Justification by Faith Alone: Catholics and Protestants Together?

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

[Petrosius]

Justification by Faith Alone

by James Akin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term "faith" in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

[InterestedQuestioner]

"So based on the above, I would say that if a true Christian could commit murder, then yes, they could be forgiven for it.

The question at hand is not whether a person could be forgiven, the question is whether or not they are guaranteed to be forgiven. To say that a believer is capable of sinning and yet guaranteed not to go to hell is to assure a person that any sin they commit will be forgiven.

" If the Christian murdered then he would repent. The Holy Spirit would see to that."

If I have understood you correctly, PM, you seem to be implying that a believer must repent in order to be forgiven this sin and go to Heaven. Am I reading this correctly?

[PetroniusMaximus]

***To say that a believer is capable of sinning and yet guaranteed not to go to hell is to assure a person that any sin they commit will be forgiven.***

When were your sins forgiven by God?

[InterestedQuestioner]

Respectfully, Petronius Maximus, this is changing the subject. Are you saying that a believer who murders must repent in order to be forgiven and go to heaven?

[PetroniusMaximus]

***Respectfully, Petronius Maximus, this is changing the subject.***

Actually I'm not. The question is right o­n topic for our discussion - though it may not be clear just yet.

So, when were your (or anyone's) sins forgiven by God?

 

and to prove I'm not dodging...

***Are you saying that a believer who murders must repent in order to be forgiven and go to heaven?***

A believer who has been:

reborn of the Spirit of God,

who has been justified,

who has been blessed in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

who has been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world, that he should be holy and blameless before God.

who, in love has been predestined for adoption through Jesus Christ,

who has redemption through Christ's blood,

who has the forgiveness of their trespasses, according to the riches of God's grace,
  
who, in Christ, has obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will,

who has heard the word of truth, the gospel of salvation, and believed in Christ,

who has been sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, (the guarantee of their inheritance until they acquire possession of it,)

who even when they were dead in their trespasses, was made alive together with Christ (by grace they have been saved)

who have been raised up with Christ and seated with him in the heavenly places so that in the coming ages they might show the immeasurable riches of God's grace in kindness toward them in Christ Jesus.

who by grace have been saved through faith. (And this is not their own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no o­ne may boast),

who is God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that that should walk in them.

(read that stuff and let it sink in IQ... - don't just skim it!)

... if that person were, for whatever reason, to commit murder - God forbid - then Christ would pray for that person, that their faith would not fail them, and the Holy Spirit would create such sorrow in their hearts as to prevail upon them to confess their sin and accept the forgiveness won for them by virtue of Christ's death o­n their behalf in 33 AD to pay the just penalty for that sin in order that not o­ne of Christ's sheep would perish.

If, when this person was utterly lost and cut off from God, they were the recepients of His mercy and grace in the free gift of  new birth and salvation - how could their subsequent lack of personal righteousness effect the security of that free gift?


 If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say?

"Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."

Now to the o­ne who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the o­ne who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the o­ne to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

[InterestedQuestioner]

PM,

I've asked a very simple question, 'yes' or 'no' would have sufficed. For my part, I'm trying to keep this discussion as simple as possible, and the subject is indeed being changed. In brief, the long collection of Scriptural paraphrases which I was asked to read and ponder is an incomplete sentence. Moreover, as paraphrases, some of them are simply wrong, and appropriately the topic of another conversation. Moreover, PM, I've already commented on some of these and the comments have been ignored. Therefore, I am trying to keep my end of this conversation as specific as I can.


"... if that person were, for whatever reason, to commit murder - God forbid - then Christ would pray for that person, that their faith would not fail them, and the Holy Spirit would create such sorrow in their hearts as to prevail upon them to confess their sin and accept the forgiveness won for them by virtue of Christ's death o n their behalf in 33 AD to pay the just penalty for that sin in order that not o ne of Christ's sheep would perish."


So if a believer does not repent from his sins committed after conversion, (in this case murder) then he may indeed go to hell. To be as clear as possible, a believer will go to hell because of his sins. Have I understood you correctly?

[PetroniusMaximus]

*** I've asked a very simple question, 'yes' or 'no' would have sufficed***

It's not a simple question and I believe you know that. How would you respond if I asked you if you have stopped beating your wife? (Yes or No please).




***For my part, I'm trying to keep this discussion as simple as possible***

I appreciate that - these discussions have a tendency to balloon.




***and the subject is indeed being changed. ***

The subject under consideration is (as far as I understand it)

1. What is the nature of salvation

2. What is the nature of the regenerated believer.





***Moreover, as paraphrases, some of them are simply wrong, and appropriately the topic of another conversation..***

They are *pure*, 100% Pauline phrases (reworded for the third person). That, in and of itself, should give you pause. And they directly address point #2 above.




***Moreover, PM, I've already commented on some of these and the comments have been ignored. ****

I am sorry for that if I have failed to address important points. That is, alas, the unfortunate nature of the medium - some points are invariably overlooked. (Feel free to bring them up again should you wish. I seriously don't want to avoid any issues).




***So if a believer does not repent from his sins committed after conversion, (in this case murder) then he may indeed go to hell.***

I believe you're guilty of a tautology there. That is like asking, "what if a believer does not believe?" A believer, by his or her very nature, is one who repents. Repentance is a defining characteristic of their lives. Repentance is one of the GIFTS of God to the believer.

2 Timothy 2:25
"In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;"

Romans 2:4
Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?




***To be as clear as possible, a believer will go to hell because of his sins. Have I understood you correctly?***

No. A believer will not go to hell because of his sins.

I think the clearest expression of that in the NT is...

1 Thessalonians 5:9
"For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,"


Look at this...

Colossians 2:13
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;"

When a person puts their faith in Jesus Christ ALL their sins are forgive. ALL - past, present and future. That is the meaning of Justification. The believer is viewed as totally righteous in the eyes of God (and we must remember that God is outside of time - He sees all our sins simultaneously).


That is because a believer, if they are truly a believer, has entered into a covenant with God. That covenant clearly states...

"I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and *their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more*." - Heb 8





Believers may stumble in horrible ways, they may commit adultery, fornication, be guilty of terrible sins. But because they are in an everlasting covenant (Heb 13:20) ALL of their sins are forgiven. They are not forgive BECAUSE they repent - as if they had earned it by repenting, they are forgiven BECAUSE Christ paid the price for them. Repentance is the God-given means by which they can experience the blessing of that grace of forgiveness.

When we seek God's forgiveness we look back to the forgiveness that was poured out though the death of Jesus.

And now you seen the point of my question - When were your sins forgiven by God?

[InterestedQuestioner]

PM, I have a long day ahead of me and a number of deadlines to meet. I’ve been through these arguments quite a few times, and I admit that my patience is wearing thin. I believe that I’ve been through these arguments about three times with folks on this thread, and after taking extreme care to respond patiently to their many questions and concerns, it is usually at about this point that I am told that I am an evil Catholic, and just need to read the Bible, which says that I am saved by faith alone (!). This after a considerable work of exegesis, as you can see from my previous posts on this thread. I confess, my patience is wearing thin, but I will respond as best I am able. It is not my intention that his post offend you, and if it does, by all means have the forum moderator delete it, I won’t object. You have my full permission.

That said, the question at hand is very simple, and so is the answer, it's just hard to confront it because it demonstrates that the underlying assumption (in this case "Eternal Security") is a false one. This is an understandably desirable belief, but is it more dear to you than Truth? We have nothing to fear from the truth, PM, and if we turn from the Truth, we are turning from Christ Himself, who is the Truth.

“Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6)

“You will know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

We have followed a chain of logic testing the claim that the individual believer is guaranteed to go to heaven when he or she dies. The conclusion is that the basic premise is false. If you can’t reject the premise at this time, PM, please at least consider it open to question. We’ve seen a case where straightforward reasoning tells us that it is faulty. If this does not convince you, then please critically reconsider it from a Biblical perspective as well.

Here’s a summary of our discussion.

1. The basic premise is that the person who sincerely converts to Christ receives a guarantee of salvation.
2. The believer is capable of committing sins, but is not capable of going to hell.
3. Therefore, if a believer commits murder (or adultery or fornication, for that matter,) that believer is still guaranteed to go to heaven.
4. But Scripture says that the murderer, and the fornicator or have no place in heaven, so you posit that they will repent.
5. The question was, if the believer does not repent, will he go to hell?
6. Your answer, which you have been reluctant to give, but which can be implied from your statements is: no, if the believer who has committed murder or fornication does not repent, he may not go to heaven.
7. Hence there is no eternal security, and once saved always saved is not correct doctrine.

I don't see you finding fault with the logic, rather it is the final conclusion that is unpalatable to you.

You have advanced two arguments to rescue the basic premise:

1. One is guaranteed to go to heaven upon a sincere conversion to Christ.
2. Therefore, if the believer sins, including murder, he will still go to heaven.
3. But Scripture says murders have no place in the Kingdom of heaven.
4. Therefore the believer must repent.
5. But that makes the guarantee conditional upon the believers repentance.
6. Therefore God will force the person to repent.
7. Why? Because the believer has a guarantee of salvation.

The reasoning here is circular, and over rules your premise that the believer has free will (through which he sins.) PM, it's not like we were doing partial third order differential equations here. Rather, we're following a very simple and short chain of logic. The conclusion calls into question the basic premise, and points to a need for critical re-evaluation of the man made doctrine. Remember, PM, the promises of the Reformation were that it would create a religion based upon a logical reading of Scripture. The logic does not follow in this case.

Given that someone who has been converted to Christ may commit murder and fornication, and Scripture says that murderers and fornicators have no place in the kingdom of heaven, you have posited that the believer will repent, without fail. This amounts to believing that the Christian does not have free will, an idea that you rejected earlier. If the person is free to sin (murder, adultery, fornication) then he is free to not repent. That is, if the Holy Spirit does not prevent the free exercise of the will in committing the first sin, there is no reason to expect that the Holy Spirit will prevent the free exercise of the will in the second case.

Now, you have posited a further modification to rescue the basic premise. Namely, the believer will repent because repentance is a gift from God to all believers. While the opportunity to repent is indeed a gift from God, the repentance itself must be exercised on the part of the believer. God does not force us to repent; rather, we must do it freely.

“I believe you're guilty of a tautology there. That is like asking, "what if a believer does not believe?" A believer, by his or her very nature, is one who repents. Repentance is a defining characteristic of their lives. Repentance is one of the GIFTS of God to the believer.”

A believer is one who repents? This means that a believer is characterized not by what one believes, but rather by how one acts, both now and for all times in the future. Because one does not know what one’s actions will be for all times and in the future, one cannot then know that one is a believer. In this case, your position degenerates to the following:


There is a guarantee that a believer will go to heaven.
But there is no guarantee that one is a believer.

Of course this view is nonsense, a false premise leads to an absurd conclusion. With regards to repentance, it is possible for those who have truly believed and received the Holy Spirit to fall away later.

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame." (Hebrews 6:4-6)

Converted to Christ, received the Holy Spirit, then fell away. Ergo, no guarantee. Jesus Christ also speaks explicitly about this in no uncertain terms. Faith is a gift from God, but it is possible to misuse, discard or destroy that faith.

“Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith” (1 Timothy 19)

People can turn from their faith in various ways and for various reasons.

There is great gain in godliness with contentment; for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world; but if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and hurtful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evils; it is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs. But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness. Fight the good fight of the faith; take hold of the eternal life to which you were called when you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses. (1 Timothy 6: 6-12)

This does not say you are guaranteed eternal life, it says take hold of the life which you were promised. We must persevere to obtain the promise, just as Scripture says:

“And thus Abraham, having patiently endured,obtained the promise.” (Hebrews 6:15)

For it is not he who begins to believe, but he who endures to the end who will be saved.

“And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22)

That’s WILL be saved, not HAVE BEEN saved. We are called to obtain the salvation which has been promised to us through preservation, and God will judge us accordingly.

“"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who do such things. Do you suppose, O man, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. " (Romans 2: 3-13) Those who persevere in well doing will be granted eternal life, and he will give wrath and fury (hell) to those who, presuming upon His kindness and forbearance, act wickedly. Or to put it more succinctly:

For IF you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but IF by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. (Rom 8:13)

Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? (Rom 6:16)

Now the death that Paul is talking about here is a Spiritual death. Those who say we will not die if we persist in committing sins may be said to echo the words of the Serpent in the Garden of Eden. “Surely you will not die.” Indeed, Adam lived over 900 years, but Adam and Eve did in fact die a Spiritual death for their disobedience. All sin is disobedience to God.


And PM, I’m guilty of tautology??

"It's not a simple question and I believe you know that."

PM, the question is extremely simple, and so is the answer. You have simply been more willing to approach it than many others, who would have run from it and simply declared that I and other Catholics are evil, that they might cling to a comfortable but false doctrine.

***Moreover, as paraphrases, some of them are simply wrong, and appropriately the topic of another conversation..***
They are *pure*, 100% Pauline phrases (reworded for the third person). That, in and of itself, should give you pause.

PM, eternal security is not a Scriptural teaching. You have pointed out that I should be given pause for confusing paraphrase with Scripture. I’m not the one who has done that, rather it is you, and hopefully, like your proof that we are not saved by faith alone, this does indeed give you pause. You be the judge.

You wrote:

“who by grace have been saved through faith”

Which is a tradition of men that reads into Scripture a past perfect tense that signifies a guarantee of salvation to those who cling to this doctrine.

What Bible actually says in Ephesians 2:8:

“For by grace you are saved through faith,.."

Which is passive tense, signifying that man is the object of salvation, not past tense, which would be ungrammatical, and not past perfect tense (have been saved) signifying that man is guaranteed salvation regardless of his actions. These are two entirely different statements. PM, the doctrine of once saved always saved is not Scriptural, it is based on an ungrammatical reading of Scripture, and Scripture as a whole speaks directly against it.

“…Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, IF you continue in His kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.” (Romans 11:20-22)

“No. A believer will not go to hell because of his sins.”

Yes indeed, he can indeed go to hell for his sins. If you commit sin, your beliefs are irrelevant. The Gospel calls us to obedience to Christ, and this includes obedience to the Commandments. Those who are disobedient to Christ by breaking the commandments can expect to go to hell.

Many in this thread have told me that Paul is either addressing the "saved" or the "unsaved." Presumably this would mean that he himself would be saved, according to this logic. But look at what St. Paul himself tells us:

“I punish my body and enslave it, so that after proclaiming to others, I myself should not be disqualified." (1 Cor 9:27)

Disqualified from what? St. Paul is speaking about he himself being disqualified from eternal life. So much ought we to be working out our salvation with fear and trembling.

“Believers may stumble in horrible ways, they may commit adultery, fornication, be guilty of terrible sins. But because they are in an everlasting covenant (Heb 13:20) ALL of their sins are forgiven.”

PM, neither adulterers nor fornicators have a place in the kingdom of heaven. If a believer commits these, there is no assurance of salvation. Don’t you see that this doctrine is leading you directly against Scripture?

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals: nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1Cor 6:9, 10)

PM, know the tree by it’s fruits. This is strange doctrine is not biblically based. It is leading you directly against Scripture. To say that a believer is capable of sinning and yet guaranteed not to go to hell is to assure a person that any sin they commit will be forgiven. This is a presumption upon the Mercy of God. God has told us to keep the Commandments if we would see eternal life, and Scripture stresses this multiple times. If we do not keep the Commandments, we have no assurance of Salvation. On the contrary, we can expect to go to hell.


“When a person puts their faith in Jesus Christ ALL their sins are forgive. ALL - past, present and future.”

PM, where does Scripture tell you that your future sins have already been forgiven? If this is the case, why is it that you believe that the believer who does not repent will not go to Heaven? Rather, those who do not continue in obedience to the Gospel of Christ can expect to go to hell.

“And let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching. For if we willfully persist in sin AFTER having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy "on the testimony of two or three witnesses." How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? For we know the one who said, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. But recall those earlier days when, after you had been enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to abuse and persecution, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion for those who were in prison, and you cheerfully accepted the plundering of your possessions, knowing that you yourselves possessed something better and more lasting. Do not, therefore, abandon that confidence of yours; it brings a great reward. For you need endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. (Hebrews 10: 24-36)

Christ has said to be compassionate, and to keep the Commandments. For those who believe they are saved but who are disobedient to Christ, it is not a guarantee of heaven which is to be expected, but a fearful prospect of judgment.

"...when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not acknowledge God AND upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might...." (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9)

The punishment here is spelled out for two groups, those who do not acknowledge God, and for those who are disobedient to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I understand the last one to apply to those believers who are disobedient to the teachings of Christ. Presumably this is the same group as those who address Him as 'Lord, Lord', and who prophesied, drove out demons, and performed miracles in His name, but who were nonetheless disobedient to the Gospel of Jesus Christ—that is, those believers who are lawless, or evildoers.

“"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?' Then I will announce to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!' "Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them will be like a sensible man who built his house on the rock." (Matt 7: 21-24)

Here we see actions that are generally associated with great faith--performing of miracles in Jesus’ name, but the believers are nonetheless banished from God because they were evildoers.


PM, the way of Christ leads to life. A contrary way leads to damnation. Moral decisions are important to our salvation. Between the two ways, one leading to life, and the other leading to death, there is a difference. We cannot rely upon our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved. God desires that all men be saved, and yet, apparently not all men will be saved. Why? Because they reject the gift of God. When we sin, we reject God. If one does not keep the Commandments, one does not love God, and Heaven is a place prepared for those who love God. Christ died for the sins of the whole world, and yet, not the whole world will enter into Eternal Life.

Scripture is clear. It is possible to be righteous, and then to turn from God. Scripture is also clear as to the consequences of this. The righteous man who turns from righteousness and does evil will die, and we are talking about a Spiritual death.

PM, I will close with a simple statement. If we break the Commandments, we have no assurance of salvation. If you cannot reconcile this with a position of once saved always saved, then it is the once-saved-always-saved doctrine which must be cast aside, because it contradicts the plain words of Our Lord.

[PetroniusMaximus]

Initial response.

***PM, I have a long day ahead of me and a number of deadlines to meet.***

I see we work in similar fields! It is unfortunate when work interferes with life. If I have pauses, it is due to similar issues.



*** I’ve been through these arguments quite a few times, and I admit that my patience is wearing thin. ***

I am sorry for that. I admit that I have not read the entire thread - I usually do not. I just follow my subthread.



*** it is usually at about this point that I am told that I am an evil Catholic, and just need to read the Bible,***

Don't feel alone my friend. I've been called an evil and ignorant evangelical many times here on FR. Besides, I love Catholics.



***This after a considerable work of exegesis, as you can see from my previous posts on this thread. I confess, my patience is wearing thin,***

I do not meant to try your patience. I am willing to continue it as long as you are open to the idea. I, like you, do loose patience with stubborn illogic (which I have never seen in your posts BTW) because ultimately it is a wastes of time, leads to strife - and is prohibited by Scripture (2 Tim 2:24).

But consider this - you and I will both spend more eons than there are stars in either heaven or hell. Granted the length of time that awaits us, our taking a week or a month to discuss these matters and clearly understand each others view is of potentially inestimable value to us.



***It is not my intention that his post offend you, and if it does, by all means have the forum moderator delete it***

No offense has been taken my friend, not in the least. Please do not read any animosity in my posts to you. Invariably we clash with ideas, we vent anger at ideas. Often those who hold the ideas mistakenly assume that the anger is directed at them personally rather that at the idea they hold.


Before I address the other issues; are you agreeable to continue this thread? I quite understand if you are not - or if you feel time constraints.

[Quester]

Given that someone who has been converted to Christ may commit murder and fornication, and Scripture says that murderers and fornicators have no place in the kingdom of heaven, you have posited that the believer will repent, without fail. This amounts to believing that the Christian does not have free will, an idea that you rejected earlier. If the person is free to sin (murder, adultery, fornication) then he is free to not repent. That is, if the Holy Spirit does not prevent the free exercise of the will in committing the first sin, there is no reason to expect that the Holy Spirit will prevent the free exercise of the will in the second case.

The believer is a new creation in Christ ... with a revived spiritual nature (i.e. the life of God).

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

The believer has been made a child of God.

Galatians 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

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

Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

The believer will manifest the evidence of his/her new nature in Christ, though not always consistently.

For he/she is yet a child in Christ, ... not fully mature, ... not fully Christlike in his/her behaviour.

When we, His children, sin against Him, ... He will forgive us.

1 John 2:12 I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake.

But the spiritual child grows in his/her faith, ... much like our physical children grow into physical, mental, and emotional maturity.

Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

God has promised to persevere with us until we have achieved the christian maturity He desires for us.

Philippians 1:3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you,

4 Always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy,

5 For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now;

6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

And so ... we may slip ... but we will not stay down ... for God lifts us up and sets us back on our way.

He will chastise, ... and even chasten us ... so that we will be moved to repentence.

Hebrews 12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

As believers, ... we have opened our hearts to the love of God.

And the love of God moves us to show our love for Him in our obedience to Him.

1 John 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

That same love will move us ... to repentence for those wrongs which we commit as His children.

Romans 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance ?

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Don't feel alone my friend. I've been called an evil and ignorant evangelical many times here on FR.

I'm sorry to hear that.

"Besides, I love Catholics."

I know you do, PM.

"I do not meant to try your patience."

You're not trying my patience, PM, it's just that it has been tried, and I've just allowed myself to get short. I have been through the same arguments several times, and after quite a bit of work, it was clear that the questions being asked of me were not serious questions, just distractions from those who would rather not deal with difficulties in doctrine. You can look at the work I did to exegete Matthew 19:16-35, a passage which appears very straightforward to me. I think there were at least six very lengthy posts from my end, in which I tried to be very thorough, and to respond specifically to a person's concerns. The subject was then changed to the Sermon on the Mount (Which I also started to exegete, no small task, since many would consider it a summary of the Christian message.) only to have both those Scriptures and my work to explain them dismissed. I know that you're serious, but at the same time, I recognize that this thread has been going on for well over half a month, and is itself a continuation of a previous thread. At some point, I have to ask if others are wasting their time and mine, and some of that frustration has cropped up in my posts to you.

"But consider this - you and I will both spend more eons than there are stars in either heaven or hell. Granted the length of time that awaits us, our taking a week or a month to discuss these matters and clearly understand each others view is of potentially inestimable value to us."

I agree, PM.

"No offense has been taken my friend, not in the least.

I'm glad to read this.

"Please do not read any animosity in my posts to you. Invariably we clash with ideas, we vent anger at ideas. Often those who hold the ideas mistakenly assume that the anger is directed at them personally rather that at the idea they hold."

I don't read any animosity into your posts, PM, but was preparing myself for the typical frustrated response, which generally takes the form of lashing out at Catholics and/or the Church.

"Before I address the other issues; are you agreeable to continue this thread? I quite understand if you are not - or if you feel time constraints."

I'm most certainly willing to continue, although time will be short in the coming week. I will do my best to respond, given my other responsibilities.

[PetroniusMaximus]

Forgive my absence. I am in research on the topic.

[InterestedQuestioner]

Petronius,

I'll be off the forum for at least the next two weeks, so I may not be able to get back to you right away when you respond. In my discussion with you, it's my impression that you are a person of good hope. That means people will look to you for advice and guidance on things related to faith. The point underlying my post was that the moral law applies to Christians, and we must be clear in teaching this. There is no assurance of salvation for those who break the commandments. To intentionally and willfully break the Commandments is to put ones salvation in jeopardy, and make a presumption upon the mercy of Christ.

I hope your weekend is an enjoyable one.

-IQ

[InterestedQuestioner]

Quester,


I appreciate your reflection upon Christian Spiritual development, and thank you for it. I hope you have a good weekend.

-IQ

[PetroniusMaximus]

IQ -

Man! I was just about to sit down and respond to you (finally!) I apologize for the delay. I've spent a good bit of time in research and have found some things that you will find interesting. Needless to say it is a complex issue. There are certainly portions of Scripture that seem to confirm your position (in addition to the historic position of the Church). There are also portions of Scripture that seem to confirm the position of those holding to "eternal security". It's almost a predestination/freewill type issue, with scriptures solidly in each camp - and no "logical" synthesis seemingly possible.

It's also not specifically a Catholic vrs Protestant issue. There are a large number of non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians who believe salvation can be lost (Methodists, Anglicans etc.)




***There is no assurance of salvation for those who break the commandments.***

"Eternal security" rightly understood should not be seen as a prideful license to sin. To do so would horrify the Protestant fathers. Eternal security is the expression of a heart that realizes that it can do no good in and of itself and can not even keep itself in the right way without the Divine and controlling hand of the Almighty.




I too am about to head out of town (long delayed vacation with the kiddos!) and will be back around the 10th. Let's try to hook back up and continue this discussion. At that point I will share with you some of the things I have found.

Hope you have a safe and pleasant trip!

[InterestedQuestioner]

Sounds good, PetroniusMaxumus, I'll look forward to hearing your thoughts on this later.

Have a great time with the kids!

-IQ

[solafiducia]

"Do you agree with this statement, and if so, why?"

Yes I do believe this statement and that is because it is Biblical. Just because you believe it is not expliticly stated in Scripture does not mean it is not implicit in Scripture. Given that the Roman Catholic Church holds to numerous doctrines which are not explicitly stated in Scripture I do not think your objection carries much weight.

What do you believe we are justified by in addition to our faith?

[fortheDeclaration]

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: The thesis seems to hinge on the historical accuracy of this comment. I find it difficult to believe that RC documents of the period would limit "faith" to intellectual assent. Indeed, if you read the documents of Trent you will find that "faith" hardly ever means mere intellectual assent. No, the problem of Trent is that justification is based upon faith plus works, not faith alone. Trent speaks of the "increase of Justification". The Reformation speaks of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ through the instrument of faith alone. No "increase of justification" is possible with such an understanding. Trent wanted no part of that idea, and thus condemned the protestants. Modern Catholics and Protestants Together are just poor historians, not to mention poor theologians.

Amen.

The Christian must be 'born again' and that occurs in a moment in time, it is not a process.

Spiritual Growth is a process (Gal.4:19)

As Christians, we bear fruit, we do not bear fruit to become Christians.