Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Faith is intended to arrive at more than just...faith. It’s intended to justify us, to make us righteous, as God’s children should be.
I'd say "yes" for this reason: while the point about doing righteous deeds after having been made righteous doesn't seem controversial, it's not what results in salvation according to the Catholic Church.BUT WHEN WE HAVE BEEN MADE RIGHTEOUS WE DO RIGHTEOUS DEEDS. Martin Luther
Catholicism would agree and maintains that this righteousness, that comes from God, alone, as we enter fellowship with Him through faith, also has an identity- defined mainly as love. And that we're in any case obligated to maintain and express this righteousness, an obligation which should present an easy enough burden since love acts, producing righteous deeds, by its nature.
Is any of this necessarily opposed to the doctrine of Sola Fide?
BUT WHEN WE HAVE BEEN MADE RIGHTEOUS WE DO RIGHTEOUS DEEDS. Martin Luther
Catholicism would agree and maintains that this righteousness, that comes from God, alone, as we enter fellowship with Him through faith, also has an identity- defined mainly as love. And that we're in any case obligated to maintain and express this righteousness, an obligation which should present an easy enough burden since love acts, producing righteous deeds, by its nature.
Is any of this necessarily opposed to the doctrine of Sola Fide?
Yes, and we all pretty well agree that Christianity teaches that man cannot possess any real righteousness on his own. So what changes that we should now begin acting any differently, any better, than we did before conversion if we're still the same, if our righteousness is merely declared IOW? And the answer is that now we live by grace, now we have the Spirit, now God indwells us and within that fellowship we're changed, being changed, and will be changed more-for the better!-as long as we remain in Him. "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). And then we simply let Him judge at the end of the day how well we've done with whatever we've been given.I think that's right. It's not just that we are declared righteous but that we are righteous or at least that we become more righteous than we once were even if it doesn't seem by very much. As to whether Protestantism teaches this, I don't know but every church I've ever been to has taught this in practice by trying to make the Bible teachings come alive and be relevant to everyday life. Seems to me we have to do something ourselves to respond to God and that the process is not automatic - that, just because we have God in us, we'll automatically do the right thing. This reduces us to robots. I think the worry about having to do something ourselves is how do we know that we have done enough? I guess the answer is that we'll never know. We could probably always do better but we have to accept that we'll never be perfect. We'll always be sinners and miss the mark at times, and probably most of the time, but trusting that God is a loving and forgiving God will help us accept this and encourage us to do the best we can.
Yes-and yet we're unrighteous before being justified by God, when we turn to Him in faith. So we don't begin with righteousness, just the opposite, in fact, because our so-called righteous would just be filthy rags at that point, and yet we're still obligated to be righteous -and act accordingly-under the New Covenant. The answer is Jesus Christ, who takes away and purifies us from all sin, who reconciles us with God so that we now enter the communion with Him that we were made for. Then He places His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts' (Jer 31:33), or replaces our 'heart of stone with a heart of flesh' (Ez 26:36).It's impossible for a person to be righteous apart from doing righteousness. 1 John 3:10 the present tense shows that as long as one continues to not do righteousness one continues to not be of God. It's those who "worketh righteousness" that are accepted with God, Acts of the Apostles 10:35.
Romans 9:11 having done no good or evil means people are born a 'clean slate' neither born righteous nor born a sinner for one is not righteous till he does righteous nor a sinner till one commits sin. As one cannot call a wall painted when no paint has ever been applied to the wall. Paul spoke of "obedience unto righteousness" (Rom 6:16) and NOT faith only unto righteousness. There is no example in the Bible of one being righteous before having done righteousness (righteousness = obeyed God's commands - Psalms 119:172)
BUT WHEN WE HAVE BEEN MADE RIGHTEOUS WE DO RIGHTEOUS DEEDS. Martin Luther
Catholicism would agree and maintains that this righteousness, that comes from God, alone, as we enter fellowship with Him through faith, also has an identity- defined mainly as love. And that we're in any case obligated to maintain and express this righteousness, an obligation which should present an easy enough burden since love acts, producing righteous deeds, by its nature.
Is any of this necessarily opposed to the doctrine of Sola Fide?
This is true, but the Catholic (and EO) position aligns well with Scripture at very many points. We cannot discount the fact that sin will still separate us from God, that wanton, grave or serious sin, as outlined in Gal 5 & 6 or Rev 22:14-15, for example, simply has no place in His family and that we remain with the option to sin after justification, that, even as he's now equipped by the Spirit to win the battle, a struggle against sin may still ensue within the believer, reflected in passages such as Rom 8:12-13:I'd say "yes" for this reason: while the point about doing righteous deeds after having been made righteous doesn't seem controversial, it's not what results in salvation according to the Catholic Church.
She still maintains that 1) those deeds are efficacious. They "count" or increase your prospects for salvation, and 2) if you die with unforgiven mortal sins on your account, you are lost, no matter how strong your faith or how many good deeds have been performed.
True. But so does the Sola Fide position.This is true, but the Catholic (and EO) position aligns well with Scripture at very many points.
All right, but the heart and soul of Sola Fide is not that we somehow become non-sinners (far from it). Rather, it's that we are forgiven despite our weaknesses, so long as we trust in the Savior who died in order to accomplish what we could not accomplish on our own.We cannot discount the fact that sin will still separate us from God, that wanton, grave or serious sin, as outlined in Gal 5 & 6 or Rev 22:14-15, for example, simply has no place in His family and that we remain with the option to sin after justification, that, even as he's now equipped by the Spirit to win the battle, a struggle against sin may still ensue within the believer, reflected in passages such as Rom 8:12-13
And we could discuss that as well, but it's a different topic.We still have the freedom possibility to reject and turn back away from God IOW.
But that's not the Catholic position. Many Christians can fall into the trap of legalism regardless of theology-it's very easy to think that we must simply obey the law or simply "look" righteous on the outside. I'd hazard to say that we all play that game to one degree or another in fact, that living 100% by truth in sheer, real transparency is a very rare thing in this world, that we won't perfectly overcome sin in this life to put it another way. Here are some applicable teachings, with the "old law" referring to the Old Covenant and the "new law" to the New Covenant:It's "Sola Fide" turned inside out. Luther understood it perfectly, but Catholics try to BE Richteous to establish FAITH, instead of Having FAITH, which results in Righteous acts.
So you wrote to defend the position that you think is NOT that of the Catholic Church?But that's not the Catholic position.
Many Christians can fall into the trap of legalism regardless of theology-it's very easy to think that we must simply obey the law or simply "look" righteous on the outside. I'd hazard to say that we all play that game to one degree or another in fact, that living 100% by truth in sheer, real transparency is a very rare thing in this world, that we won't perfectly overcome sin in this life to put it another way. Here are some applicable teachings, with the "old law" referring to the Old Covenant and the "new law" to the New Covenant:
1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, yet still imperfect. Like a tutor it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage.
1972
The New Law is called a law of love because it makes us act out of the love infused by the Holy Spirit, rather than from fear; a law of grace, because it confers the strength of grace to act, by means of faith and the sacraments; a law of freedom, because it sets us free from the ritual and juridical observances of the Old Law, inclines us to act spontaneously by the prompting of charity and, finally, lets us pass from the condition of a servant who "does not know what his master is doing" to that of a friend of Christ - "For all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you" - or even to the status of son and heir.31
The OP is about "we are not made righteous by doing righteous deeds". That is correct. We are made righteous by the grace of God, not by anything that we do. Otherwise, grace is not from God but from works, which is contrary to the New Covenant.
Should we discuss the OP or a side issue?
Is any of this necessarily opposed to the doctrine of Sola Fide?
That's not correct according to the bible:
1Jn_3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
Yes-and yet we're unrighteousness before being justified by God, when we turn to Him in faith.
fhansen said:So we don't begin with righteousness, just the opposite, in fact, because our so-called righteous would just be filthy rags at that point, and yet we're still obligated to be righteous -and act accordingly-under the New Covenant.
fhansen said:The answer is Jesus Christ, who takes away and purifies us from all sin, who reconciles us with God so that we now enter the communion with Him that we were made for. Then He places His law in our minds and writes it on our hearts' (Jer 31:33), or replaces our 'heart of stone with a heart of flesh' (Ez 26:36).
Did you read the post I responded to? This is not the Catholic position-and the teachings I quoted refute it:So you wrote to defend the position that you think is NOT that of the Catholic Church?
It's "Sola Fide" turned inside out. Luther understood it perfectly, but Catholics try to BE Richteous to establish FAITH, instead of Having FAITH, which results in Righteous acts.
It was about being righteous: sinless, producing good works, et al, which most certainly involves the law even though the law, itself, cannot possible accomplish that righteousness in us. And why would anyone suddenly begin to do good anyway, unless they've been changed, made new creations, made righteous in this new way? The Catholic position is only that such righteousness is now made possible via faith, introducing us to the life of grace, and that were still obligated to do it.But the discussion, this thread, was not about keeping the Law. It was about performing good works after justification.
Faith gains access to God, the only One who can save man. It's based on the personal knowledge of the true God whom Jesus came to exhaustively reveal:So, to be clear, what is your conclusion? That we are free to do good? If so, the question about Sola Fide seems to me to have been sidestepped. What in your reply says that it's by Faith that we are saved and not anything of ourselves?
What the OP was about is this:
Well, they do not. And that is the main point I was making in that most recent reply.Did you read the post I responded to? This is not the Catholic position-and the teachings I quoted refute it:
The fact is that Sola Fide means that we are saved by Faith, not by the good deeds that we perform. The Roman Catholic Church's position during Luther's time and still is or was during our own lifetimes is that both of those are effective in qualifying us for salvation. I also realize that the RCC has been changing a lot of its historic doctrines lately.One problem is that some interpret Sola Fide to mean that no amount of sin can separate us from God (and possibly that man cannot be more than a sinner anyway), rather than understanding that faith provides the means by which that sin can be overcome, thus keeping us in Him now rather than separated from Him, a death that sin would still earn.
BUT WHEN WE HAVE BEEN MADE RIGHTEOUS WE DO RIGHTEOUS DEEDS. Martin Luther
Catholicism would agree and maintains that this righteousness, that comes from God, alone, as we enter fellowship with Him through faith, also has an identity- defined mainly as love. And that we're in any case obligated to maintain and express this righteousness, an obligation which should present an easy enough burden since love acts, producing righteous deeds, by its nature.
Is any of this necessarily opposed to the doctrine of Sola Fide?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?