JUSTIFICATION: "BY FAITH ALONE"?

Eternal Word Television Network ^ | 1995 | James Akin

[Running On Empty]

You're going to find company.

[Titanites]

Thanks for the ping, NYer.

Another thoroughly innocuous thread thoroughly disrupted. That tactic is in full force.

[Religion Moderator]

I shall take the first paragraph of the article as an example why this thread cannot be closed to rebuttals:

Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to two of the important "solas" related to salvation sola gratia (by grace alone) and solo Christo (by Christ alone) but fewer are aware that Catholics can also accept the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.

In this statement the author is presupposing what many Protestants know and fewer do not know. In the first place, he is not a mind reader. In the second place, he is lumping all Protestant beliefs together.

Moreover, the five solas are themselves “hot button” topics on the Religion Forum as can be seen by the never-ending Calvin v. Arminius debates concerning justification and salvation – and in this case the epistle of James v. the epistles of Paul (works and faith.)

Also, if I turn the paragraph around concerning another “hot button” topic it should be apparent that an article for a Protestant Caucus which began with the following hypothetical paragraph would also result in its being disqualified for protection as a caucus:

Many Catholics today realize that Protestants honor Mary in two important aspects related to her being the mother of Jesus and her being given into John’s care at Calvary but fewer are aware that Protestants can also accept the idea that she is the Mother of God, provided the terms are properly understood.

All of the same problems would apply. The hypothetical author could not read the mind of Catholics or presume that all have the same understanding or represent what the term "Mother of God" means outside of the authority of the Catholic Church itself.

[Titanites]

In this statement the author is presupposing what many Protestants know and fewer do not know.

Is that in some way not factual?

In the first place, he is not a mind reader.

Well, no he isn't. He doesn't have to be. It is a fact - some Protestants do and some Protestants don't.

In the second place, he is lumping all Protestant beliefs together.

He did just the opposite. Either one or the other.

All of the same problems would apply.

You've failed to demonstrate there is a problem.

[Old_Mil]

I've always described salvation as a door. The door is christ. There are two locks on the door. Faith and works that evidence it are the respective keys that unlock them.

[Titanites]

Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to two of the important "solas" related to salvation sola gratia (by grace alone) and solo Christo (by Christ alone) but fewer are aware that Catholics can also accept the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.

In this statement the author is presupposing what many Protestants know and fewer do not know. In the first place, he is not a mind reader.

To further address your point that the author is "mind reading", I offer up this paragraph from the JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church:

15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.

The Lutheran World Federation realize that Catholics adhere to two of the important "solas" related to salvation: sola gratia (by grace alone) and solo Christo (by Christ alone). As evidence that there are many who don't, I refer you to the Religion forum on FreeRepublic.

The author discusses this very document in his article. No, there is no mind reading going on, except by those who claim he is mind reading.

[Alex Murphy]

To further address your point that the author is "mind reading", I offer up this paragraph from the JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church

A document which was discussed right here in the Religion Forum last summer. For the moment, I'll avoid discussions about the applicability and enforcability of said document, as well as the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Lutheran groups who signed this document. IMO far more important to the discussion are the Council of Trent's anathemas proclaimed against the Reformational understanding of justification by faith alone, and this odd conclusion mentioned in post #6 of that earlier thread:

The teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations from the Council of Trent. The condemnations in the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church presented in this Declaration.

My conclusion at the time was this:

The various anathemas of Trent applied to those who hold to specific Reformation doctrines. Individual parties were not named in them, thus any claim that they only applied to the Reformers themselves are disingenuous IMO. Now if our RCC friends are right about the (selective) applicability of Trent, then I have to conclude that the Roman Catholic Church of the 16th century believed that preaching sound doctrine was not about truth but about playing politics. Is doctrinal truth something that can be created, enforced, or annulled at the Holy See's whims if it suits some political purpose?

IMO If the RCC of the 21st century believes that the Council of Trent (especially the "anathemas" proclaimed in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Sessions) can be selectively applied to one party and not another, then we either have evidence of wholesale denominational apostasy on Methodists' and Lutherans' parts (i.e. they reject the very same Reformation doctrines that earned their forefathers Trent's anathemas), or evidence that the Roman Catholic Church in the 21st century is still engaging in doctrinal politics six centuries later - and still needs a good Reformation.

[Alex Murphy]

Here's another thread, from 2005, on the same subject:

JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

[Frank Sheed]

Does the mere mention of another confession prevent a thread from being a Caucus thread? If no, then the complaint has no merit.

I'm confused. I try to go to confession every other week. Does this mean it has no merit? And, when did "confession" start to be a "buzz word" for different views of Christianity? I belong to the Roman Catholic Church and not the Roman Catholic Confession.

Frank, a Papist since the 1940's...

[xzins]

Justification is by faith alone.

"For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is a gift of God, not of works, so that no man can boast."

One can be justified in the eyes of God or one can be justified in the eyes of human observers.

The context of the sentence tells which is in play.

[Religion Moderator]

I use the term "confession" rather than "belief" in the guidelines for the Religion Forum because disbelief (atheism, agnosticism) is also discussed here.

The word "belief" is offensive to those who do not believe in the supernatural and yet they have a voice on the forum and are evidently the target audience for some of the articles posted.

A "confession" - on the other hand - is simply a declaration. It can be a declaration of faith, guilt, doctrine or in the atheist's case, disbelief.

[mockingbyrd]

I still don't see the problem and your example didn't help any. However, your forum, your rules. I appreciate this forum.

What's sad about this is that the article itself was actually about the similarities between various Christian denominations. But once again, we let something that could be used for good come and divide us.

[trisham]

What's sad about this is that the article itself was actually about the similarities between various Christian denominations. But once again, we let something that could be used for good come and divide us.

************

It is sad.

[Alex Murphy]

But once again, we let something that could be used for good come and divide us.

The only thing "dividing" anyone here is Titanites' view that this material makes for a good "Catholic Caucus" thread, and others (mine first and foremost) who say that it isn't "caucus" material.

Now if Titanites wanted to make this a "Catholic and Reformed Protestant Caucus", I wouldn't have a problem with the idea. I think the material he posted lends itself easily to a joint caucus.

[annalex]

This is the operative part, in my opinion:

The other confession has an interest in rebutting statements made "against" it - no matter how mild those statements might be.

I am very familiar with the article. It is a very good article and I don't think it makes undue assumptions about Protestantism. However, its very nature is polemical with the Protestants. It does not explain Catholicism to Catholics, it explains Catholicism in relation to Protestantism. I don't think it is a proper causus thread for that reason.

[trisham]

Perhaps we should just allow this thread to expire. The "caucus" designation doesn't seem to be of much use.

[Running On Empty]

Amen to that.

More than one "death notice" around here lately.

[trisham]

What's the point of having a "Religion" forum when there is so much hostility expressed daily on these threads? There's often little difference in animosity and bad behaviour between the posts made here and those on other, more mundane forums.

Heaven help us.

[Titanites]

Every Religion Forum poster has the tool he needs to avoid offense because any thread can be declared a "caucus" either at the time of posting or afterwards by asking for the addition to the header/title.

A poster who takes things personally can and should stay on the closed (devotional, prayer and caucus) threads where he will not be offended. By wandering onto the Open threads with a chip on his shoulder, he is baiting a flame war.

Also, the poster of a Religion Forum article - even a news item - can assure reverence by including the caucus label in the header.

I have no sympathy for Religion Forum posters who throw temper tantrums or wallow in self-pity when they have been informed of this protection and do not use it.

Oh well. Maybe another time.