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 witness of Scripture which tells us that we will not be saved without mercy, without love, without forgiveness of others, and to be blunt, without works. How do you resolve this conflict?

The more Protestant formulation is that God requires faith from men/women ... that they should be saved ...
John 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

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

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.
Having then faith in Jesus Christ, ... the believer will perform works which are pleasing in God's sight.

Such is the promise of Jesus, Himself ...
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Such is not difficult to accept, ... since, as believers in Jesus Christ, ... we are re-made in Christ's image ...

Our old life is passed away ... God makes everything about us new ...
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 scriptures go on to say that God, Himself, will finish the work of salvation which He has begun in us (believers).
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:
Now ... as new creations in Christ, we are, indeed, called upon to live according to the salvation which has been given unto us.

We (believers) love and obey Him, not to obtain salvation ... but, because He has loved us ... and has saved us.
1 John 4:19 We love Him, ... because He first loved us.

True, it doesn't. It says that since you had been saved, work it out unless you lose it. This is what the fear implies, loss of salvation.

But that would be contrary to the word of God .

Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Hbr 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

If you believe that a man can 'lose" his salvation then you have a salvation of works not grace or mercy

Rom 11:6 And if by grace, then [is it] no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if [it be] of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

There are plentiful references to necessity of work infused with grace, so I am not isolating this verse. It is well corroborated in the Gospel. I showed that in my #15.

Could I have scripture references to being saved by works.. any at all..

Our work comes out of our salvation , IT IS A FRUIT of it not the roots

I will be glad to consider your scripture where it is taught one is saved by works

"Why do you refuse to see the verses dealing with salvation say nothing about faith PLUS works, or the church, or something else?"

Yes they do:

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

Moreover, there are many others, but this one is particularly explicit. The formulation saved by faith alone occurs nowhere is Scripture, correct?

"Paul is talking to the saved, the context of the whole chapter."

I don't remember being told that, but you've put your case very well here. I'm quite concerned and more than a little bit puzzled over the use of the term "saved" here, and I think it's creating a misunderstanding. Do you believe that, after having a sincere belief that Jesus is Lord at the time of conversion, you are guaranteed to go to Heaven when you die? Is this what you mean by "saved"? I don't see that in Scripture, and would be curious as to where you are seeing that. As to the audience in the Epistle of James, it is traditionally referred to as one of the catholic Epistles, which means that it pertains to all.

"your response is the same "salvation through faith ALONE is not in the Bible.""

Indeed, that's because the Bible nowhere says we are saved by faith alone. Or would you care to show me a single verse that says we are saved by faith alone? One verse is all I would need.

"I, and most others I see here, are not basing our belief on the writtings of a mortal man named Luther, but on the teachings of Jesus in the Bible."

I must insist upon this point, the teaching that we are saved by faith alone is Luther's invention, and no other's. It was invented in the 16th century, and is not in the Bible. Your belief system, to the extent that it differs from Catholicism, is indeed based upon the teachings of a mortal man, namely Martin Luther.

"Having then faith in Jesus Christ, ... the believer will perform works which are pleasing in God's sight. "

I have to disagree pretty strongly if you imply that a believer will not do things which are displeasing to God. Believers still sin, this we know, and sin is displeasing to God. Moreover, James seems to be addressing those who believe, but do not show mercy. Mere belief is not enough, if we understand it to be an intellectual assent, it is insufficient.

We're getting a bit close to the holiday weekend, and having a few deadlines before heading out of town, I'll cut the chase. What do you mean by faith? Would you mind defining this in your own words? Whether we are arguing past each other or not depends upon how we define faith. Your post seems to imply that good works follow automatically from Faith. Can you elaborate on that? I see your quote from Philippians 1:6, and understand this to be describing God's faithful work. God keeps his end of the bargain, we know that well, it is man who often falls off the wagon. Scripture is quite clear that those who believe can indeed turn from God.

The author of the article suggests that we can be reconcilled with an understanding faith as being a faith that works in Love. Would you be comfortable with that as a definition of what you mean by faith in the formulation, "we are saved by faith alone?"

"Having then faith in Jesus Christ, ... the believer will perform works which are pleasing in God's sight. "

I have to disagree pretty strongly if you imply that a believer will not do things which are displeasing to God. Believers still sin, this we know, and sin is displeasing to God. Moreover, James seems to be addressing those who believe, but do not show mercy. Mere belief is not enough, if we understand it to be an intellectual assent, it is insufficient.

I did not say that the believer will not sin ... what I said was that the believer will perform works which are pleasing to God.

For example, ... it is quite evident from the scriptures that Peter sinned, even after becoming a disciple of Jesus.

But ... Peter also performed works which were pleasing to God ... all while living an imperfect life.

BTW ... was Peter always merciful ?

Certainly not ... for he sliced off the ear of the priest's servant.

Is it your belief that one must live a perfect life ... in order to perform works pleasing to God ?

Do you not trust in Jesus that His sacrifice ... will atone for your very own imperfection ?

What do you mean by faith? Would you mind defining this in your own words?

To believe/to have faith in Jesus Christ is to place one's hope for the salvation of one's soul ... in His hands.

The author of the article suggests that we can be reconcilled with an understanding faith as being a faith that works in Love. Would you be comfortable with that as a definition of what you mean by faith in the formulation, "we are saved by faith alone?"

Obeying God's command to believe (have faith) in His Son (the One which He has sent) ... is the only response which God requires from man ... so as to bestow His gift of salvation.

All else that is required ... God performs Himself ...
God has ...
... loved the believer.

... rebirthed the believer's spiritual life.

... sealed the believer unto redemption with His Holy Spirit.

... provided the scriptures as a source of faith for the believer.

... provided the Holy Spirit as a teacher for the believer.

... set those within the Church who will teach the believer.

... committed Himself to finish the work of salvation which He has begun in the believer.
And ... of course ... He provides to man what He requires from man ... saving faith.

God, Himself, has done all of this for the believer.

"One who is genuinely saved (i.e. a true believer) ... will perform any necessary works.'

Your assumption is that believer = saved. Where do you see that equivalence in Scripture?
John 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Your statement implies that we may un-genuinely saved (?).

Not really ... though there are those who will claim to be saved ... who are not.

What do you mean by saved?
John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:

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

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

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

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Note that Jesus compared His salvation of any man/woman ... to that salvation which was offered the Hebrews in the wilderness ...
Numbers 21:4 And they journeyed from mount Hor by the way of the Red sea, to compass the land of Edom: and the soul of the people was much discouraged because of the way.

5 And the people spake against God, and against Moses, Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread.

6 And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD, and against thee; pray unto the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

8 And the LORD said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.
Note that ...
The people sinned against God.

The people began to die, as a result of their sin.

The people repented of their sin ... and cried out to God (through Moses).

God told Moses to fashion a serpent out of brass ... and to set it upon a pole ... and to tell the people which had been bitten of the serpents ...
"Look to the brass serpent ... and be saved."
And those snake-bitten Hebrews which exercised the faith to look to the brass serpent ... received their (physical) salvation.
Are you talking about a guarantee of salvation once one has believed in Jesus ?

Yes.
John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

The formulation saved by faith alone occurs nowhere is Scripture, correct?

Nope, wrong, incorrect. See post #12. All those verses say salvation is through faith in Christ, with nothing else added. If it is faith plus nothing, then it is faith alone. If you really don't understand that concept, then I don't know how else to explain it to you. It would be like not believing in the Trinity because there is no verse that says, " the Trinity is...."

"Paul is talking to the saved, the context of the whole chapter."

I don't remember being told that, but you've put your case very well here. I'm quite concerned and more than a little bit puzzled over the use of the term "saved" here, and I think it's creating a misunderstanding.

Reread post #44 for a good explanation of what saved is. As far as James 2:24 goes....read all of chapter 2. Paul starts out saying "My Bretheren," these are saved people. The rest of the chapter talks about showing their faith through works, not gaining salvation through works. This chapter goes hand in hand with the explanation given in post #26.

Is this what you mean by "saved"? I don't see that in Scripture, and would be curious as to where you are seeing that.

Again see post # 44.

Indeed, that's because the Bible nowhere says we are saved by faith alone. Or would you care to show me a single verse that says we are saved by faith alone? One verse is all I would need.

Read post #12 again.

I must insist upon this point, the teaching that we are saved by faith alone is Luther's invention, and no other's. It was invented in the 16th century, and is not in the Bible. Your belief system, to the extent that it differs from Catholicism, is indeed based upon the teachings of a mortal man, namely Martin Luther.

No, no, no. All those verses in the posts I mentioned are from the Bible.(#12,#26, #44) The concept was championed by Martin Luther but it wasn't his concept. It is the concept of Jesus as written in the Bible.

Also, can a believer cease to believe ? That is, can he lose his faith in God ? And if he can, does he thereby lose his salvation ?

I don't honestly know.

I tend to believe that, ... once saved, ... belief is a part of your makeup. Therefore, you couldn't "not believe" any more than you could "not think".

However, ... the writer of Hebrews tells us that ... " ... if it were possible that believers could lose their faith ... that they could not regain it ... ".
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible ... for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

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

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

"To believe/to have faith in Jesus Christ is to place one's hope for the salvation of one's soul ... in His hands. "

Quester, I like your definition of Faith, I tend to read a number of passages in Scripture that way.

"Is it your belief that one must live a perfect life ... in order to perform works pleasing to God ? "

No, of course not, but it is my belief that we are always dependent upon the Grace and mercy of God. Thanks for clarifying your point on this.

"Do you not trust in Jesus that His sacrifice ... will atone for your very own imperfection ?"

I trust God, and the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was Holy and Perfect. But there remains the responsibility of the believer nonetheless to cooperate with the Grace of God.

"Obeying God's command to believe (have faith) in His Son (the One which He has sent) ... is the only response which God requires from man ... so as to bestow His gift of salvation. "

God requires that we obey all of his commands.

"And behold, one came up to him, saying, "Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?" And he said to him, "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments." 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." The young man said to him, "All these I have observed; what do I still lack?" Jesus said to him, "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." (Matthew 19: 16-21)

Notice that Jesus has been asked very specifically what one must do to inherit eternal life, and nowhere has he said to "just believe." He responds entirely in terms of action. The point I am making is that the Biblical language is very focused on action, and so should our description of how we are saved be. It's my hope that we can reconcile our views by saying that, to believe in Jesus is to do what he says, and to accept the Lordship of Jesus is to be obedient to his commandments. Perhaps you would agree with me on that statement.

"And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read?" And he answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself." And he said to him, "You have answered right; do this, and you will live."

Paul wrestled with the Judaizers who believed that one must be circumcised, keep the Jewish dietary law, and the rest of the Jewish law, in order to be saved. In that context, he responds that it is not the works of the law that save us. In these two examples, however, the question is put directly to Jesus---what must we do to be saved? He answers entirely in terms of action, and as we have seen in Matthew 25, the judgment scene, it is upon these that we will be judged.

Without God we can do nothing, and through faith, we act obediently to God and cooperate with his Grace. If we are to conform to the language of the bible, however, this faith, does not stand alone

And if I ave prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." (1Cor 13:2)

Now since John's Gospel has been so popular on this thread today, I'll close with a quote from that prodigy.

"He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." (John 14:21)

Of course, Christ gives us a new commandment that exceeds all the others. We must love one another, as He has loved us.

I'm enjoying your posts, thank you for the good conversation. I didn't want to leave without responding to your thoughtful post, but I have to run now, and will look forward to reading your posts again later. Have an enjoyable Labor day weekend.

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.