Clarification On Christian Fundamentals

[jesussaves]

(This question is particularly to non-Catholics. I ask because I feel more and more estranged from Christians.)
Where does it say that the Catholic Church doesn't believe what other Christians believe regarding works and faith. That is, that works are required, but not that they save us. As James says, we must have works. As Luther said, we are saved by faith alone, but faith is never alone. I'm not sure the Catholic Church disagrees with these.

Where does the bible say that if you are not Christian, you will be damned?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I'd like to clarify what the Catholic Church believes, since you say you don't think the Church disagrees. I pull this lesson from my notes in Dr. Hildebrand's class on the sacraments at Franciscan University.

The Church teaches that Luther was wrong about sola fide. Not only are works to flow from faith (on this we agree with Luther), but the works that should naturally flow from faith are necessary for salvation (on this we disagree). This is not, however, an "earning" of salvation. The Catholic Church condemned that idea along with Pelagius. Earning salvation would imply that Christ's sacrifice was meaningless. We don't nullify Christ's sacrifice.

I believe that the problem really comes from the justification/sanctification distinction. Luther believed that the two were separate, that you get justified and then sanctified after the point of justification. Catholicism doesn't separate the two. The more we are sanctified, the more we are justified. This is because sanctification/justification is an increase in conformity to Christ. The minimal conformity of Christ for heaven is that we be in the state of grace, but grace can grow greater and greater in us, conforming us more and more to Christ. Protestantism seems to stop justification at this minimum and consider any growth in grace thereafter a sort of unnecessary, but good, sanctification. I think this is the root of many problems. Now, since conformity is a type of change, and all change is brought about by some sort of action or work, then work must be necessary for conformity to Christ, that is, for sanctification/justification. However, I would posit that faith is the reason for it conformity and work is the means, thus we believe in "faith acting through love." Because we have faith in Christ, and love Him, we wish to conform ourselves to Him. Therefore, our faith directs us to do whatever is necessary to be conformed to Him, faith itself being the first necessity, and we seek to live by that faith so that we may be conformed to Him, so we do works, minimally, we receive the Sacraments of Baptism and, having fallen again and again, Confession. Seeking greater conformity, we receive the Eucharist in order to be conformed to what we receive.

The reason for this necessity of conformity is that we are only participators in Christ. Protestantism seems to have the idea that we are each saved individually and directly. Catholicism has a more corporate sense. We know from the Scriptures that there is only one Son, one Priest, one Mediator, etc. Catholicism sees that the Son is the one who is principally saved from death in the Resurrection and the Son is the one who is principally brought into heaven. Therefore, we believe that in order to earn His inheritance, we must become co-heirs dependent on Him, not individual heirs equal to Him. Thus, we must be conformed to Him so that we are not only individually adopted sons, but, in a more fundamental and primary way, so that we participate in His Sonship and are one in Him and with Him. Thus, we become His members and, as His Body is taken to Heaven, we, His members, must also go with Him, for we are part of His Body. Thus, the greater our conformity to Him, the stronger our justification, because it is by being a member of His Body that we are justified and it is by increasing in this sanctification of conformity that we are justified. This is why some of the saints are incorrupt. The more you use your will for Christ, the more it is conformed to His will and becomes sanctified. The same goes for the mind. The same also goes for the body. The saints who were eloquent speakers have incorrupt tongues, because they exercised (worked) their tongues so much for the glory of God that their tongues were completely conformed to Christ's own incorrupt Body. The same goes for others; there are many, many saints with whole incorrupt bodies.

I believe this is really the crux of the salvation problem between Catholics and Protestants.

We believe that we are saved by faith acting (work) through love, to the conformity of our minds and wills and bodies, by knowing, loving, and serving God, and thus cooperating with His Son in His Sonship. In my opinion, it is a much fuller and deeper and intimate way of seeing salvation. However, as I've said, it's not work that saves us, but living faith, that is, faith which, acting through love, changes man for the better and sanctifies him so that he may be justified.

Anyway, I realize that this is off-topic, but I wanted to address that one little thing, just for your edification and understanding of the Church's teachings. If you're interested, PM me.

Back to the topic.

Edited October 6, 2006 by Raphael

[Thy Geekdom Come]

bump

[kdewolf2]

I'd say Martin Luther's doctrine of "salvation by faith alone" was a novelty previously unknown to Christians. St. Paul taught that we are saved by "faith," but while he often spoke of "works" in a negative fashion, he chiefly meant the ritual laws and ordinances of the O.T., which have become obsolete.

When certain antinomians in the early church began to teach that divine grace freed us from any moral restraints or obligations, St. James explicitly stated: we are saved by faith and "works." However, by works he did not mean the ritual laws and ordinances of the O.T., but the moral imperatives of the gospel, like helping the poor. In his mind, faith apart from such gospel imperatives was meaningless: literally "dead" and insufficient to save one's soul, no matter how sincerely felt it might be.

It's also clear, I think, from Jesus' own words, that obedience to moral laws, like the Ten Commandments, as well as gospel prescriptions like those found in Sermon on the Mount, are necessary to salvation. Now one could argue endless about the precise mechanics of how a person is changed from being condemned in God's sight to being saved, but in general I'd say it's pretty clear you cannot just "believe in Jesus" and expect to go to Heaven when you die: you have to put that faith into practice.

A facile Protestant might say, Well, of course you have to practice your faith, but if you don't practice your faith, that just shows your faith isn't real to begin with, but still it's chiefly the faith, and not the practice of it, that saves your soul. Not only is that largely a distinction without a difference, but Jesus himself often speaks as if "works" are the very things that save our souls.

I believe Protestants are unduly influenced by moral views that concentrate excessively on sins of weakness and personal vices like fornication and drinking which can be very hard to resist, so that notions like "faith alone" are more attractive and biblical doctrines like the necessity of works appear overly burdensome. For instance, Martin Luther seemed to have held that it was psychologically impossible for man to obey God, even when moved by divine grace, so that grace had to be more of a "cover" for man than an inspiration to do good. Significantly, though, he devotes most of his analysis to concupiscence, the lusts of the flesh. I'm not sure he'd have reached the same conclusion if he'd focused more on, say, Christ's mandate to show compassion to the poor and downtrodden.

*Not that the Christian is thereby given license to indulge in personal vices, but I think the necessity of works is more intelligible in the light of social obligations, which is what St. James chiefly laid stress on.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

You know, I wasn't trying to scare away an answer, just trying to clarify. Has nobody desired to debate this?

[jesussaves]

Your response Raphael shows the confusion of ideas in the Catholic Church. Does the CC disagree with protestant idea of faith or not? I thought others said that it does not, if those ideas mean that works are necessary, just not what saves. As you said, even the CC teaches you cannot in anyway merit salvation. I've also been told you can't even merit salvation with graced works. (works you could never do but for the grace of God) Except to say the graced works result in the necessary effects of your faith.

The distinctions you make with justification and sanctification then seem to be a matter of semantics. Even in protestantism, one must increase in sanctification or the faith is not true. If you call it increasing in justification, while we say justification has already been achieved, that only means that you are stressing the necessity of works. This sort of ties into the assurance of salvation issue I think. Because you teach you cannot be sure of salvation, you are more prone to say you must increase in justification. Because protestants are more hesitant to say that, they leave the justification at the initial conversion, and the sanctification still as necessary. I think though that most protestants would agree if you cornered them that you cannot be totally sure in an objective sense outside of your own knowledge of your faith that you are adequately saved forever. The bible does talk about those who think they are saved, but are not, or fell away etc. So in essence, I think most protestants could say we must increase in justification, but it wouldn't due justice to how we stress the situation.

I think the CC does not teach clearly when God looks at you if it's your faith that he looks at or the faith with those necessary works. Protestants say he looks at the faith alone, but that faith, mind you, must be one that results in works. I would tend to think the CC also teaches this, even if not explicitly, because if the CC taught God looks at the faith and the works that flow, then it would be teaching that you are saved by works as well.

I do note though, that even Catholics I tend to think are not in agreement with how God looks at your faith and works. I think there's enough ambiguity that this is possible. This is what causes the confusion and dispute between catholics and protestants, even if the dispute is unfounded.
If the CC does teach that God looks at the faith and the works, then I have simply been mistaken in the chaos that does tend to be catholic theology (not that it's necessarily wrong for that reason).


[quote]A facile Protestant might say, Well, of course you have to practice your faith, but if you don't practice your faith, that just shows your faith isn't real to begin with, but still it's chiefly the faith, and not the practice of it, that saves your soul. Not only is that largely a distinction without a difference, but Jesus himself often speaks as if "works" are the very things that save our souls. [/quote]
I would point to this sort of talk, compared with others here who say we are not necessarily different, as an example that even Catholics disagree with their own theology at the deeper level as to what exactly "works are necessary" means.

Edited October 12, 2006 by jesussaves

[jesussaves]

[quote]I think the CC does not teach clearly when God looks at you if it's your faith that he looks at or the faith with those necessary works. Protestants say he looks at the faith alone, but that faith, mind you, must be one that results in works. I would tend to think the CC also teaches this, even if not explicitly, because if the CC taught God looks at the faith and the works that flow, then it would be teaching that you are saved by works as well.

I do note though, that even Catholics I tend to think are not in agreement with how God looks at your faith and works. I think there's enough ambiguity that this is possible. This is what causes the confusion and dispute between catholics and protestants, even if the dispute is unfounded.
If the CC does teach that God looks at the faith and the works, then I have simply been mistaken in the chaos that does tend to be catholic theology (not that it's necessarily wrong for that reason).[/quote]

When I try to get Catholics to answer this, I get the run around. No one will answer it clearly. The best they do is just repeat that we are saved by faith through works without addressing the issues I raised in the quote or to a lesser degree of importance rest of the above post. Sometimes people will own up and say the CC does not specify exactly how we are saved.

[Maria]

I don't know, but to my mind the 'When God looks at you does He look at your faith or at your faith and works' question isn't the right question. This is just my response, but I'd say that He looks at how conformed we are to Christ, which involves a number of things.

Raphael?

[jesussaves]

This would be typical protestant ideals. If someone has a faith that results in works, that faith is saving. That faith only is what God looks at.

If the "faith" does not result in works, there's really nothing for God to look at as it was not really faith to begin with, or at least anything meritorious.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Maria' post='1089913' date='Oct 12 2006, 02:38 PM']
I don't know, but to my mind the 'When God looks at you does He look at your faith or at your faith and works' question isn't the right question. This is just my response, but I'd say that He looks at how conformed we are to Christ, which involves a number of things.

Raphael?
[/quote]

It's not "faith alone" nor "works alone" nor "faith and works," but "faith through works." Since we see from Scripture that it is Christ who is saved and that we must be conformed to Christ in order to be saved (that is, as St. Paul says, He is the heir and we are joined to Him to become co-heirs), then it makes sense that we must be co-workers with Christ (another point St. Paul emphasizes) in order to be saved. This means, in essence, not that it is faith or works, but that it is faith acting through love, in other words, a faithful cooperation with God by which the human being is conformed to Jesus Christ. This definition is much fuller because it really shows God's intent. God is not merely saving us from our sins (as great as that would be), but He is creating us anew and forming us into perfect images of Himself. Since Christ is the Perfect Image of the Father, it would make sense that this process consists of our being conformed to Christ. God has saved His Son. When He looks to the world, He sees it through His Son. When God looks upon the Christian, He sees an image of His Son, someone joined to and conformed, at least somewhat, to His Son, and He recognizes that that person is saved, because he is a branch that has been joined to the True Vine.

[quote]Your response Raphael shows the confusion of ideas in the Catholic Church. Does the CC disagree with protestant idea of faith or not?[/quote]

My response was quite straightforward. The Catholic Church agrees partially and disagrees partially with the Protestant idea. If you say that you need faith to be saved, the Catholic will agree. If you say that your faith can be a dead faith and result in no works (which I realize is not your position), then the Catholic will disagree because where there is no work, there can be no change, and where there is no change, there can be no conversion or conformity. If you say that you are saved by faith, the Catholic will agree, given certain qualifications. It is faith that saves, but the faith must be a living faith. What is living faith? It is faith that acts through love. Some Protestants cling to that word "acts" and see that Catholics believe in "faith and works," and I suppose in a sense it would be true, but not in a way that has "faith" and "works" as two separate things that must coexist for salvation. Rather, the action of faith is a sort of quality of living faith. Living faith acts. Dead faith does not. The problem arises in as much as Protestants seem to see faith as one thing and works as another, albeit related, thing, whereas Catholics see them as intrinsically bound up together. Works flow from faith, and without faith you cannot have meritorious works. For Catholics, it is not that God sees Joe Christian having faith and doing works in accord with that faith (although this is what he does), but that God sees Joe Christian having a living faith which conforms him to Christ, so that when the Father looks upon Joe, He sees His Beloved Son (as an aside, this is why Baptism is seen as necessary, because it is upon Baptism that the Father recognizes Christ as His Beloved Son, and so it is by Baptism that He recognizes the rest of us as the same, conformed to His Son and one with Him). So it is faith that saves, yes, and not works, but it is a living faith, that is, a faith which does works (that much most Protestants seem to agree with). The argument occurs on this level: are works a part of faith, intrinsically attached and therefore included when we say that man is saved by faith, or are they separate things which follow after faith? The Catholic position is the first, because a faith that does not have works is really no faith at all, and so faith must have works in order for salvation to occur, and those works are essential to salvation. That is why the Catholic Church says that faith saves, but that faith alone (understood as faith without works) does not save, because there really is no such thing as "faith without works." We say that faith saves because when we say "faith" we mean "living faith" and we say that faith alone cannot save because when we say "faith alone" we understand it to mean "dead faith." Such is the logical conclusion when your concept of faith necessarily includes as a trait that it is active.

[quote]The distinctions you make with justification and sanctification then seem to be a matter of semantics.[/quote]

Yes, it seems to lie in semantics at first. This is because the Church teaches that you grow in justification/sanctification, but you are "saved" at the point of minimal j/s, which is grace in the soul, and then must continue growth, while Protestants say you are saved, justified, by having grace in the soul, and that you must then continue in sanctification. However, the argument about semantics would probably end when we start talking about being "more justified." Since justification and sanctification are the same, you can continually grow in justification. Now, does that mean that you aren't saved if you only have a little justification? Or does it mean that if you are less justified than another, only your head and shoulders will be in heaven and the rest of you will dangle over the fires of hell? Of course not. However, consider an analogy. Let's say you're late to class and the teacher is going to give you a detention. You say, "there was a traffic accident I couldn't get by, I'm sorry," an he accepts the apology and lets you off the hook. You've been justified for being late. However, if you continued, "and my power went out, so the alarm clock didn't go off and I had to go fill up on gas because I didn't have enough to get here and then I got a ticket for speeding because I realized I was late," then the teacher would understand even more (although he hopefully wouldn't reward you for speeding) and see you as even more justified. You have taken on the image more and more of someone who is innocent. So it is with Catholic theology because of the matter of conformity. We are being conformed to Christ and therefore, as we are conformed to Him, we are remade more and more in His image (this is why we don't believe in OSAS, because we are being formed all through this life and can fall away again, justification for us isn't just a state, it's also a process), thus making us more and more justified in the sight of God, until, at long last, we begin to appear to others very plainly as if we were Christ, that is He shines through us. This is why some of our great saints receive the stigmata, because they are so very conformed to Christ that they begin to take on His wounds (which only conform them more to Him).

[quote]This sort of ties into the assurance of salvation issue I think.[/quote]

I would have to agree. Martin Luther was known to have suffered from scrupulosity, that is, a conscience that judges too harshly and sees perfectly fine things as sins. Thus, he was very big on assurance of salvation. It's a huge temptation to me, as I also suffer from scrupulosity, and I sympathize with Luther on this point, but I know that if I am in the state of grace, I'm saved. However, St. Paul spoke of "have been saved," "being saved," and "going to be saved," and I really think this emphasizes the process Catholics see in justification. Yes, it is a process. It can't just be a one time decision. This is why Christ tells us to take up our crosses daily. And as much as Luther hated the pain of his over-scrupulous conscience, if he had united it to Christ upon the cross and said, "my Lord, I offer this cross with you for the salvation of souls, not to add to your objective merit, for all the grace needed to save the world has already been earned, but to open myself more and more to that grace by allowing myself to be conformed to you and by offering this sacrifice on behalf of others, so that they may also be more easily opened to your grace," he would have been better off. I am still learning to do this.

[quote]If the CC does teach that God looks at the faith and the works, then I have simply been mistaken in the chaos that does tend to be catholic theology (not that it's necessarily wrong for that reason).[/quote]

I hope my above explanations have helped to clear this up. It's really not "faith and works," although looking at it from the outside, it's easy to say, "yep, look, they have faith and they insist on works, so they believe in faith and works," but it is really "faith through works" that we would call "living faith." It is not the faith alone without the works (in a negative sense), nor is it the faith without any regard to the works (in a neutral sense), but it is faith through works. This may be an area where the Catholic love of philosophy comes into play, but as I've said, since conformity is necessary, there must be a change, and work is always needed for a change to occur, however, it is not work that saves, nor the "faith that acts through the the work," but "faith acting through work," wherein faith and works are inseparable. It is living faith, working faith, faith acting through love.

[jesussaves]

I appreciate your response. It's the best I've had so far from anyone.

Given what you said, and even what I said above if I would have applied it to this below quote, I don't think this necessarily means what I thought it did. I'll let you speculate why I say that.

[quote]A facile Protestant might say, Well, of course you have to practice your faith, but if you don't practice your faith, that just shows your faith isn't real to begin with, but still it's chiefly the faith, and not the practice of it, that saves your soul. Not only is that largely a distinction without a difference, but Jesus himself often speaks as if "works" are the very things that save our souls. [/quote]


I hope we can agree that we are not necessarily different. I would have to agree we are saved by faith through works as you describe it. If I were to say that we are saved by faith alone, but that works must flow, that's an important thing to note that many protestants do not note. So, while I don't think the beleifs are necessarily different, the way you describe it I admit could be construed as better. Though I would have to say that someone could even miscontrue "faith through works" as to think they are earning their salvation. Both slogans can be sorely misconstrued and need explained. Given that, I'm not sure which is better to feed the masses.... I think I might tend to agree with you, as a matter of feeding the masses, but I'm not sure. I suppose anyone who does not determine what that means, or is not acting on their faith regardless, is probably not someone we necessarily need to worry about, but I'm not sure how to pursue that problem.

On a side note, I've been meaning to ask Catholics of their understanding, the true understanding, of their notion of atonement. Are you as knowledgable about that issue?

[phatcatholic]

i just wrote a post about faith and works on my blog. maybe it will be of some help to you:

[url="http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/10/eight-key-points-part-seven.html"]http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/10/e...part-seven.html[/url]

let me know if you have any questions about what i have written. if i don't respond soon, just send me a pm. i don't frequent the debate board very often, altho i am experienced in apologetics.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1090590' date='Oct 13 2006, 12:39 PM']
Though I would have to say that someone could even miscontrue "faith through works" as to think they are earning their salvation.[/quote]

I was going to answer this earlier, but wanted to provide the best possible answer and phrase everything just right. I think someone could try to misconstrue it as you have said, but I hope that you see Catholics don't believe they are earning salvation. That, of course, would be pelagianism, a heresy we condemned over a millennia ago.

What I do need to clarify is the difference between objective and subjective aspects of redemption. The first has to do with the earning of salvation by Christ. All of humanity is objectively saved, meaning not that each individual is saved, but that humanity in general is. Christ has offered Himself in atonement for all. The problem is that not every person has had the salvation offered by Christ applied to them. This is how Catholics view St. Paul's words of "making up for what is lacking in the sacrifice of Christ." We do not believe that we can add anything at all to objective salvation. It has already been earned and it is enough for the whole world for all time. We would not dare to presume to add to it or to earn salvation apart from it. However, we do believe in meriting grace on the subjective level, that is, inasmuch as we can cooperate with the placing of grace in our souls. It is important to note that the Church teaches that all initial grace comes from God without human merit (because we cannot be the first cause of our salvation, God has to offer it, He makes the first move, otherwise we would be pelagians).

A good analogy is to think of it as a sort of grace bank account. Christ has earned the objective value of the account (it's infinite) and He wants to give us everything we can possibly hold. So He's taking out the grace and He's trying to hand it out, but of course, He isn't going to force it on people. If they don't want it, He'll keep appealing to them to take it, but He won't force them. Now, that means that the grace is a gift from Him. Now, we all have a little pride that keeps us from accepting charity. That can be likened to our sins and our attachment to sin in general. Let's say we're only willing to receive 5 units of grace (this is an analogy, keep in mind, so let's just pretend that grace comes in some sort of standardized unit). It's a gift from Him, but of course, to accept it, we have to cooperate (stretch out our hands, accept it, etc.). To cooperate is an act of faith, it is living faith. If we just stood there and said, "sure, I'm grateful and I'll take it," but didn't reach out and open our hands, that would be dead faith (and the idea is so ridiculous that this is why I don't think Protestants believe that dead faith can save). Instead, the Catholic sees it not only as necessary to accept by an internal will and disposition of faith, but to act on the faith by reaching out to accept it. Now, let's not forget, He's offering us more as soon as we accept what we accept. We can reject the additional grace or accept it. If we are still too proud, then we won't. However, if we recognize that pride, then we will root it out and try to overcome it so that we can accept more grace from Jesus on the subjective level. That is how we merit grace on the subjective level. A faith-act, or an act of living faith, causes us to accept the grace Christ offers us freely. Thus grace is both a free gift from God and requires our cooperation. You see how that act is necessary, though?

Here is the section from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on meriting grace. I think it's good to use as a reference point:

-----------------------------

2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life." The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness. "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."

2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.

-----------------------------

That's it in a nutshell. I wanted to be especially careful to point out that Catholics do not believe that we start the process of justification by earning initial merit. All initial grace is pure gift from God without the merit of man. God inspires us toward conversion. However, after that point, we are able to cooperate with that grace, to open ourselves to the reception of more and greater graces (which remain objectively God's gift, since they are made possible through His sacrifice) through meritorious faith-acts. Because every good faith-act is also inspired by God (for every good comes from Him), even on the subjective level grace is primarily God's gift, although He cooperates with human faith acting through love.

[quote]On a side note, I've been meaning to ask Catholics of their understanding, the true understanding, of their notion of atonement. Are you as knowledgable about that issue?[/quote]

I'm probably not as knowledgeable (although I do know some things relating to certain topics of it, but I'm not certain which elements you wished to discuss), but I am trained (and being trained) in theological and catechetical thought, so I'd be willing and excited to explore the Catholic teaching with you, if you so please. I do have good Catholic resources on hand, so figuring it out shouldn't be too difficult.

God bless,

Micah

Edited October 13, 2006 by Raphael

[jesussaves]

I am beginning to second guess my agreement.

Sure, you must do good works. I might even agree that you must increase in good works, objectively. But isn't that simply increasing in santification, so as to not lose your justification? It's not increasing in justification, as that has been achieved at your conversion. So it's more about not losing it than it is about gaining or increasing in it.

Ultimately by doing good to not lose justification, you are still maintaining the justificatoin by your work, but to say you are increasing in justification by your works adds something to Jesus.

Your thoughts?

Edited October 24, 2006 by jesussaves

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1100131' date='Oct 24 2006, 04:48 PM']
I am beginning to second guess my agreement.

Sure, you must do good works. I might even agree that you must increase in good works, objectively. But isn't that simply increasing in santification, so as to not lose your justification? It's not increasing in justification, as that has been achieved at your conversion. So it's more about not losing it than it is about gaining or increasing in it.

Ultimately by doing good to not lose justification, you are still maintaining the justificatoin by your work, but to say you are increasing in justification by your works adds something to Jesus.

Your thoughts?
[/quote]
This hinges on the Catholic notion of what saves you. If we are saved by a one-time contract sort of deal, then it what you've just expressed would be obvious. However, since we are saved by being conformed to Christ, that conformity can deepen continually, thus making one more and more conformed (this is why Catholics, especially St. Francis of Assisi, preach an ongoing conversion all through life). Thus, while one may be saved for having the "minimum" amount of justification (which is conformity to Christ on the level of grace, that is, having grace in the soul), one can increase in justification, because justification is the measure of conformity to Christ, and conformity to Christ can increase. I think I used the example earlier, but it's been a while, so I'll repeat it:

Let's say you're late to class and the teacher is going to give you a detention. You say, "there was a traffic accident I couldn't get by, I'm sorry," an he accepts the apology and lets you off the hook. You've been justified for being late. However, if you continued, "and my power went out, so the alarm clock didn't go off and I had to go fill up on gas because I didn't have enough to get here and then I got a ticket for speeding because I realized I was late," then the teacher would understand even more (although he hopefully wouldn't reward you for speeding) and see you as even more justified.

Anyway...you are justified with the first excuse in as much as you are justified in a minimal way and off the hook (saved), but it your other excuses aren't just proving that you're more and more innocent (sanctified), rather, they are making the professor see you as more and more justified as well, even though you've already met the minimum.

Now, of course, we must also grow in this justification for another reason, namely, to build up defenses against Satan. I had a professor who said, "the spiritual life is like going backward up an escalator. You have to keep moving; you can't just stand there or you'll go the wrong direction."