Faith vs. Works

[biblestudyresources]

1 Peter 1:17
And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds,

Romans 2:6
For he will render to every man according to his works:

Jeremiah 17:10
I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds.

Jeremiah 32:19
great in counsel and mighty in deed, whose eyes are open to all the ways of the sons of men, giving to everyone according to his ways and according to the fruit of his deeds;

Ezekiel 24:14
I, the Lord, have spoken; it is coming and I will act. I will not relent, and I will not pity and I will not be sorry; according to your ways and according to your deeds I will judge you,” declares the Lord God.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.

Revelation 2:23
And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.

Ezekiel 18:30
Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his conduct, declares the Lord God.

Being judged by our works can be interpreted in the following sense depending on the context:

* All people are judged by their works to see if they receive salvation or not. The work here refer to whether or not we believe in Jesus. i.e. believe is spoken of as "work".
Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:29)

* Non-believers will be judged by their works. They don't have faith and are already destined for punishment. The extent of their evil deeds determine the degree of punishment.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. (Luke 12)

* Christians who escape hell will still be judged by their works and receive rewards according to how they have lived for God.

* Everyone including Christians are judged by their works on earth as God punishes Christians too who commit sin while on earth. The Lord chastises whoever He regards as a child.

 

[biblestudyresources]

Pls see in-line comments.

How can it be by faith alone? Answer: it is, but not in the modern Protestant way of thinking, although it is very close to the Catholic teaching on faith alone...

Scripture tells us in Romans 2:13 that only those who do the will of God will be justified. There really isn't any getting around that aspect.
Doing the will of God when it concerns salvation refers to believing in Jesus.
For this is the will of God, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day." (John 6:40)

Revelation 22:12-15 goes further to tell us similarly that we must DO in order to be blessed.
Christians will receive their rewards according to how much good they have done. However, they are not saved by their good works.

How then, does faith 'alone' lend itself to justification and salvation?

Answer: through the Sacraments. When we approach the Sacraments properly, we express our faith in action just as Abraham did.

It is by faith alone that God justifies those who believe His promises.

It is by faith alone that the Catholic believes that God washes away sin through our Baptism. It is by faith alone that we believe that God seals us in the Holy Spirit through Confirmation. It is by faith alone that we believe God removes our sins through Confession. It is by faith alone that we believe that we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist. It is by faith alone that we believe God joins two people to become one in Holy Matrimony. It is by faith alone that we trust in God to heal our afflictions through the Annointing of the Sick. It is by faith alone that we believe that God sets some aside to serve His Works in a special way through Holy Orders.

We can not accomplish ANY of these ourselves. None of us can wash away our own sins. None of us can seal ourselves in the Holy Spirit. No one can remove their own sin. None of us can transform bread and wine into our Lord's Body and Blood. We can not declare ourselves to be one with another person. We can not heal our own afflictions. We can not set ourselves apart. These are ALL things that only God can do.
Therefor, it is by faith alone that we are justified in the Sacraments.

But WAIT! Many of you are screaming! How can it be faith alone?!?!?! 'The only time those words are together in Scripture is when faith alone is described as NOT enough! And you are correct...which leads us back to it being BOTH faith AND works, at the same time, and never separated, just as the Church teaches...

For example:
A man enters a church and asks to be baptized. However, he is drunk, cursing the name of The Lord, and has a prostitute on each arm. The minister will look at him and say: 'well...you are going to have to make some changes...some BIG changes. You are going to have to repent of your sinful ways.' The guy joins the church, says prayers, 'Amens', reads Scripture, goes to church every Sunday, etc. but he never repents... Catholic and Protestant alike would say that baptism isn't going to save this person by itself...the work for the works sake means nothing without the faith that accompanies it. Some would say he didn't have a 'saving' faith, others would say he never had a true faith, and still others would say he was a hypocrite and that the minister should not have baptized him, while others would say that we can only pray that baptism opens the door of the mans heart and allows the Holy Spirit to begin to transform him. Which is the path filled with the Love of God?

Anyway, I hope and pray that this demonstrates that the Catholic and the Protestant are NOT far away from each other with regard to the argument over justification. And I pray that we seek to unify rather than divide over our words about this subject.

Peace in Christ

 

[biblestudyresources]

Pls see comments below.

I would tend to agree that this is an area of contention where Catholic and Protestant alike are closer to each other than they may know. It becomes a matter of how each side expresses their belief to the other. An argument of language rather than of actual doctrine.

The Catholic Church's longstanding teaching on justification is not an easy one to wrap the brain around...it is often stated as 'both/and' in regards to faith/works; rather than the (common but not exclusive) position of 'either/or'. The 'both/and' concept is difficult to accept, I will grant anyone this with regard to justification. However, this is exactly what Scripture shows us to be true, and therefor, the Protestant and the Catholic need not squabble amongst each other since...as the Church teaches, both are correct! Let's examine the Scriptures to see if the Church teaching here is the Truth:

Justification is by works.
Scripture tells us (quite clearly) that God does not justify those who do not do His work, as in Matthew 7:21 ('not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who does the will of My Father...).
Matt 7:21-23 refer to people who profess to have a relationship with Jesus. They will call him "Lord" in the Day of Judgment and have even performed good works during their lifetime but have never attained salvation through the way taught by Jesus. Notice that Jesus did not deny that they had done their good works; He denied that He ever knew them. He only recognizes those that attained salvation by doing the Father’s will.

What does Jesus mean when he says that we have to do God's will to enter heaven. I believe Jesus was talking about true faith. The Bible equates faith with work or obedience.

Jn 6:27-29 27 Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." 28 Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" 29 Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (NIV)

(John 6:40 NIV) For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

And further in Romans 2:3-13, where St. Paul tells us that it is not the hearers of the law, but the doers of the law who shall be justified (in the eyes of God when taken in context).
God does not justify those who do not do His will, only those who keep His commands are justified...thus, works can and do justify us.
In these verses, Paul is rebuking the Jews for thinking that since they have God's laws, they are better off than the Gentiles (verse 7). They brag about having the law, yet they are the ones who break it (verse 23). Paul argues that having the law means absolutely nothing because it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous but the doers (verse 13). Here Paul is stating from a legalistic standpoint that we can be saved by obeying the law. Of course to be saved in this way we must not even fail in a single point of the law. Notice the words " persistence in doing good" are used. He later goes on to say that no one is capable of achieving salvation this way since no one is righteous. He then goes on to say that it is because even the Jews cannot obey the law completely that they are no better than the Gentiles.

Rom 3:9-12 9 What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10 As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one; 11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. 12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one."
BUT
Justification is also NOT by works.
Scripture (again, quite clearly) tells us that we can never hope to obtain salvation of our own accords. We can not possibly hope to stand before God in judgement and say 'Nope. I'm good. No need for you to do anything God. I washed my own sins, cleansed my own soul and have no need for any interference from You.' Clearly as Christians, none of us would dream of this being true, and the good news is that none of us attend Church where this is taught! Catholic and Protestant alike would be lightning quick to distance themselves from this line of thinking.
And Scripture supports us saying that it is not by works that we are justified...just as Christ Himself said of the Pharisee in Luke 18: 9-14. We are all called to be humble before The Lord and count on Him for ALL OF OUR JUSTIFICATION, and NOT in or on ourselves. We do not justify ourselves. We do not wash ourselves of sin. That is ALL God's work. And the Catholic Church has taught this and continues to teach this (catechism #1994). St. Augustine taught (and the Church teaches) that justification is by God alone. And justification of the sinner, i.e. you and I, is the greatest sign of God's eternal mercy. What better way for God to show His Love than to justify one that can not ever justify himself?
Thus, justification is not by any act that we can perform. There is no 'earning' Heaven.

Clear as mud so far?
Continued below:

 

[biblestudyresources]

Revelation 20 refers to what is called the Great White Throne Judgment. This refers to judgment of the condemned, those who did not place their faith in Christ. They will be judged by their works in the sense that the more sins they commit the greater their penalty in hell. The Bible teaches that there will be some who get few lashes and others that get many lashes.

No, this is not another debate thread about Faith vs. Works.

I grew up as a Southern Baptist, and as such was taught that we are saved through faith alone. However, as I got older (and in more recent years) I started really digging deep into the various English translations of the Bible, while also learning some Hebrew and Greek. I started questioning the concept of sola fide, because clearly there are verses that contradict it.

Most of the debates come down to which side you agree with: Paul or James.

Then it dawned on me one day, out of the blue. It is as if the light bulb went on inside my head. I had an "AH HA!" moment...

Paul and James both agree on the same thing; they are just expressing different points within the concept of salvation. Paul says that it is faith alone that saves, and he is right. James says faith and good works is what saves, and he is also right. Confused? Allow me to elaborate.

Paul's expression is straight forward. There is no question as to what he means. Through your faith in Jesus, you are saved. You can't buy your way into paradise. A lifetime of doing good, without faith, does not grant you salvation. End of story.

James' expression is not so straight forward, but the end result is the same. The difference is that James is stating that TRUE FAITH does indeed save you, and that if you have TRUE FAITH you will produce good works, as they go hand in hand. If you claim to have faith but do not produce good works, your faith is empty, dead and meaningless. You have to do more than just "talk the talk."

So you see, they are saying the same thing, but are approaching it from two different angles. Faith and works are akin to fire and heat...they are linked together. You can't have one without the other!

Now let's deal with Revelation 20:12-13...

12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.

Those two verses indicate that we are judged based off of our deeds [works]. Some would argue that they solidify the position of faith + works. However, I would argue that the judgment is to test the mettle of your faith, and to see if you truly "walked the walk" as indicated by the works your TRUE FAITH produced.

In other words...

My Soul: Lord, I stand before you awaiting judgment on my life. I claim to have faith, and through my faith I did the best that I could with good deeds [works].

God: You are indeed being judged, based on your faith produced deeds, to see if your faith was true or not. Did you claim to be a Christian but then stopped there, or did you sincerely mean it, and lived your life accordingly? I have read the Books, and you...

 

[biblestudyresources]

I have always held that people on both sides of the debate are closer than they realize.

I optimistically think most of us can agree on the following line of reasoning:

Does faith save us?
Yes.

Which kind of faith- a dead faith or a living (saving) faith?
A living faith.

Can a dead faith save us?
No.

What is the difference between a living faith and a dead faith?
A living faith produces good works. Faith without works is dead.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a few notes on the posts this far (These I assume will draw more criticism. Oh well.)...

Paul never says we are saved by "faith alone". Those 2 words are only found together once in all of Scripture, when James says we are not saved by faith alone. However, when Paul speaks of being saved by faith, I believe its reasonable to assume he is talking about a living faith as opposed to a dead faith. James tells us the difference between the two: works.

Secondly, I see no context in James that suggests he is talking about justification before man as opposed to God. Is there even such a thing?

James 2:21-23 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? {22} Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? {23} And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (KJV)

Why then did James say that Abraham was justified when he offered Isaac? This can be explained by examining the meaning of the word "justify". This word has two meanings. The most common meaning of the word is "to pronounce righteous". Besides that, this word can also mean "proven to be right or true". In fact, one version of the Bible translates this verse as "was not our forefather Abraham shown to be upright by his good deeds". Look at the following.

Rom 3:3-4 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged (ie by unbelievers). (KJV)

These verses say that though men may lie, God will be always be justified (ie proven to be true). Look at it from another version.

Rom 3:4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." (NIV)

Another verse talks about God being justified (i.e. proven to be true) in the hearts of men by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV)

Now we can understand why James says that Abraham is justified by works. The word "justified" here is used in the second sense of the word. In other words, Jas 2:21 could say that Abraham was justified when he offered Isaac because that action proves that he was in fact a true believer. Verse 23 says that God's recorded statement that Abraham was saved was later demonstrated to be indeed true by Abraham's subsequent obedience to the Lord.

Another example given by James is Rahab the harlot. When Israel was seeking to enter the promised land, they sent spies into Jericho to find out about the inhabitants. Two Hebrew spies entered the home of a prostitute named Rahab and although she was a gentile, she hid them from her countrymen when they came to look for the spies (Joshua 2).

Jas 2:25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous (KJV, justified) for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? (NIV)

It is important to note that Rahab hid the spies because she believed in their God and she was sure that the Israelites would win the war. She hoped that they would spare her family when they attacked Jericho. Therefore, it was her genuine faith in the God of Israel that saved her. Verse 25 could say Rahab was considered righteous (ie justified) for what she did because it proves the genuineness of her faith.

The Characteristics of Saving Faith

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How are we not saved by works if we need to have a faith that is fruitful or true?

Well, who does the "good work" in a believer's life? Is it God? Or is it the believer? Well, Scripture tells us that God (Christ) is the One who does the work within a believer.

Philippians 1:6
Philippians 1:11
Philippians 2:13
Philippians 4:13
1 Corinthians 15:10 KJV
Hebrews 12:1, 2
Hebrews 13:21
Isaiah 26:12
1 John 4:12
Galatians 5:22, 23, 24 (cf. Matthew 7:16, 18, Matthew 19:17)
John 15:5
Ezekiel 36:26, 27

For that is why the 24 elders cast their crowns down before Jesus (Revelation 4:10). For the crowns they received for their good work was all the result of Christ working in them.

Yeah, but doesn't a believer do the work, too? Now, yes, it is true; A believer is created unto Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:10); And a believer is indeed held accountable by their "good works" here upon this Earth at a Judgment. But we must also realize that true believers are not ultimately doing these "good works" alone or of their own power, though. For in 1 Corinthians 15:10 Paul said that he labored more than all of his brethren, yet he said it was not him that labored but it was the grace of God that was within him. So true believer's are just choosing to allow God's "good work" to flow within them or not.

For James and Paul go together. Like two sides of the same coin, they don't conflict with each other; they compliment each other. Both teach us something vital. Paul looks at what goes on internally; James talks about the external results. Paul says, "We're saved by faith." James says, "This is what saving faith looks like."

In other words, works (all by their lonesome) is not what is saving you but it is the proof that Christ is living in you who does the actual saving. For he that has the Son has life and He that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12).

 

[mercy1061]

Being judged by our works can be interpreted in the following sense depending on the context:

* All people are judged by their works to see if they receive salvation or not. The work here refer to whether or not we believe in Jesus. i.e. believe is spoken of as "work".

The work of G-d is to believe, the people are still judged by their works.

Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:29)

* Non-believers will be judged by their works. They don't have faith and are already destined for punishment. The extent of their evil deeds determine the degree of punishment.

Every man will be judged according to his deeds.

Ec 12:14
For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.


This idea that christians receive a "special court" or "special judgment" is not true; is G-d unjust? "Every man" means "Every man", after all don't be deceived the wicked will not enter the kingdom of G-d.



47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. (Luke 12)


Do you understand master and slave relationships in those days? Slaves were required to obey their masters, and if the slaves disobeyed, their masters did not send them to heaven as a reward for their disobedience.

* Christians who escape hell will still be judged by their works and receive rewards according to how they have lived for God.

How will they escape if their evil deeds send them to hell? If a murderer is sent to hell, a murderer is sent to hell. A christian being a murderer does't matter.

* Everyone including Christians are judged by their works on earth as God punishes Christians too who commit sin while on earth. The Lord chastises whoever He regards as a child.

Remember when Yeshua told the parable about Abraham's son who found himself in hell?

Luke 16
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

Those who believe in Yeshua all considered sons of Abraham.

Gal 3:29
29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Marvin Knox]

How are we not saved by works if we need to have a faith that is fruitful or true?

Well, who does the "good work" in a believer's life? Is it God? Or is it the believer? Well, Scripture tells us that God (Christ) is the One who does the work within a believer.

Philippians 1:6
Philippians 1:11
Philippians 2:13
Philippians 4:13
1 Corinthians 15:10 KJV
Hebrews 12:1, 2
Hebrews 13:21
Isaiah 26:12
1 John 4:12
Galatians 5:22, 23, 24 (cf. Matthew 7:16, 18, Matthew 19:17)
John 15:5
Ezekiel 36:26, 27

For that is why the 24 elders cast their crowns down before Jesus (Revelation 4:10). For the crowns they received for their good work was all the result of Christ working in them.

Yeah, but doesn't a believer do the work, too? Now, yes, it is true; A believer is created unto Christ Jesus for good works (Ephesians 2:10); And a believer is indeed held accountable by their "good works" here upon this Earth at a Judgment. But we must also realize that true believers are not ultimately doing these "good works" alone or of their own power, though. For in 1 Corinthians 15:10 Paul said that he labored more than all of his brethren, yet he said it was not him that labored but it was the grace of God that was within him. So true believer's are just choosing to allow God's "good work" to flow within them or not.

For James and Paul go together. Like two sides of the same coin, they don't conflict with each other; they compliment each other. Both teach us something vital. Paul looks at what goes on internally; James talks about the external results. Paul says, "We're saved by faith." James says, "This is what saving faith looks like."

In other words, works (all by their lonesome) is not what is saving you but it is the proof that Christ is living in you who does the actual saving. For he that has the Son has life and He that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12).

.

 

[Hawkiz]

Careful Marvin, you might just be thinking like a Catholic! .

Good to see us standing on some common ground. God be praised!

Peace in Christ

 

[mercy1061]

James 2:21-23 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Yes indeed


{

22} Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Faith is made perfect by works.

{23} And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (KJV)

Abraham built the L-rd's altar, Abraham offered Isaac on the L-rd's altar to become justified, then it was fulfiled which saith Abraham believed G-d, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; he was called the Friend of G-d. It is only in that context that the scripture was fulfiiled. How can anyone be justified like Abraham without the L-rd's altar?

Why then did James say that Abraham was justified when he offered Isaac?

The root word for justification is "justice". Justice was served when Isaac was offered up on the L-rd's altar.

This can be explained by examining the meaning of the word "justify". This word has two meanings. The most common meaning of the word is "to pronounce righteous".

The guilty are never justified for their actions, justice must be served, a judge gives the guilty a sentence usually some time to serve. Isaac did those things that his father Abraham did.

Besides that, this word can also mean "proven to be right or true".

The guilty must be proven guilty, so that the grieving family may recover from their grief.

In fact, one version of the Bible translates this verse as "was not our forefather Abraham shown to be upright by his good deeds". Look at the following.

It is a good deed for the Court to pronounce "judgment" or "justice" so that the guilty will not go unpunished. Abraham offered Isaac on the L-rd's altar as a burnt offering.

Rom 3:3-4 3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged (ie by unbelievers). (KJV)

Mercy overcomes judgement, if we obey the law of liberty, those that do not show mercy will not be shown mercy.

These verses say that though men may lie, God will be always be justified (ie proven to be true). Look at it from another version.

Rom 3:4 Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: "So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge." (NIV)

The idea is that you "prevail" when you judge.

Another verse talks about God being justified (i.e. proven to be true) in the hearts of men by the convicting power of the Holy Spirit.

1 Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (KJV)

Now we can understand why James says that Abraham is justified by works. The word "justified" here is used in the second sense of the word. In other words, Jas 2:21 could say that Abraham was justified when he offered Isaac because that action proves that he was in fact a true believer. Verse 23 says that God's recorded statement that Abraham was saved was later demonstrated to be indeed true by Abraham's subsequent obedience to the Lord.

Abraham obeyed G-d, so he later was made righteous by his faith.

Another example given by James is Rahab the harlot. When Israel was seeking to enter the promised land, they sent spies into Jericho to find out about the inhabitants. Two Hebrew spies entered the home of a prostitute named Rahab and although she was a gentile, she hid them from her countrymen when they came to look for the spies (Joshua 2).

Jas 2:25 In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous (KJV, justified) for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? (NIV)

Rahab showed mercy to the two spies, so mercy was shown to her. In those days, harlots were to be burned alive in fire.

It is important to note that Rahab hid the spies because she believed in their God and she was sure that the Israelites would win the war. She hoped that they would spare her family when they attacked Jericho. Therefore, it was her genuine faith in the God of Israel that saved her. Verse 25 could say Rahab was considered righteous (ie justified) for what she did because it proves the genuineness of her faith.

The Characteristics of Saving Faith

Rahab showed mercy, Joshua (Moses servant) showed her mercy. The ark of the covenant had a covering which was the "mercy seat" made of pure gold. Why was the mercy seat made of pure gold?

 

[Ignatius21]

Originally Posted by Hawkiz

How can it be by faith alone? Answer: it is, but not in the modern Protestant way of thinking, although it is very close to the Catholic teaching on faith alone...

Scripture tells us in Romans 2:13 that only those who do the will of God will be justified. There really isn't any getting around that aspect.
Revelation 22:12-15 goes further to tell us similarly that we must DO in order to be blessed.

How then, does faith 'alone' lend itself to justification and salvation?

Answer: through the Sacraments. When we approach the Sacraments properly, we express our faith in action just as Abraham did.

It is by faith alone that God justifies those who believe His promises.

It is by faith alone that the Catholic believes that God washes away sin through our Baptism. It is by faith alone that we believe that God seals us in the Holy Spirit through Confirmation. It is by faith alone that we believe God removes our sins through Confession. It is by faith alone that we believe that we receive the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist. It is by faith alone that we believe God joins two people to become one in Holy Matrimony. It is by faith alone that we trust in God to heal our afflictions through the Annointing of the Sick. It is by faith alone that we believe that God sets some aside to serve His Works in a special way through Holy Orders.

We can not accomplish ANY of these ourselves. None of us can wash away our own sins. None of us can seal ourselves in the Holy Spirit. No one can remove their own sin. None of us can transform bread and wine into our Lord's Body and Blood. We can not declare ourselves to be one with another person. We can not heal our own afflictions. We can not set ourselves apart. These are ALL things that only God can do.
Therefor, it is by faith alone that we are justified in the Sacraments.

But WAIT! Many of you are screaming! How can it be faith alone?!?!?! 'The only time those words are together in Scripture is when faith alone is described as NOT enough! And you are correct...which leads us back to it being BOTH faith AND works, at the same time, and never separated, just as the Church teaches...

For example:
A man enters a church and asks to be baptized. However, he is drunk, cursing the name of The Lord, and has a prostitute on each arm. The minister will look at him and say: 'well...you are going to have to make some changes...some BIG changes. You are going to have to repent of your sinful ways.' The guy joins the church, says prayers, 'Amens', reads Scripture, goes to church every Sunday, etc. but he never repents... Catholic and Protestant alike would say that baptism isn't going to save this person by itself...the work for the works sake means nothing without the faith that accompanies it. Some would say he didn't have a 'saving' faith, others would say he never had a true faith, and still others would say he was a hypocrite and that the minister should not have baptized him, while others would say that we can only pray that baptism opens the door of the mans heart and allows the Holy Spirit to begin to transform him. Which is the path filled with the Love of God?

Anyway, I hope and pray that this demonstrates that the Catholic and the Protestant are NOT far away from each other with regard to the argument over justification. And I pray that we seek to unify rather than divide over our words about this subject.

Peace in Christ
​

As an evangelical Protestant -I'll take a shot at it.

The subject of the relationship of faith and works is an interesting and important one as most Catholics and Protestants would agree.

The Council of Trent (official Catholic doctrine affirmed by the Pope) taught:

If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.

If anyone says that in the sacred and, holy sacrament of the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the appearances only of bread and wine remaining, which change the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.

Definition Anathema-2. a formal curse by a pope or a council of the Church, excommunicating a person for denouncing a doctrine.

[FONT=&quot]The Heidelberg Catechism describes the error of transubstantiation very fully and correctly.

"What difference is there between the Lord's Supper and the popish mass?

"The Lord's Supper testifies to us, that we have a full pardon of all sin by the only sacrifice of Jesus Christ, which he himself has once accomplished on the cross; and that we by the Holy Ghost are engrafted into Christ, who according to his human nature is now not on earth, but in heaven on the right hand of God his Father, and will there be worshipped by us:—but the mass teaches, that the living and dead have not the pardon of sins through the sufferings of Christ, unless Christ is also daily offered for them by the priests; and further, that Christ is bodily under the form of bread and wine, and therefore is to be worshipped in them; so that the mass, at bottom, is nothing else than a denial of the one sacrifice and sufferings of Jesus Christ, and an accursed idolatry."

I [/FONT]agree totally with the Heidelberg Catechism as would most Protestants. As a result we are under a curse according to official Roman Catholic dogma.

Time and space would fail us if I listed all of the things I hold most sacred for which the Catholic Church curses me. I, on the other hand, am willing to let the Lord decide how offensive He finds Catholic practices. I "curse" no one.

But - as long as good works are defined in any way as being aligned with certain offensive Roman Catholic practices - we will be in irreconcilable disagreement as to the place of works vs. faith.

Multitudes died at the stake and other horrible means to break out of that horrendous system. We aren't about to turn back the clock now.

Remove the curses and we can talk about the subject in a productive manner. The discussion might even prove to be considered a good work when the Lord sorts it all out.

How about pretending the curses never were issued? How about pretending that it's possible to have bishops without a dogma of papal infallibility? How about pretending that it's possible to believe in the real physical presence of Christ without the specifically scholastic/Aristotelian dogma of Transubstantiation? Or in baptismal grace, without the dogmas of temporal and eternal punishment?

How about pretending there was a whole half of "Christendom" that never followed the Roman Catholic Church? Then call it "Orthodoxy" and we have something tangible to discuss.

Conflating the doctrines of the early church (like real presence, sacramental grace, episcopacy, etc.) with specifically Roman Catholic dogma that was codified much later, is a very common misconception and fallacy in Protestant thinking (and it tends to run in reverse also, as Catholics can conflate Orthodoxy's rejection of papal infallibility with a Protestant mindset).

As to "so many martyrs died resisting Rome," well, it's true. But an awful lot of Catholics have died at the hands of Protestants. And Orthodoxy sadly have persecuted others, and have been persecuted. The very protestants who were persecuted by Catholics turned around and drowned anabaptists. The puritans who were persecuted by the church of england came to America and persecuted quakers.

Let's just move past all that. "Remember the Alamo!" really isn't a good grounds for furthering discussions.

My 2 cents. And I think Orthodoxy has a good organic (and patristic, and biblical, use what words you will) way of understanding the relationship of faith and works. It's not usually listened to, though, because it doesn't fit the typical pattern of thought, since both Roman Catholic and Protestant systems of salvation are basically grounded in a view of merit that the East generally never had.

 

[Marvin Knox]

...........................
As to "so many martyrs died resisting Rome," well, it's true. But an awful lot of Catholics have died at the hands of Protestants. And Orthodoxy sadly have persecuted others, and have been persecuted. The very protestants who were persecuted by Catholics turned around and drowned anabaptists. The puritans who were persecuted by the church of england came to America and persecuted quakers.

Let's just move past all that. "Remember the Alamo!" really isn't a good grounds for furthering discussions.

My 2 cents. And I think Orthodoxy has a good organic (and patristic, and biblical, use what words you will) way of understanding the relationship of faith and works. It's not usually listened to, though, because it doesn't fit the typical pattern of thought, since both Roman Catholic and Protestant systems of salvation are basically grounded in a view of merit that the East generally never had.

Plenty of sin to go around for sure when it comes to persecuting those we disagree with.

I must admit that I don't know as much about Orthodoxy as I probably should. I'm trying to understand it more. Off hand though - it almost seems like we speak a different language when it comes to concepts like "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior" and other such language as we evangelical tend to use.

Concerning the curses and such - my skin isn't so thin that I mind whether someone curses me or not in and of itself. My point is simply that, (when it comes to the sacraments), the differences between Catholics and evangelical Protestants are so profound as to cause one side to call the other side idolaters and the other side to say the others are cursed to Hell.

Although it may never have become clear in our back and forth posts - my main point was that if we are pointing to the keeping of the "sacraments" as being works reflecting faith we can never agree that they are - for the other side.

If the other side's way of viewing what they are doing is seen as from the depths of Hell, as it were, how can it be seen as the truly acceptable to God kind of works?

If we were to discuss cooperating with the Holy Spirit in our ongoing sanctification we could agree that those things that came out of that were faith reflecting works. Or if we were simply talking about obeying Christ by taking communion to remember what He did for us at Calvary, having a Christian marriage ceremony, getting baptized when we believed etc. we could also agree.

But as long as one side sees these things as providing salvation in some way - I could never agree to the validity of those works. And as long as the other side see them as simply memorial and obedience to the Lord only - conservative Catholics could never see my works as valid reflections of true faith.

We are up a creek without a paddle. That's just the way it is.

Let me even add here that I know of some who see transubstantiation in the Lord's table. I disagree of course. But it is just another doctrinal debate in and of itself. Bigger than some. Smaller than some.

But the moment it becomes part of the basic "salvation package" itself - we have to make it a HUGE debate. The same is true for some other practices. Maybe some of the Orthodox practices also. But I'd have to know more to know that for sure.

I'm just rambling a bit. I'm not looking to re-litigate these practices here. I don't want anyone to misunderstand where I come from.

 

[Ignatius21]

Plenty of sin to go around for sure when it comes to persecuting those we disagree with.

I must admit that I don't know as much about Orthodoxy as I probably should. I'm trying to understand it more. Off hand though - it almost seems like we speak a different language when it comes to concepts like "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior" and other such language as we evangelical tend to use.

The language is completely different, because the concepts are completely different. The whole notion of Christ as a "personal savior" really arose as a Protestant distinction from the Roman Catholic structure, that at least in the middle ages had so interposed itself between the individual, and God, that the Church's 7 sacraments were practically the only means by which a person could encounter God's grace. The problem for Protestants in encountering Orthodoxy--and I speak from much experience--is that the notion of sacramental grace is so bound up in the Western ideas of merit, which is further bound up with Purgatory, indulgences and all the stuff that sent Luther down his path. If you read his 95 theses, you'll see that...well...pretty much every one of them is specific to the Roman Church. Not one of them would hit the mark in Orthodoxy.

You cannot have a personal relationship with Christ, without understanding what it is for Christ to be one person. Protestant theology is Chalcedonian in profession, but I think it veers away subtly from those key formulations of Christ being ONE person, in TWO natures, perfectly united and yet entirely unmixed and unconfused. The Church is the body of Christ, and if you read the thoughts of the early Christian writers (Athanasius is a pretty good example) you'll see that this is not understood as a metaphor, but as a mystical reality. The Church, on earth, is THE body of Christ, and that reality is both material and spiritual. Christ is never again to be separated from his body. That is to say, his body is forevermore an essential part of his humanity, which is an essential part of his personhood (remember, ONE person, TWO natures).

Thus, to have a "personal" relationship with Jesus Christ apart from the Church, is to have a "personal" relationship with the person of Christ apart from the body of Christ, which is impossible.

Much confusion arises when people mistakenly see salvation in and through the Church, as being somehow opposed to (or separate from) salvation in and through Christ. We are not saved by an institution, or by a bishop, or by a worship service--rather we are saved by Christ, who himself is present in the Church, his body. Does that make sense?

Salvation in patristic thought is all about union with Christ, which means a real participation in his life. When the martyrs suffered for the faith, they were not understood to be suffering like Christ suffered...rather they were understood to be suffering with the sufferings of Christ. That's one example.

Concerning the curses and such - my skin isn't so thin that I mind whether someone curses me or not in and of itself. My point is simply that, (when it comes to the sacraments), the differences between Catholics and evangelical Protestants are so profound as to cause one side to call the other side idolaters and the other side to say the others are cursed to Hell.

Yeah, it's a bit of an obstacle...

Although it may never have become clear in our back and forth posts - my main point was that if we are pointing to the keeping of the "sacraments" as being works reflecting faith we can never agree that they are - for the other side.

If the other side's way of viewing what they are doing is seen as from the depths of Hell, as it were, how can it be seen as the truly acceptable to God kind of works?

In Orthodox theology, the sacraments are not just isolated things that we do to get some result (really, they aren't in Catholic theology either). Although we often say "seven sacraments" there's no number, because it isn't so much about things we call "sacraments" as about all of the Christian life being sacramental. Think of the analogy of silver refined in a furnace--biblical, to be certain. To participate in the Christian life, is to participate in the divine life of Christ himself. When we worship, pray, receive the Eucharist, partake of confession, give alms, fast, keep vigil...done in faith, we come into a real "contact" with God's grace, which is his own divine presence made real to us. We don't earn merit or offset the balance of our sins...such thinking is a real unfortunate state of a affairs, I believe. It's better to think of sacramental grace, as bringing silver into the presence of the fire that refines it. We really are changed. We cannot be in the presence of God's divine life and come away unchanged. Heck, Moses' beard turned white and his face lit up. God's grace became joined to him, body and spirit.

If we think about "works" as things that we do, so that God rewards us, we're already off on the wrong foot. Works are not just the "proof" of real faith. Works are the cooperation between us and God. He is working, himself, in and through us.

If we were to discuss cooperating with the Holy Spirit in our ongoing sanctification we could agree that those things that came out of that were faith reflecting works. Or if we were simply talking about obeying Christ by taking communion to remember what He did for us at Calvary, having a Christian marriage ceremony, getting baptized when we believed etc. we could also agree.

This view of the sacraments is a novelty. Sorry. But it is. Luther and Calvin didn't even view them in this way. It's a post-reformational, overreaction to Roman Catholicism. Lest anyone think that the idea of the sacraments as being real encounters with Christ, that impart real grace to us, just go back and read Ignatius of Antioch...read Irenaeus. All within 100-150 years of Christ's time on earth. These ideas weren't made up by a Pope, or some bishop on a power trip. These go back to the start.

But as long as one side sees these things as providing salvation in some way - I could never agree to the validity of those works. And as long as the other side see them as simply memorial and obedience to the Lord only - conservative Catholics could never see my works as valid reflections of true faith.

Yay Orthodoxy! Problem solved

We are up a creek without a paddle. That's just the way it is.

Let me even add here that I know of some who see transubstantiation in the Lord's table. I disagree of course. But it is just another doctrinal debate in and of itself. Bigger than some. Smaller than some.

What Protestants accept transubstantiation?

But the moment it becomes part of the basic "salvation package" itself - we have to make it a HUGE debate. The same is true for some other practices. Maybe some of the Orthodox practices also. But I'd have to know more to know that for sure.

I'm just rambling a bit. I'm not looking to re-litigate these practices here. I don't want anyone to misunderstand where I come from.

Can you define a "basic salvation package?"

I guess I'm rambling too!

I certainly respect and appreciate your desire to understand, love and serve the Lord. He rewards those who diligently seek him. It's far too easy to get comfy in whatever church life we happen to be in, and to lose the zeal of the martyrs that overcame trials and took down a pagan empire.

 

[nobdysfool]

Faith is confirmed (proven) by works, and works confirm (prove) faith. The two are intertwined. But faith precedes true works (works sourced in God), and must be present for those works to have any eternal value. Works never cause or impart faith. Faith (true faith) will produce works of eternal value.

That is why James said "I will show you my faith by my works", and why Paul said "faith without works is dead, being alone."

True faith will produce works in accordance with that faith.

Works will never produce faith.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

.

Thank you for the thumbs up, my friend.
May God bless you.

 

[Marvin Knox]

...........................What Protestants accept transubstantiation? .............................................................Can you define a "basic salvation package?"

I really should have pointed to the doctrine of the "real presence" instead of transubstantiation in referring to "Protestant" groups. There is a distinction of course.

One source puts it this way.

"The doctrine of the Real Presence is shared (at least officially) by Catholics (including splinter groups such as the PNCC and Old Catholic jurisdictions), Lutherans, Anglicans, and Orthodox. This doctrine refers to the Sacrament of Holy Communion, and teaches that the Body and Blood of our Lord are really present in that Sacrament; that when the faithful communicant receives the elements, he is receiving the Body and Blood of Christ."

When I talked about "the basic salvation package" it was just a personal way of distinguishing between church related ceremonies being seen as actually being necessary to get a person to "Heaven" vs. "Hell" over and against some other view of why we are obeying God in participating in church related rituals.

"Basic salvation package" is probably not a term anyone but me would use.

.

 

[Marvin Knox]

The language is completely different, because the concepts are completely different. The whole notion of Christ as a "personal savior" really arose as a Protestant distinction from the Roman Catholic structure, that at least in the middle ages had so interposed itself between the individual, and God, that the Church's 7 sacraments were practically the only means by which a person could encounter God's grace. The problem for Protestants in encountering Orthodoxy--and I speak from much experience--is that the notion of sacramental grace is so bound up in the Western ideas of merit, which is further bound up with Purgatory, indulgences and all the stuff that sent Luther down his path. If you read his 95 theses, you'll see that...well...pretty much every one of them is specific to the Roman Church. Not one of them would hit the mark in Orthodoxy.

As I see it – the concept of Christ as one’s savior came early and is absolutely very Biblical. "What must I do to be saved" was always the heart's cry of the converted. It was never what group do I join or how should I worship or which sacraments are essential to partake of any such thing. It was always personal salvation that was the heart's cry of the people. That's the way it is meant to be. It hasn't changed - at least from God's point of view.

The reason for evangelicals adding words like “personal” and even using phrases like “inviting Christ into your heart” and such – was and is a reaction to large groups merely subscribing to Christianity as a religion and not making a personal decision of some kind. It's a way of stressing that the truth that it isn't what religion do you practice. It is what have you personally done with the gospel in your heart - between you and God. Obviously the Roman thing fits that category. But I would also venture to say that Orthodox can and often does fit into the category of those who merely have a “religion” and have not received Christ as savior in a personal way. Am I wrong in that?

You cannot have a personal relationship with Christ, without understanding what it is for Christ to be one person. Protestant theology is Chalcedonian in profession, but I think it veers away subtly from those key formulations of Christ being ONE person, in TWO natures, perfectly united and yet entirely unmixed and unconfused. The Church is the body of Christ, and if you read the thoughts of the early Christian writers (Athanasius is a pretty good example) you'll see that this is not understood as a metaphor, but as a mystical reality. The Church, on earth, is THE body of Christ, and that reality is both material and spiritual. Christ is never again to be separated from his body. That is to say, his body is forevermore an essential part of his humanity, which is an essential part of his personhood (remember, ONE person, TWO natures).

Thus, to have a "personal" relationship with Jesus Christ apart from the Church, is to have a "personal" relationship with the person of Christ apart from the body of Christ, which is impossible.

Much confusion arises when people mistakenly see salvation in and through the Church, as being somehow opposed to (or separate from) salvation in and through Christ. We are not saved by an institution, or by a bishop, or by a worship service--rather we are saved by Christ, who himself is present in the Church, his body. Does that make sense?

Of course the thing that often divides people is their idea of what the “Church” is. Protestants generally define the church as all of the “called out ones” which is what it means. I would identify with that particular group of Protestants.

Some others including certain Protestants consider their group (or their way of worshipping) as the Church. Everyone who doesn’t fit their criteria is not having a relationship with Christ but with some imposter. Often their criteria for determining who is in the “body” (and thus saved or at least potentially saved) has to do with the use of the sacraments. Would Orthodoxy be a group which uses those criteria?

This view of the sacraments is a novelty. Sorry. But it is. Luther and Calvin didn't even view them in this way. It's a post-reformational, overreaction to Roman Catholicism. Lest anyone think that the idea of the sacraments as being real encounters with Christ, that impart real grace to us, just go back and read Ignatius of Antioch...read Irenaeus. All within 100-150 years of Christ's time on earth. These ideas weren't made up by a Pope, or some bishop on a power trip. These go back to the start.

It is a novelty only in that not everyone takes the words of the scriptures alone as a guide. (Of course I'm talking about the Bible as I accept it.)

Even Luther and Calvin were influenced by tradition somewhat. Calvin studied for the priesthood originally and Luther was a priest.

As far as statements by the Church fathers goes - errors came early, came often and stayed long. Their view, like those of Augustine or any other Church fathers are only someone's commentary at best.

One need only to look at some of the church father's view concerning Mary to see the error of their ways and the error of following their views too closely in the case of some groups over these last 2000 years IMO.

Yay Orthodoxy! Problem solved

That remains to be seen - at least for me. I've got a feeling that problems will still remain in the end. It is nice to have a civil discussion however. Such is not often the case when it comes to major denominational differences.

 

[Ignatius21]

I will answer as best I can on an iPhone please forgive typos and peculiar formatting!

As I see it - the concept of Christ as one's savior came early and is absolutely very Biblical.

Yes, I never meant to imply that Christ isn't to be considered "ones savior" in an individual sense. What I maintain is that one is saved by entering into the body of Christ...rather inverted from the evangelical view that the body of Christ is the collection of saved individuals. The body is saved--resurrected--and we are individually saved by being joined to the body. I'm not sure if I'm phrasing it well or not.

"What must I do to be saved" was always the heart's cry of the converted. It was never what group do I join or how should I worship or which sacraments are essential to partake of any such thing. It was always personal salvation that was the heart's cry of the people. That's the way it is meant to be. It hasn't changed - at least from God's point of view.

And what was the answer to that cry? "Repent, and be baptized." Baptism is the union of the individual to the Church, the body. Again the idea of being saved individually is not opposed to being saved in the church.

The reason for evangelicals adding words like "personal" and even using phrases like "inviting Christ into your heart" and such - was and is a reaction to large groups merely subscribing to Christianity as a religion and not making a personal decision of some kind. It's a way of stressing that the truth that it isn't what religion do you practice. It is what have you personally done with the gospel in your heart - between you and God. Obviously the Roman thing fits that category. But I would also venture to say that Orthodox can and often does fit into the category of those who merely have a "religion" and have not received Christ as savior in a personal way. Am I wrong in that?

Sadly no. There are many people in many traditions who come to see faith as a cultural convention rather than as a personal conviction. But repentance is a lifetime affair...one isn't saved by slapping a label on ones forehead and attending baptisms once in a while when someone has a baby. However I will say I've found such nominal cultural religion to be as prevalent in "Bible Belt" evangelicalism as in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. It's a danger anywhere. John Chrysostom, patriarch of Constantinople and one of the most revered saints in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, preached constantly against this.

I've also found many evangelicals who have come to substitute "para church" clubs and weeknight bible studies for actual participation in corporate worship.

Of course the thing that often divides people is their idea of what the "Church" is. Protestants generally define the church as all of the "called out ones" which is what it means. I would identify with that particular group of Protestants.

And there is no resolution to this. Among Protestants you'll find very divergent beliefs about what the Church actually is. So everyone decides for himself, then joins and "submits" to whichever group matches his own interpretations.

Some others including certain Protestants consider their group (or their way of worshipping) as the Church. Everyone who doesn't fit their criteria is not having a relationship with Christ but with some imposter. Often their criteria for determining who is in the "body" (and thus saved or at least potentially saved) has to do with the use of the sacraments. Would Orthodoxy be a group which uses those criteria?

Pretty much, yes. There is one body that cannot be divided. Each particular church either embodies the whole of Christ, or doesn't. Two churches that are not in communion with each other cannot both be "the Church." Read St. Ignatius of Antioch, his letters (early 2nd century) show the centrality of the Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, celebrated by the people on communion with their bishop, who is in communion with other bishops, there is no true participation in the body of Christ.

This does not mean we condemn all outside the bounds of sacramental communion. The Spirit blows as he will. But we believe Christ is present in the orthodox churches descended from the apostles, and thus wish to see all Christians united with these churches exactly what this would look like in practice, I'm not sure. But it wouldn't look like individual groups of people deciding for themselves what is and isn't Christian doctrine and worship.

It is a novelty only in that not everyone takes the words of the scriptures alone as a guide. (Of course I'm talking about the Bible as I accept it.)

And why do you accept the canon that you do? Why do you side with the only 500 year old *tradition* that absolutely rejects the deutercanonical books? Aren't you putting tradition above scripture in doing this? How can you decide which tradition about scripture is the right one?

Even Luther and Calvin were influenced by tradition somewhat. Calvin studied for the priesthood originally and Luther was a priest.

Do you believe yourself to not be influenced by tradition? Aren't all your methods of studying the bible just traditions held by those groups you agree with?

As far as statements by the Church fathers goes - errors came early, came often and stayed long. Their view, like those of Augustine or any other Church fathers are only someone's commentary at best. One need only to look at some of the church father's view concerning Mary to see the error of their ways and the error of following their views too closely in the case of some groups over these last 2000 years IMO.

You're using your own interpretations as the criteria of deciding where the church fathers were wrong. Why are your traditions preferable to theirs? How was it that Augustine and chrysostom and Basil and the great luminaries and scholars of scripture could have nailed the Trinity, yet been so blind as to believe things about Mary that Protestants reject? Were they just that easily misled?

That remains to be seen - at least for me. I've got a feeling that problems will still remain in the end. It is nice to have a civil discussion however. Such is not often the case when it comes to major denominational differences.

Light is always preferable to heat

I once gave pretty much the same answers that you're giving. I was pretty dyed in the wool reformed Protestant. It was the realization that I, and my elders, were as bound to tradition as all the groups we considered "unbiblical" that shook me to the roots. I realized that "sola scriptura" was a tradition. My 66 book canon was a tradition. My "read the plain meaning" methods were traditions. That leveled the playing field. I had to find the origins of my traditions. And in every case I concluded each tradition was a rejection of some particular Roman Catholic doctrine or method. In a sense Protestantism cannot really exist except in opposition to Rome. The core doctrines contain Catholicism within themselves, because they are formulated as rejections of them.

 

[Marvin Knox]

What I maintain is that one is saved by entering into the body of Christ...rather inverted from the evangelical view that the body of Christ is the collection of saved individuals. The body is saved--resurrected--and we are individually saved by being joined to the body..................Baptism is the union of the individual to the Church, the body. Again the idea of being saved individually is not opposed to being saved in the church...................................This does not mean we condemn all outside the bounds of sacramental communion. The Spirit blows as he will. But we believe Christ is present in the orthodox churches descended from the apostles, and thus wish to see all Christians united with these churches exactly what this would look like in practice, I'm not sure. But it wouldn't look like individual groups of people deciding for themselves what is and isn't Christian doctrine and worship. ...........................................................................


I've also found many evangelicals who have come to substitute "para church" clubs and weeknight bible studies for actual participation in corporate worship.............................................................


Two churches that are not in communion with each other cannot both be "the Church." Read St. Ignatius of Antioch, his letters (early 2nd century) show the centrality of the Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, celebrated by the people on communion with their bishop, who is in communion with other bishops, there is no true participation in the body of Christ.............................................................................


And why do you accept the canon that you do? Why do you side with the only 500 year old *tradition* that absolutely rejects the deutercanonical books? Aren't you putting tradition above scripture in doing this? How can you decide which tradition about scripture is the right one?....................................................


You're using your own interpretations as the criteria of deciding where the church fathers were wrong. Why are your traditions preferable to theirs? ..................................


In a sense Protestantism cannot really exist except in opposition to Rome. The core doctrines contain Catholicism within themselves, because they are formulated as rejections of them.

That first section which I pieced together from your entire post seems a little ambiguous. If it happens to mean to you that I have to be baptized into the Orthodox Church and or baptized by an Orthodox priest to be in the body and therefore save we have a problem. If it means that I simply will not be fellowshipping according to your ideas, I can live with that. If it means I'm not saved - that's another thing altogether. Then it becomes a doctrine to the effect that I am cursed much like Catholic doctrine.

I need clarification on the above ideas as you have the time.

As per that second section --- I totally agree that association with para church organizations can never take the place of actual community fellowship.

I need some clarification on the third section's statements much as wih the statements of the first section.

As for that 4th section having to do with what we each consider to be Scripture - That's a very big subject for another time and thread.

As for my interpretation being superior to any of the church fathers - I know how I arrived at mine and how the Holy Spirit was involved in my interpretation. If a church father has a commentary to go with their thoughts such as a systematic theology opinion by a current author might offer - I would certainly take into consideration their views.

Of course their views would have to line up with the scriptures as I accept them. We may have a problem. I could imagine this to be a particular problem when considering doctrines having to do with Mary since my documents only say so much about her. I wouldn't accept tradition on things like that. Same goes for the"sacraments".

As for Protestantism's necessary relationship to the Roman thing - I agree. I would call myself a Protestant proudly in that I definitely protest against heresy wherever I find it (and there's plenty to be found in Rome).

I really prefer not to use titles other than things like "believer" etc. But then often we almost have to take titles to ourselves to differentiate against what we consider false. That's just the way it is in this age.

To adequately describe myself, I'd have to string together a dozen or so Christianeze words. All strung together I'd probably sum them all up by calling them "orthodox". I'm thinking you'd disagree with my characterization of myself as orthodox though.

Clear up some of that potential "curse" stuff I alluded to earlier in the post and we can hopefully still call each other brother.

 

[hedrick]

I once gave pretty much the same answers that you're giving. I was pretty dyed in the wool reformed Protestant. It was the realization that I, and my elders, were as bound to tradition as all the groups we considered "unbiblical" that shook me to the roots. I realized that "sola scriptura" was a tradition. My 66 book canon was a tradition. My "read the plain meaning" methods were traditions. That leveled the playing field. I had to find the origins of my traditions. And in every case I concluded each tradition was a rejection of some particular Roman Catholic doctrine or method. In a sense Protestantism cannot really exist except in opposition to Rome. The core doctrines contain Catholicism within themselves, because they are formulated as rejections of them.

It's one thing to say that we hold doctrines that came from the Catholic Church (though commonly with adjustments) and another to say that it makes no sense without the Catholic Church. Should we wake up tomorrow and find that there is no Catholic Church, Reformed theology would still make perfect sense.

I do think we can see that the Reformers took a more careful look at certain parts of theology than other parts, and some might have been inherited a bit uncritically. There wasn't time nor resources to do otherwise. However there's been a lot of thought since the 16th Cent, and current mainline Reformed theology has looked pretty carefully at all aspects of theology.

I understand your disillusionment with the seeming inability of Protestants to come up with a single alternative to Catholic theology. It's really hard to avoid being biased by traditional understandings. Nevertheless, I think current mainline Scriptural scholarship and theology has done a pretty good job. There's no longer that much difference between people from different backgrounds, including Catholic. (Everything I know about actual Catholic beliefs suggests that the American Catholic Church is basically a mainline Protestant denomination.) That doesn't mean everyone agrees on everything, but that the range of views is similar among people from all different denominational backgrounds.

At that point, it makes sense to look at the question of just what range is acceptable within a church. During the medieval period Catholicism was really quite broad. The Reformation affected Catholics as well as Protestants. I would maintain that the range of current mainline beliefs is acceptable by historic standards.

----------

On the "personal savior" business. Recall that the mainline church tends to go back to the Reformers, and not the later evangelicals who seem to have pushed this idea. And more recently mainline theology has accepted the idea that Jesus came to bring a Kingdom, not just individual salvation. We have thus not tended to participate in some of the weirdnesses of evangelical theology. As I understand it, your experience with Protestantism wasn't with what I'd consider either historical Reformation theology or mainline theology.