refer to John, the Apostle, who tells us …
1 John 1: 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
So … we can easily come to the conclusion that the young man was either, not being truly forthcoming in addressing his flaws, … or he was deceived concerning his own flaws.

Now, … of course, … Jesus would know this. But, rather than argue with the young man concerning his past sinfulness (or perceived lack thereof), … Jesus simply upped the ante …

Jesus does something similar in His teachings in Matthew 5 …
Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

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

Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

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

Matthew 5: 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
It is for these reasons that I see this encounter between Jesus and this seeker somewhat differently that do you.

I see a young man claiming far more righteousness than he possesses, … and Jesus telling him that he’s got far, far to go to meet God’s expectations.

Jesus’ disciples certainly thought that such a requirement for salvation (as that given by Jesus to the young man) was an impossible request for most … and Jesus agreed with them that men did not have the power to meet this requirement … but that God was able to save … even such as these.
Matthew 19:25 And when they had heard this, the disciples wondered much, saying: Who then can be saved?

26 And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible.

"I will end my participation in this discussion (for it could go on and on) ... by summarizing my beliefs regarding salvation ... along with suitable scriptural reference, of course. "

I now see a number of new posts addressed to me from you. I'm happy to continue this conversation.

"...I've concluded the following regarding God's offer of salvation..."

1. "In an unsaved state, we have no power to do any good (i.e. to please God)."

Incorrect, you're in an unsaved state, you better hope it's possible to please God. The Scripture you reference, Hebrews 11:6, says something different than your statement. Without faith we cannot please God, that should be obvious, because it would miss the entire point of our creation. That is, the end of man is to know and love God. Anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists, and God rewards those who seek him.

2. "As the Initiator He is, God has offered His grace to us ..."

Amen.

3. "We respond in belief with the faith that He (God) gives to us."

Hopefully, yes, we do indeed respond in belief. Faith is indeed a gift, but let's not be superstitious about it. Every good thing we have is a gift from God, whether it be our two hands, our good health, our legs or our eyes. We may choose to use them or not use them. With regards to your statement, we do indeed need to respond to God with belief, and we also need to respond with everything else God has given us, including will, intellect, talents, opportunities, and material possessions.

Correctly speaking, everything we have belongs to God, and we have only been entrusted with it for the time being. To be correct in our understanding of God, it is important for us to recognize this, and to act accordingly. God is the Lord and Master of everything that is. God is also Truth itself. When we seek to conform our understanding and actions to the truth, that is, when we accept the truth, we seek to draw nearer to God, and Scripture promises that those who know the truth will be set free by it. I understand the Scripture, "His yolk is easy, and His burden is light," to be in part a reference to this truth which sets us free. Therefore, it is important that we recognize that all things belong to God, and all are owed to him. Our faith is owed to God, yes, but also our love, our gratitude, and our actions. Nor is this a one time event, they are owed to God always and forever, for He is Lord always and forever. If the believer says to himself, "I owe God my belief and trust alone, and then proceeds to set a wall around the rest of what he has, and say, I owe God faith alone, or belief alone, but everything else--my time, my actions, my talents or my opportunities--belong to me, and I give them to God optionally and only as I find convenient for me, then he is acting outside the truth and apart from God. One of my concerns about the teaching of "faith alone," is that it sets a wall around that which is owed to God. No such wall in truth exists. God has created us to share in His own blessed life, and anything that we hold back from God is something which keeps us apart from God. That is, it is a refusal to respond to God's call to draw closer to Him. If we would not draw closer to God in this life, but hold ourselves back, it is quite possible that our wish for separation may be indeed granted in the next, and I understand separation from God to be hell, quite literally. In the passage we have started to discuss; namely, Matthew 19: 16-30, in which Jesus answers a rich young man's question, "What must I do to be saved?" the young man holds back from God. He receives an extraordinary call to follow Jesus, but refurses to part from his possessions in order to answer that call. One point to be taken here is that nothing on this earth should separate us from Christ.

4. God spiritually rebirths us into new creations in Christ Jesus.

I agree.

5. "We pump out works which are pleasing to God ... and which are the natural outgrowth of our new nature."

Not everyone does, and in fact, depending on your definition of "pump" most people probably don't. God has indeed prepared great works for us in advance. However, it doesn't follow automatically that the believer acts according to the Will of God. We all know this.

6. &quot;Such works are the evidence of our salvation."

We may indeed be called to produce works as evidence or proof of love, or proof of repentance, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say they are proof of your salvation, that does not sound right at all. Perhaps you could elaborate. It's important to recognize, however, that what we do in this life matters, and we will be judged by God according to our actions, that is, what we have done, and what we have failed to do. There seems to be a common assumption that good works follow automatically from belief in Christ. While it is true that faith in Christ, in and of itself, leads to go works, there is nothing automatic about this. Were our actions automatic, following conversion to Christ, it would follow that none of us would sin, correct? Rather, we must deny ourselves and take up our cross daily. That is, we must sacrifice ourselves after the pattern of our Master. Discipleship of Christ is not without sacrifice and self-denial, rather they are the gate through which we enter into the Joy of the Master.

7. "We can know that we are saved."

We are speaking here of a matter of faith, Quester, and I think you can agree with me that people can believe they are saved. I think you can also agree with me that they can be incorrect about this. In fact, I would say perhaps all people now living who believe they have a guarantee of going to heaven when they die, regardless of their actions, are incorrect to do so.

To cut to the chase, Quester, we are dancing around two issues here which are very appealing, but which appear to be incorrectly understood, and which folks will be uncomfortable in letting go because they are very comforting doctrines.

The first is that faith, or worse still, belief is all that is required of the disciple. God has set down Commandments for us to follow, and if we persist in breaking those, we do not accept Him as our Lord. We agree on this, correct?

Second is the guarantee of salvation following an initial acceptance of Christ as Lord and savior. Scripture speaks of assurance, and it is for those who love God and their fellow man, and who persevere in doing so to the end. The assurance of faith is this, and not a sincerely answered altar call. The Word of God, which has been planted in us, is capable of saving us, but we must humble ourselves before it, and not be remiss in doing the Will of God, that is, to Love God, who is all Good, and to show compassion and mercy to our fellow man, who is the very image and likeness of God. Without this, there is not assurance of salvation, and we are deceive ourselves to presume upon the mercy of God when we show Him that we prefer to remain in untruth, which rather than to draw close to Him who is Truth itself.

"Until our next meeting, may God bless,...."

Thank you.

"My initial reaction to your response was that it was rather thick (i.e. wordy) and difficult to get one hands around."

LOl, well I'm open to suggestions, Quester. I'm responding as best I can directly to your posts, which are themselves quite long.

"I was (and am) concerned that the discussion was kind of spiraling beyond what I could hope to keep up with.."

We're discussing a very plain passage of Scripture, (Matthew 19: 16-30,) and one that appears quite straightforward, provided you don't attempt to impose upon it the man-made doctrines of "salvation by faith alone" or a guarantee of salvation following conversion. I think those teaching may be getting you into some trouble with a clear understanding of Scripture. You and I have nothing to fear from truth, although we may need to shed some preconceived notions in order to accept truth. If you feel the conversation is getting out of hand and have a suggestion for a better approach, I am quite open to that, and please feel free to freepmail me if you would like.

"You seem to place a high premium on the idea that Jesus gave a straight-forward answer to the rich youg man."

It is indeed a very straightforward answer. I place a premium on the Word of God.

"You seem to place a high premium on the idea that Jesus gave a straight-forward answer to the rich youg man,as if that were something that Jesus was apt to do. On the contrary, Jesus often cloaked the truths He spoke, to the point where His own disciples questioned Him Matthew 13: 10 "And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?"

Jesus did indeed speak plainly to people, and this is no parable. Let's not obscure the meaning of Scripture when it is clear, we have nothing to gain from doing so. You are making a clear appeal here, that Scripture is ambiguous. Generally when people do that, you and I both recognize that they simply don't want to believe what it says.

"When Jesus lays before him the need to obey the commandments (for him to accomplish his salvation), the young man states, almost without hesitation, it seems, that he has kept these since his youth. Now, if we were to assume the simplest meaning to what Jesus meant by the commandments, we could simply reference the Ten commandments."

The question at hand is, "....Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? (Matt 19:16). Jesus says to him, "if you would enter into life, keep the commandments." It's a very clear answer, there is no parable. He does not say, "just believe only," rather the belief is assumed, and He points out that the young man must do more than just believe, he must keep the Commandments. Nor is there any question of the young man accomplishing his own salvation, we are all saved by God, and nobody here uses the language of saving oneself. I'll come back to this in a couple of paragraphs. For now I will point out that we are speaking about Commandments, not options. We accept the fact that Jesus is indeed the Lord only to the extent that we obey the Lord's Commandments, and in response to the direct question, "What must I do to be saved?", Jesus tells the young man that he must keep the Commandments.

"Now, if we were to assume the simplest meaning to what Jesus meant by the commandments, we could simply reference the Ten commandments."

???? Quester, we need not assume anything. The young man asks Jesus explicitly, "which?", and Jesus responds quite explicitly:

"He said to him, "Which?" And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." " (Matthew 19: 18,19)

"When Jesus lays before him the need to obey the commandments (for him to accomplish his salvation), the young man states, almost without hesitation, it seems, that he has kept these since his youth."

Quester, once again, Scripture says nothing about the young man accomplishing his own salvation, that's something you're reading into Scripture. Furthermore, in the passage at hand (Matt 19:16-30) he does not say he has kept all of the Commandments from his youth, at least not in any translation I remember. Are you working from the King James translation? This phrase is, in fact, included in the Mark 10:17-31, which is the Marcan parallel:

" And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" And he said to him, "Teacher, all these I have observed from my youth." And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, "You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." At that saying his countenance fell, and he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions." (Mark 10:17-31)

Here in Mark, we see a slightly different emphasis. Again, nowhere does it say anything about the man "accomplishing" his own salvation. We are saved by God, and don't save ourselves. The young man does not show evidence of believing otherwise, in fact, he asks, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" He uses the word inherit, that is, to receive something as a gift from a Father. Again, Jesus' response is clear, to see eternal life, we must keep the commandments.

"When Jesus lays before him the need to obey the commandments (for him to accomplish his salvation), the young man states, almost without hesitation, it seems, that he has kept these since his youth. Now, if we were to assume the simplest meaning to what Jesus meant by the commandments, we could simply reference the Ten commandments. So, then we could reasonably assume that the young man was saying that he had kept the Ten commandments since his youth. Now, without passing any moral judgment whatsoever, I can simply refer to John, the Apostle, who tells us …
1 John 1: 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

Quester, Jesus has not said, "you must never sin," he's said, "if you would see eternal life, keep the commandments." He has specifically listed the commandments. I'll say this quite bluntly once again, if your religion teaches you that God has not given you sufficient Grace to keep those Commandments, then you should find another religion that is not putting your soul in danger of hell.

"So we can easily come to the conclusion that the young man was either, not being truly forthcoming in addressing his flaws, or he was deceived concerning his own flaws. Now, of course, Jesus would know this. But, rather than argue with the young man concerning his past sinfulness (or perceived lack thereof), Jesus simply upped the ante..."

This conclusion doesn't follow because Jesus has referred to the Commandments, and you have referred to sin. Nowhere does it say that the young man is lying or is unaware, so let's not read that into the Bible--it's just not there. And which of these Commandments would he be unaware of breaking??? Are you saying he murdered someone and it slipped his mind, or that he had sex with someone's wife, but happened to have forgotten about that part while kneeling before the Christ and asking Him what must he do to inherit eternal life?? We don't accidentally break the Commandments, and God gives us the Grace to do the positive Commandments, and to not do the negative ones. Again, Scripture does not say the young man is lying to God straight to His Face and He simply overlooks it, as you state. Rather, in the Marcan parallel, when the young man, who is on his knees before Jesus, tells Jesus that he has kept all of the Commandments, Scripture tells us that Jesus looks upon him with love.

And Quester, Jesus doesn't "up the ante," when the young man asks Jesus what he still lacks, Jesus tells him that if he wants to be perfect, he must sell his possessions, give them to the poor, and come follow Him. I'll say it again, He is making this young man an extraordinary offer, one that those accompanying Jesus have already accepted, and in particular, one that would resonate very clearly with Matthew, as it parallels his own call by Christ, one which he accepted without hesitation, abandoning a lucrative job on the spot to do so.

"Jesus does something similar in His teachings in Matthew 5 …"

Just to note, we're switching to a different passage of Matthew's Gospel, and you're quoting a particularly beautiful set of teachings by the Master, namely, Matthew Chapter 5, which contains the Sermon on the Mount. It appears they are giving you some difficulty. No doubt they are, they fly directly in the face of the teaching that we are saved by faith alone, unless the word faith is understood to mean a faith that works in love, and they are an absolute contradiction to the man-made fraud that we are saved by belief alone. Here Christ calls us to perfection, and gives us considerable instruction on what this means. This is the same Gospel, and it's not only Scripturally consistent with Matthew 19:16-20, it's a development upon the same theme, which Matthew follows, much as Paul constructs his argument against the Judaizers in the Letter to the Romans. In Matthew 19, Jesus tells the young man what he must do to be perfect: give away everything in exchange for discipleship, and follow Jesus. Not everyone is called to give up their riches, but this call itself is an ongoing theme of Matthew's Gospel, not surprisingly, since it is his own story.

As Jesus passed on from there, he was a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post. He said to him, "Follow me." And he got up and followed Him. (Matthew 9: 9,10)

Matthew is quite succinct in describing his response to the initial call of Christ, but the theme of surrendering everything in order to follow Christ recurs many times in his Gospel.

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls, who, on finding one pearl of great value, went and sold all that he had and bought it. (Matthew 13:44-52)

In the Gospel according to Matthew, Matthew describes that nothing is worthy to keep us from Christ, and we must be willing to set all aside if discipleship of Christ requires that.

Another of the disciples said to him, "Lord, let me first go and bury my father." But Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."

While the teachings are indeed radical, Matthew reminds us that Christ's yolk is easy, and his burden is light.

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Note that this Statement from Christ does not come after Martin Luther's argument that we are saved by faith alone, which is unbiblical and anti-Scritural. It comes, rather, after the Sermon on the Mount. In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ shows us His extraordinary understanding of the human heart. We are created for God, and God calls us to seek Him with all our strength. It is our response to the call of God that we experience truth and freedom, not from a delimited acceptance of the Gospel only so long as it conforms to the man made traditions of being saved by faith alone, or belief alone.

You have excerpted the following quotes from Matthew chapter 5:

"Matthew 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5: 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

This is all true. Nowhere does it say we are saved by faith alone, or that all that is required of the individual is a fervent belief in Christ. I can see that these passages would indeed be difficult for someone who believes these man made traditions. Rather, Christ tells us in no uncertain terms that when if we are angry at our brother without a cause (that is when we harbor anger against someone else) we place ourselves in danger of judgment (which I understand to be hell.) You agree with this, don't you? This compares well to 1 John 3:15:

" Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. " (1 John 3:15)

Jesus also tells us that anyone who looks lustfully upon a woman commits adultery with her in his heart. Here he shows us His profound understand of the human heart. (Note, however, he does not equate looking lustfully upon a woman with actually committing adultery itself. Those are two different things.) He has called us to Christian perfection and this involves not only our actions, but our thoughts as well, which must be directed toward God, and not toward sin.

"Blessed are the clean of Heart, for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8)

In Chapter 5, Matthew discusses what the teachings of Christ are. This is not some Calvinist head-game that Jesus is playing with people, laying upon them a set of burdens they cannot possibly expect to keep, rather he is explaining the way to True Christian freedom and peace. Read Matthew chapter 5, it's absolutely beautiful, it's absolutely true, it's absolutely consistent with the rest of Scripture, and it absolutely says nowhere that we are saved by faith alone. These are the true teachings of Christ, and they are the backdrop against which John's admonishment to believe in Christ are set, and they are the foundation upon which the teachings of Paul are laid. I'm not sure exactly how you are reading these Scriptures, but there seems to be a constant theme that it is impossible for a human to obey the will of God, and that one must simply believe that one has already been saved.. Perhaps you could elaborate if I have misunderstood that point. "Blessed are the poor in Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matt 5:3)

"Blessed are they who Hunger and Thirst for Righteousness, for they shall be Satisfied." (Matt 5: 6)

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." (Matt 5: 7)
God has called us to share in His own Blessed Life. This calling resounds quite clearly throughout the Gospels, and is presented in Matthew chapter 5 with the particular exquisite teachings of Christ Himself. Is there something in the teachings of the Master with which you disagree here? God has called us to the Truth freedom of Truth. I have seen a preacher attack these teachings (one is tempted to say profane them) by arguing that none of them are true. Remember, Quester, with God, all things are possible, including discipleship to Christ. The desire for God is written in the human heart, and only in God will we find Truth and Happiness.

I think that you are creating a false dichotomy. It seems you are arguing that we are either saved by belief alone (a man made doctrine,) or we are attempting to "accomplish our own salvation" apart from God. This dichotomy is not Scriptural. The Teachings of the Gospels are true, Christ calls us to a radical conversion to God. God is truth, and Jesus tells us of what the Truth consists through His teachings and His example in the Word of God. Again, the Word of God has been planted in us, and it can save us, but only if we submit to it humbly.

Quester, the doctrine that we are saved by faith alone is not Scriptural, in fact, it is explicitly contradicted by Scripture. It's a man made tradition invented by Martin Luther a millennial and a half after the time of Christ. It is not in the Bible, but as I have pointed out to others elsewhere, it is often elevated over and above Scripture itself. The idea that we are guaranteed upon a sincere conversion to Christ, to go to heaven when we die following is similar. Both theories are man made, and neither must be elevated over the plain words of Scripture.

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.