It has been interesting to follow and study both sides of the old debate - justification by faith alone/faith+works.

This thread is not to start any arguments but I do ask for serious, unbiased, thoughtful and gentle discussion on this subject.

If it does get out of hand, I hope that any posts that are turning into argumentum ad hominem posts be removed, or even the entire thread.

Ok, now to the discussion. This debate has caused me to study my bible harder. Now, I am no scholar, so I may very well have overlooked something but basically here's the main focus of my posting...

Protestants will declare that justification is by faith alone. Catholics will declare that justification requires both our faith and works.

Protestants will point to Romans to show that Paul says that we are saved by faith, not by works of the law. Catholics will refute by saying three things: (1) Romans is talking about the Mosiac Law, of which it is agreed cannot save us, however, works outside the Law can and do justify us. (2) The Book of James says that we are justified by works, not faith alone. (3) Luther added the word "alone" or "only" , in the verses in Romans referring to justification by Faith. The word never appears in the original Greek.

To which the protestant replies : (1) If the Mosaic Law which was the highest objective standard of God's righteousness cannot justify us, then how can our lesser works? (2) James is not talking about justification for our salvation, but rather justification before men. (3) Whether the word is added or not, the meaning of the verses still carry the connotation for the context, since works of the law cannot save us.

To which the catholic replies : (1) God has ordained through the one Holy Apostolic Church, certain sacraments which far exceed the Mosaic Law because they bestow graces from God. (2) When it says "and not by faith only in James", it is clear that this is talking about our salvation. It is to compliment the words of Paul. (3) Only the one Holy Apostolic Church has the grace given by God to infallibly interpret Scripture, including Romans and James. Furthermore, it is a serious offense to add words to Holy Scripture as warned in the Book of Revelation.

Now I come to my little insert here, and I'd like your comments...

James is frequently used by Catholics to support justification by works, and pointing to Abraham's example of being justified by works.

Well, I read the following passages in Romans, which actually deal with Abraham's justification by works, I will give the verses, add my little comment and then open it to the floor here.

Btw, thankyou all for the opportunity to dialogue. Also, if I have in anyway misrepresented the rcc or protestant position, I apologise and invite you to give a more accurate account. What I presented here was a basic understanding of what I perceive to be the two sides of the argument. Thankyou.

Romans 3:1-5

1. What then shall we say that Abraham our forefather according ot the flesh has found?

2. For if Abraham was justified out of works, he has something to boast in, but not before God.

3. For what does the Scripture say "And Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness."

4. Now the one who works, his wages are not accounted according to grace, but according to what is due.

5. But to the one who does not work, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted as righteousness.

To me, it appears that James speaking about Abraham's justification by works is dealt with here in Romans. Verse 2 says that if Abraham was justified out of works, he has something to boast in, but not before God.

Verse 4 shows that wages for the one who works are not accounted according to grace. If we are saved by grace alone, then it would seem that our works do not come into that equation.

So as not to be misinterpreted, I fully believe in the Christian life being full of good works, but such should be as a result of our love for the Lord, having been regenerated with His divine life. I do not think that doing works because you are afraid to lose your salvation are the kind of works that the Lord is looking for.

Again, if there are any bad assumptions or misrepresentations, I sincerely apologise. I'm open to discussion here and hope that whoever reads this thread will profit from it.

Thankyou.

-- Child_of_God (believer@church.com), May 13, 2004

Answers

Bump!

-- Child_of_God (believer@church.com), May 13, 2004.

Hello Child of God,

Protestants and Catholics agree that salvation is by God's grace alone. Here's a sketch of the two ideas:

Catholic:
Foundation: Grace
Means: Faith and Works

(Most) Protestants: Foundation: Grace
Means: Faith
Evidence: Works

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

*Sorry, I forgot to mention this. Works = works of grace (done by God's grace), not works of the law. Thus, faith and works are only possible because of God's grace to us.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), May 13, 2004.

"if Abraham was justified out of works, he has something to boast in, but not before God."

A: That is exactly right - which is why the Catholic Church has always taught that salvation is a free gift of God which cannot be earned or merited. Justification is not "out of" works; that is to say, works are not the essential CAUSE or MEANS of salvation. Faith and works, as the Bible repeatedly states, are the required, mutually essential means of ACCEPTING - not EARNING - the free gift of salvation. Since the Bible specifically states that faith without works CANNOT save anyone, there is no legitimate argument to support the idea that it can.

"If we are saved by grace alone, then it would seem that our works do not come into that equation."

A: If that were the case, it would seem that faith does not come into the equation either, since faith and works are both responses to grace on our part. But the fact is, salvation IS by grace alone, just as the Catholic Church teaches, because grace is what makes possible BOTH faith AND works of Christian charity, either of which, if lacking, would mean forfeiture of the free gift of salvation.

"I do not think that doing works because you are afraid to lose your salvation are the kind of works that the Lord is looking for."

Catholics don't do works because we are afraid to lose our salvation, any more than we have faith because we are afraid to lose our salvation. We have faith and do works as responses to grace - the Biblically necessary responses to grace, if grace is going to lead to salvation.

"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not TAKE CARE OF You?' Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not DO IT to one of the least of these, you did not DO IT to Me.' These will go away into ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matt 25:44-46)

If that isn't a description of forfeiture of salvation because of failure to do works, I don't know what could be. Note that "faith" or "believing" are not even mentioned here. But of course we know from other passages, and especially from the constant, unchanging, infallible teaching of the Church, which existed before the Bible came to be, that faith likewise is absolutely essential, and lack of faith will lead to forfeiture of salvation just as surely as lack of works will.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 13, 2004.

Greetings Child_of_God!

Thanks for starting this thread. I've already learned a lot by reading the posts.

This leads to another question that always seems to come up when discussing justification. Once justified, can we lose this justification of our own free choice? I think this may be related to both faith and works.

Forgive me if I misunderstand the term justification. I think of it as a term that describes one's relationship to God. One must be "justified" or in a state of "justification" in order to gain salvation and eternal life. As a Catholic I think of it as being in a state of grace, or friendship, in Christ. Am I missing something? Is it the same thing as what some people call "being saved?"

One more thing, it may be worth clearing up what exactly we mean by "faith." My understanding is that most Protestants include in the term faith (when used with justification) what Catholics would call hope and love. It's not just intellectual assent.

-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 14, 2004.

On Abraham in Romans:

We need to put this is wider context. Two wider contexts in fact. First, in this passage Paul is carrying on a longer argument focused against the Mosaic Law. If we read the next few verses we see he makes a comment (of the same focus as the Abraham one) about David than goes on to say:

9 Does this blessedness apply only to the circumcised, or to the uncircumcised as well? Now we assert that "faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness."

10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was he circumcised or not? He was not circumcised, but uncircumcised.

11 And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal on the righteousness received through faith while he was uncircumcised. Thus he was to be the father of all the uncircumcised who believe, so that to them (also) righteousness might be credited, 12 as well as the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised, but also follow the path of faith that our father Abraham walked while still uncircumcised.

13 It was not through the law that the promise was made to Abraham and his descendants that he would inherit the world, but through the righteousness that comes from faith.

Paul has been arguing against the idea that circumcision is neccesary or even helpful for salvation for 3 chapters, this is just the continuation of that point. The 'work' he is talking about is circumcision.

To take this point further we need to ask, is this event in Abraham's life where his faith begins? No. The book of Hebrews tells us that it is 'by faith' that Abraham headed out not knowing where he was going.

Paul's point in this passage is: justification is not a light switch that you just turn on by being circumcised, look at Abraham. This is the exact point that James is making: justification is not a light switch that you turn on by professing faith, look at Abraham.

The second wider context we need to look at is what Paul means by faith in the book of Romans. The very first time he mentions faith in Romans he says the purpose of the Apostles is to bring about "the obedience of faith" (Rom. 1:5). The very last time he mentions faith he says the gospel has been revealed to bring about "the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:26). These are like a giant set of brackets around the entire book of Romans. The faith that Paul envisions every time he talks of it in Romans is an obedient faith; a faith that does the will of God. Paul sees only two kinds of people, believers and evil doers. Look at chapter one 19-32. Then in 3:10 he quotes Psalm 14. How does 14 start, "the fool says in his heart there is no God." Then it goes on to say how horrible and nasty everyone is. You can't say Paul teaches justification by faith alone in Romans because he isn't thinking of a 'faith alone' type faith. This is true in chapter 3 and it is still true in chapter 4 with Abraham.

For a really deep look into this and all of Romans, I highly recommend Scott Hahn's tape series 'Romanism in Romans'.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 14, 2004.