Posted on 12/05/2005 2:55:19 AM PST by HarleyD
Hmmm? I'd still argue that the faith is not "formed by works" of anything, but rather the "works of love" are a necessary consequence of faith, and if you don't see works, you don't have faith. But I don't know if that's what you meant.
Once 'sola scriptura' is understood as reading the Scripture in the light of the patristic teaching and in the context in which it was written by the human writer, that becomes acceptable.
I almost agree. I think the patristics should be given significant weight in interpreting Scripture - and certainly no Christian has the right to re-interpret Scripture as he sees fit. One should disagree with the Early Church with great care. I would argue that the immediate historical context and the rules of grammar and textual construction would take precedence, however.
Once grace is understood as transforming grace rather than a coat of paint, 'sola gratia' becomes acceptable.
That's pretty much my argument.
I think, St. Thomas speaks of both baptism of desire and baptism of blood as exceptional forms of coming to Christ. I can check later.
To be fair, the Catholics don't exactly have their act 100% together either. This is not intended to be a cheap shot (so please don't take it as such!), but the pedophile priest crisis is at least as traceable to Catholic praxis as radical individualism, sectarianism, and the excesses of the megachurch movement are traceable to Protestant praxis.
Both groups have their issues.
And vice versa, faith grows with works. It is like growing a plant. The seed is there, but then you till the soil, put in fertilizer, chase away sparrows. You work, or else the seed does not grow.
Faith is not cheap. It has to be tested by actual sacrifice, -- pain, sweat, effort, work. Grace is there to form our faith, and it is formed by something we do. The two sons were asked to work in the garden. One said that he will, then changed his mind. That was a declaration of faith (in the wisdom of the father's command). The other did not say anything but worked. Now, who had real faith?
Other than from the lives of saints, how many believers do you know that gave their life for the faith? Christ asked for it.
Pederasts go to any line of work that gives them authority and access to children. So they go to priesthood. The Catholic insistence on celibacy (in one form or another it exists in all rites) and exclusively male priesthood has scriptural roots (even if that is the root cause of priestly pederasty, which many doubt). It is not there to chase altar boys around. So the sexual abuse is a side effect of Catholic praxis, while if I understand 'sola scripture' as in "Let's get together Wednesday, figure out what Christianity is, and get saved", you get sectarianism and mega churches as a direct consequence.
I'll be back later...
I hope I can help. I, too, have gone through such moments of waning faith. First, the Church presents beliefs to us, and we assent to them, whether we understand them fully or not. But there is a heirarchy of beliefs. In other words, the reality of the angels is a de fide truth to be held by all Catholics. However, it does not have the same hold or effect on our salvation as say the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not critical to salvation to fully understand and comprehend them - or, frankly, to even know about angels.
Secondly, we base our faith on what the Church reveals because we trust that they teach us what God has revealed for mankind. If we don't trust the Church's teachings, then how can we trust that the Bible is the Word of God? St. Augustine said that "if it wasn't for the Catholic Church, I would not believe that the Gospels were true". We believe someone because we trust them and their message. We trust historians have faithfully recorded that George Washington was the first President of the US. We trust the Apostles' witness that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Intellectually, that is what we base our beliefs on.
In the case of Christianity, however, we believe that Faith comes from God. It is a gift. Thus, from my experiences, I find when I am wondering about God or Catholicism, I pray for more faith. I pray that God sends something to bolster me. "Ask and you shall receive...". In time, we begin to experience that God does indeed answer such prayers and that it is no longer coincidence. We actually experience God's work in our lives. From such experiences, we grow in faith.
Regarding Catholicism and such things as the Immaculate Conception, I think it rests upon whether the Church was established by Jesus Christ, who is God. If we can answer that in the affirmative, then we trust that God will indeed guide His Church. Upon reading the Gospels and examining history, we find that the Church will inevitably face ups and downs. I believe this is God's Will while maintaining man's free will. But in the end, the only thing that God really promised to guard is the deposit of faith. He didn't promise that all would be saved, all would follow or all would live in peace and harmony. We know that He will guide His community, the Church, and its teachings that witness to Him. This is foundational to being a Catholic. Once we really accept that Peter and the Apostles were given the task to spread the Word, and that the Spirit of Truth would be with them, then we can accept their teachings - in faith first, and then in understanding later. We believe that God can be trusted to guard His witnesses from giving false testimony.
I hope this helps.
Regards
The disconnect between us and the Catholics, however, is that we steadfastly claim that none of these sacraments or actions enter into the conversion process. We Protestants tend to use a Pauline definition of justification, rather than James. (They don't contradict, but they do use "justify" differently.) Paul, and the Protestants, see justification as transactional, and rightly affirm that these sacraments and actions don't enter into the conversion process which is what we mean by "justification."
An excellent example. Now. Is conversion, to you, a life-long process, or a one-time affair? How would you read the Gospels on this question? Is discipleship a one-time process? Catholics would say no, we are to "pick up your cross daily" and so forth. We see conversion, by experience, as a life-long battle, as Paul talks about in Romans 7, spiritual warfare. To us, then, we will fall out of God's good grace when we turn from Him (we call this mortal sin), but are "re-justified" when we turn back to Him in the Sacrament of Reconcilliation. Thus, sanctification, for us, (and like Abraham) is an ongoing project, a race, a battle.
If we try to reconcile terms, I think we are closer, though. For example, our initial justification, our Baptism, we agree on much of what happens. Nothing we do can lead us - God takes the initiative. It is all grace. I think Catholics believe that men can fall away (as God gives us free will to chose or reject Him), which then requires the necessity of being "re-justified" or made righteous again in God's eyes. (this righteousness, of course, is a result of God's grace, not our own unaided actions)
Thank you for your level-headed thoughts.
Brother in Christ
It is a mistake to ignore so much of Scripture that talks about reward and judgment based on what we do. I believe that the faith alone formula ignores these deeds of love necessary for salvation. The trick to understand the Catholic side on this is two fold.
First, we don't believe that anything we do is our own work. Faith, love, repentance, etc. is all God's grace. We, too, believe in salvation by grace alone.
Second, when we abide in Christ, our deeds of love are vivified by this very joining! We, being part of the Body of Christ, are able to really become transformed and do good deeds that are worthy in God's eyes - because He is enabling us to do it. Thus, when I love someone, it is God and I doing it. Thus, I will be judged on what I do in Christ and for Christ - vs. what evil I do without Christ and for myself.
Remember, I abide in Christ, and He abides in me. When I love, He is moving me to love. It is NOT my "work" alone.
I have tried over and over to explain this. I hope this is more helpful.
Regards
The early Church believed that martyrs for the faith went to heaven directly, even if not baptized. Thus, the term, "baptism by blood". Christ Himself speaks this way about the Crucifixion being a baptism, but I don't recall the verse.
Regards
Faith without works is dead (James)
Works without faith is dead (Paul)
Faith without love is dead (Paul)
I see there is quite an interaction between the two. When Christ speaks about obeying the commandments and such, I think everyone naturally presumed that faith, too, must be involved - how can you love without faith? And vice versus. When Christ speaks about faith and salvation, I think He is also presuming that we will express it through love and obedience to God. I notice that Paul never says that we are saved by faith alone, nor does he say that love is worthless for salvation. He does say that nothing matters but faith working through love. (try to figure out which operates to vivify what! It sounds like the chicken/egg dilemna)
Regards
If a Muslim or a Hindu does the same good works as a Christian, i.e., feed the poor, clothe the naked, love his neighbor as himself, are those works accounted unto them as righteousness? Will THOSE good works account for anything towards THEIR salvation?
Yes, they would, in the following sense. Christ judges the unbaptized based on the extent to which they were ignorant of His teaching. All that is asked of an unbaptized is that he follow the law written in his heart, as St. Paul describes it, that is the Natural Law. For example, that Hindu does not need the gospel to know that stealing and murdering is wrong and many Hindus refrain from theft and murder and live exemplary lives according to the natural law. This conditionis called invincible ignorance. The Hindu has not rejected Christ by being Hindu, -- he never knew Him. The question becomes, does Christ know the Hindu? If yes, then sovereign Christ can save him by converting him to His heart instantly, -- as He converted the Good Thief. That would be extraordinary salvation, based not on the sacraments of the Visible Church but on Christ's sovereign mercy, which is not bound but His own sacraments.
However, we should not presume Christ's Mercy on behalf of that Hindu any more than we should presume His mercy on our own behalf. If I had a Hindu friend I would work to convert him to Christ in his lifetime, even if I see enough merit in him to have hope of his extraordinary salvation. That is because the promise of salvation is only given to the baptized who die in the state of grace. While God want all to be saved, the best assurance of that comes through faith in Christ and a lifetime to prove that faith through works.
This is how I understand the Catholic teaching.
I tried that by defending Harley on this thread. All I got for my effort was a pile of grief.
You got a Papal declaration on that, or is that YOPIOS?
No, I am pretty sure it is orthodox Catholic view. The differences that exist are in how much emphasis is put on the extrardinary character of such salvation by invincible ignorance.
No, you don't have a papal declaration, or no, that is not YOPIOS?
No and no. I will look up the relevant Catechism tomorrow for you. What is a papal declaration?
You tell me. Is Catholic doctrine determined by papal declaration or by consensus of some committee?
My sense of it is that if it is done out of love, and not trying to obligate the Creator to owe them salvation, then it is not a "work". As I have mentioned, Paul's definition of "work" is when we do anything that tries to obligate God to reward us. He rewards us because He is righteous, not because He owes us. Thus, when a Muslim does something out of love with no alterior motive, we presume that that it is the Spirit of the Lord who abides in that man (as no one can do anything good alone).
That is how I see the Church's teachings and the Scriptures.
Regards
I stand corrected. Yes, your version is better.
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.