Replies

This was supposed to have been posted first.

it is a faith which works by love that is salvific which the Reformers taught.

Then it is not faith "alone".

The full phrase is justification by grace alone through faith alone, and again, it is not of a character that is alone, but alone as the procurative means of appropriating IR, though it may be concomitant with an outward expression.

I am fine, by the way, with the Joint Declaration on Justification that clarifies that the differences betweent he Lutherans and the Catholics on Justification are mostly matter of terminology.

Which shows the degree of interpretation her definitions can allow for, and what is notable for what she did not say, and not only what she did, while Rome is better than most at nuanced language. I will have to go through it more carefully myself. Critical opinions here and here.

What is typically not comprehended is that in making technical definitions, works as a basis for appropriating salvation, or as the basis for one's essential acceptance with God are made distinct from faith, as no merit can be allowed, merit which the law was based upon, and as would grace enabling merit or choosing one's ejection, and therefore justification is by “the righteousness of faith” by grace, appropriating IR. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” (Gal. 6:15)

But as regards the character of that faith, no separation can be made. “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” (Gal. 5:6

Rome comes close to the sola fide position in holding souls as being initially justified apart from any merit, or in baptism by desire, and affirms “God's unconditional justifying grace” but then has them meriting eternal life through her sacramentals.

But no other Protestant denomination joined Lutherans in that, and the insistence on (1) works being separated from salvation acheived in one's life at the point of conversion, and (2) produced by one already irrevocably saved -- is very common, just review this thread.

By now you have read enough to see why distinctions in terminology are made, and it is also important to realize that this was not a comprehensibly settled issue in the early post New Testament church, and early fathers seemed to teach sola fide, as seen here, as well as works such as baptism being a necessity. “We, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." Clement of Rome, ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32. But both sides employ them, sometimes leaving out parts or others that do not serve their polemic.

But the main thrust in N.T. Gospel preaching was that man was depraved, damned and destitute of any means to save himself by his own merits, as that would require fully keeping the law, “going about to establish their own righteousness,” (Rm. 10:3) which actually condemned them as they came short of it. Thus, being just as helpless to justify and save themselves as Abraham was to birth a child, they needed to cast themselves upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting in His power and ability to save just as Abraham did. Yet as the manner of faith that comes from God is not merely intellectual, but is confessional, (Rm. 10:10) so the salvation decision was initially expressed in baptism, typically as concomitant with that decision. If this could be effectually preached by Rome, a vast difference could be made. And if baptism by desire is allowed, which Rome does, then it testifies to one being saved without works, though the faith that is counted for righteousness is pregnant with them. To disallow such as justifying would be akin to abortion.

Why don't you start explaining that works are an unseparable part of saving faith to your fellow Protestants rather than defending their heresies wholesale.

Inseparable as to nature of saving faith. The basic problem is mainly with Rome herself, while for all its talk about how it believes in “works,” it primarily promotes common complacency, and while they attack evangelicals as preaching a religion of “faith alone,” research and prima facie evidence shows they manifest far more fruit of regeneration in relation to their size. And what takes up most of the time is correcting the false idea that the Reformation taught a type of faith that does not show forth fruit corresponding to repentance.

Luther himself censured such faith without works:

But Satan,..hath raised up a sect of such as teach that the Ten Commandments ought to be taken out of the church, and that men should not be terrified by the law, but gently exhorted by the preaching of the grace of Christ. (Preface to Luther's Commentary on Galatians)

Reformers such as Carlstadt, Zwingli and Wesley etc , denied that the moral law was abrogated by grace, and taught that they were the ongoing standard of the sanctified life.

But besides contending against the false gospel Rome officially and effectually conveys, i have, even recently and in (my usual) extended manner corrected a leader who taught one is saved as long as they believe God's promise of salvation, even if they live contrary to it. He himself is a proven man of integrity who sacrificially serves the Lord in a Ind..Baptist church, which, like him, is predominantly that of a sacrificial dedicated workers for God, despite holding to thus confused idea. And as i opposed that aberration ,so Rome's, as my conscience should always be captive to the Word of God, and not do otherwise. God help me. Amen.

*Extended:

A historical perspective might be helpful in all this. Luther (TIME: fair article) was a diligent monk laboring to make himself pleasing to God, practicing extreme penance and seeking to crucify his sinful nature and be found with a faith that qualified for Divine favor and eternal life, but could not. While such efforts would be a rare for Catholic today, who would say he misunderstood Roman Catholic doctrine, but the right emphasis on the sinful condition of man and holiness of God was useful to sell indulgences, and doctrine was more open to interpretation before Trent. But “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,” and reading that “the just shall live by faith” he realized that full acceptance with God was by faith in His mercy in Christ. Luther would later ask if the Pope had power to release souls from Purgatory, and that for money (an abuse, but implicitly sanctioned), why would he not release all as an act of mercy? Other theologians also regularly posted issues seeking debates. Later Roman Catholic theologians would substantially favor Luther, and today he might be handled like a Han's Kung.

Yet the contention with Rome is not on the emphasis on works, nor that such are necessary if faith is salvific, nor even that eternal life is given to those who have them, but that man's justification is due to them actually being a righteousness due to an inherent righteous effected by regeneration, versus imputed righteousness appropriated by faith being the basis for justification. Yet if the conflict stopped there then in effectual terms it might only be a technical distinction which no convert coming to Christ need be aware of, if preaching convicted him of his depraved, destitute and damnable condition, and he trusted Christ to gain him a salvation he could not merit, with him then living out a life zealous of holiness and good works in response, and such might be akin to holiness Pentecostals.

But what Rome's position means is that of justification by an actual constitutional change in heart being appropriated by baptism, and that typically being by proxy faith, by which he/she counted a Christian, and then by participation in the sacramental life of the RCC, they are accounted to have truly merited eternal life by their very works of faith, (Trent, Chapter XVI) rather than faith counted for righteousness. And with the Catholic typically having to go through personal purgatorial purifying by fire to gain finally be with the Lord (which presumes the Thessalonians must have arrived: 1Thes. 4:17)

And if it stopped there Rome might like a doctrinally tweaked Trinitarian, sacramental “Jehovah's Witness’s,” but again, rather than souls being convicted of their destitute and damnable condition and trusting Christ to save them by His blood and righteous, and being unaware of how this takes place, even if justification did take place by an actual change of heart, with converts then living out a life zealous of holiness and good works in order to keep it, what Rome's infused righteous has degenerated into is souls believing they are Christians from infancy, and infused with trust in merits and the power of the RCC to gain them eternal life, effectually if not officially fostering common complacency and promoting perfunctory professions and participation in practices promised to pardon or perfect her people.

It also teaches that The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins (emphasis mine) (John Hardon, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (Garden City: Image, 1981), Questions #1265, 1269, 1277, nihil obstat and imprimatur).

And curses those who deny it should be offered “for the living and dead for sins, pains, satisfactions and other necessities.” (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Chp. II, p. 180, Canon III). Of course, the immutability of these anathemas are another thing that Roman Catholics disagree on.

Some of all this is reaction as well as accommodation of competing faiths, and there is evidence Rome was not all settled on their issue, and Luther was not teaching something radical (and he included baptism as a salvific work of God). And the sola fide doctrine itself is a reaction against the perfunctory nature Rome's sacramental system fell into, as well as the power which the church assumed. And as is typical with needful reactions, the emphasis upon faith has resulted in an overreaction, in which baptism and the place of works has become marginalized among many, more recently than before. Yet evangelicals overall emphasized holiness and works, and paradoxically even among those in which works were not seen as necessary to saving faith can be said to have traditionally shown more evidence of religious commitment than their institutional counterparts, even if the latter emphasized the place of works.

Overview of book on historical dealings with heresies.