Clarification On Christian Fundamentals

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1146365' date='Dec 20 2006, 12:40 AM']
Okay you can give some initial impressions for me. I have problems with the practicality of no mortal sins. I understand how if you have a mortal sin, you're not going to acheive full justification, as required with Catholic theology. It seems that you are having to be the one to turn to the Father, it's not Him calling you... at least not as much as in my brand of protestant theology. That is, in mine, we're clean, or at least saved, and whatever we lack, we are either covered with snow, or the bad parts of us are cut off. (that's one thing you could explain too, is it that Catholics can have larger pots/potential than others because they have more positive graces from the good they did? otherwise, in catholic theology, all must be justified inside and out, so how can anyone have different levels?) In my theology, the fact he justifies us regardless or a grave sin is good motive to return to him, out of gratitude. In catholic, it seems more out of fear that I would not sin. Of course, these reason I am giving are more subjective, as far as who's calling who, but if you could touch on that.

Also. I realize you shouldn't go calling every small sin a mortal sin, but even a lot of venial sins seems to warrant mortal category, that most people commit, even catholics. This is mainly because, to persist in venial sins is to commit a mortal sin to my understanding. So if I have a tendency to call my brother an idiot, or think it, even if I confess it, I know I am going to do it again. (remeber Jesus said even calling them that is wrong, but regardless this is just an example of a regularly commited venial sin. another issue would be if most should be mortal because of an indirect way such as saying "you idiot" is like murder, etc) That might be a bad example, pick any intentional sin that you commit regularly. You might lie to yourself and say you won't do it again, go to confession, but you always go back to it. You not only lied to yourself, but to God. Or if you had a truly good faith wish to everytime, but you always fail, the fact that you always do it seems to warrant mortal category, once you did it yet again? It's something that you're doing knowingly against God.

And as far as purgatory goes, that only cleans the temporal punishments to sin, not the actual sins. Even if they were venial sins, you cannot make up for them in purgatory to my understanding, and who doesn't have at least venial sins on them? Let alone mortal sins, which cannot be made in purgatory anyway.

I said a mouthful, reply to what you can.
[/quote]

Okay...so...in essence, mortal sin is a sin so grave that it's like another Fall...you are cut off completely from grace by mortal sin. It causes total spiritual death, where other sins only impair.

Because of its gravity, it assumes a few key things. In order to commit such a sin, one must do so knowing full well that it is a grave sin and also must do so with free will. These two, naturally, were present in the first Fall. Sins that don't have these characteristics to their fullest aren't enough to kill the life of grace in the soul because they come more from a weakness of mind or will that doesn't measure up, not from a choice from full knowledge and will that totally contradicts God.

Naturally, God calls back to Himself those who fall into mortal sin. We can't reach out to God unless He inspires us to do so. That is an act of grace, but it is a grace that works on us from the outside, rather than in us.

My example with the pots was more of a metaphor; naturally, an immaterial soul doesn't have physical dimensions. There are two things to be considered: 1) the greatness of justification in a soul (how conformed a soul is to Christ), and 2) the "size" of different souls.

1) The justification of a soul never reaches an upper limit. Since Christ is infinitely good, one can grow in that infinite good without end. This has to do with the removal of those things which get in our way, that is, the weeds that grow in the garden of the soul. By God's grace, we root them out, so that we may plant in their place the seed of the fruit of the tree of life.

2) Okay, let's take a newly baptized person. This person is completely filled with grace. That person retains, however, certain attachments to the world. If he was a lustful guy before, he will most likely struggle with temptations to lust (although he won't necessarily sin, if he acts in accordance with grace). So that guy is going to try to root out that lust by prayer (to seek God's help) and self-denial (to reject sensuality and learn that God, not creatures, is the ultimate fulfillment of all desire). In this way, he is rooting up the weeds mentioned in part 1. However, let's say that he meets a lovely young lady and decides to get married. This new situation gives him the chance to grow...it's a new situation for grace to enter in...it's like he isn't just rooting out weeds, but also buying new fields. A whole new part of the person opens up (this may have to do with the notion in Catholic theology/philosophy that a person exists in relation...new relationships means new facets to a person).

As for gratitude vs. fear, the Catholic goes to Confession out of love (ideally). Now, we can be forgiven if we seek forgiveness out of fear (we call this attrition), but it is better to seek it out of love (we call this contrition). If a Catholic is in mortal sin, he can still be affected by grace and led to conversion from the outside (as I said earlier). This would more likely be the realization that one has done wrong, the fear of having offending God, but the hope that He will forgive, the awe that He promises to forgive, etc.

No amount of venial sins equals a mortal sin, but they certainly lead the soul to mortal sin by weakening the person. One can't make a blanket judgment about individual cases of mortal sin because mortal sin depends on internal factors that can't be seen from the outside. However, having a habit of a certain venial sin (I tend to eat a little too much on occasion and also sometimes am uncharitable talking about certain people, however, never with the intention to ruin a reputation). We don't want to be half-hearted in the spiritual life, though. We must try to root out venial sin so that we are not led too far astray. One who knows that something is [b]gravely[/b] wrong and freely does it anyway is in a state of mortal sin. To be honest, I'd like to see more from the Church on what specifically qualifies as grave matter, but there are so many possible different situations that the Church simply could not address them all (we do know that homosexual activity, abortion, contraception, murder, slander [as I understand it, more than just saying bad things about a person, but rather going out of one's way to expose unnecessarily someone's faults or to lie about a person in order to ruin their reputation], etc. are grave matter). Mortal sin is a deliberate, free choice for what one knows with certainty to be evil.

As regards purgatory, one who dies in a state of mortal sin goes to hell. There is no way around that. One who dies in a state of venial sin is forgiven of those sins, but purgatory cleanses the soul of its attachments to sin and brings about purity in the soul in order to prepare it for heaven. Purgatory is therefore a very good, wonderful thing...a state of hopeful expectation and anticipation. It is hurtful, for sure, because ripping away attachments always hurts, but it also brings joy when one knows one is getting closer to God with that pain.

I hope this has helped. I appreciate this opportunity to find ways to state theology.

[jesussaves]

I am of the understanding that doing a venial, can lead to a mortal, if you have no desire to fix yourself. Such as if you swear a lot in anger. Is it the fact that a lot who swear thusly often have the "fundamental option" towards God? I note the irony in saying that, because the CC does not teach fundamental option. If you do a venial sin over and over, as it seems everyone does, then you're committing mortal sins. Is the fundamental option true for venial but not for mortal?

Is my assumption in the first sentence accurate?

Edited December 20, 2006 by jesussaves

[jesussaves]

And to be clear, are you saying that venial sins are forgiven at death? I have never heard that about Catholic teaching. Though I suppose it would have to be the case for anyone to be saved.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1146609' date='Dec 20 2006, 05:27 PM']
I am of the understanding that doing a venial, can lead to a mortal, if you have no desire to fix yourself. Such as if you swear a lot in anger. Is it the fact that a lot who swear thusly often have the "fundamental option" towards God? I note the irony in saying that, because the CC does not teach fundamental option. If you do a venial sin over and over, as it seems everyone does, then you're committing mortal sins. Is the fundamental option true for venial but not for mortal?

Is my assumption in the first sentence accurate?
[/quote]
The fundamental option, when carried to an extreme, is bad. There is something true about it, in as much as we do build up a tendency to choose for or against the good by what we do, but even if we do a great deal of good, yet commit one mortal sin and do not repent, we are damned (this is where the so-called fundamental option theory fails).

Anyway, a venial sin can never itself become a mortal sin. However, venial sins can make one more and more inclined toward evil until the conscience is numbed to mortal sin. To clarify, an act that is a venial sin will never become mortal, but it may lead to future acts which are mortal. Ultimately, it depends on the will of the sinner.

That said, it is not necessarily the case that those who commit venial sins repeatedly are committing mortal sins. The previously mentioned conditions must be present. It is not enough that the person has a pattern of committing the act. In fact, one could argue that the habitual nature of a sin may lessen its degree of seriousness, since addiction (which may be the cause of the habitual act) inhibits free will by introducing a sort psychological self-coercion. As stated, full knowledge and free will are both necessary. Against full knowledge, one could be ignorant, uncertain, unaware, etc. Against free will, one could be drugged, coerced, driven by overwhelming, unthinking passion, or could simply commit an accident (I got quite tipsy once...didn't have any intention to do so, just honestly didn't realize that I hadn't eaten anything in 8 hours).

[jesussaves]

to be clear, are you saying that venial sins are forgiven at death? I have never heard that about Catholic teaching. is there a citation to this?

i even wonder if there's a citation to all you're saying. but i think most of what you're saying could be argued as a natural consequence of definitive church teaching. though i think it may be possible to take definitive church teaching in another direction. [quote] to be clear, are you saying that venial sins are forgiven at death? I have never heard that about Catholic teaching. is there a citation to this?

i even wonder if there's a citation to all you're saying. but i think most of what you're saying could be argued as a natural consequence of definitive church teaching. though i think it may be possible to take definitive church teaching in another direction. [/quote]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1146867' date='Dec 21 2006, 10:45 AM']
to be clear, are you saying that venial sins are forgiven at death? I have never heard that about Catholic teaching. is there a citation to this?

i even wonder if there's a citation to all you're saying. but i think most of what you're saying could be argued as a natural consequence of definitive church teaching. though i think it may be possible to take definitive church teaching in another direction.
[/quote]

The Church doesn't bother to define every detail until the issue heats up. What we know for certain is that somewhere between death and heaven, venial sins are forgiven (it necessarily follows). At what point they are forgiven could be up to debate, but we know they are forgiven somewhere in there. I tend to think that they are forgiven at the moment of death and that their temporal punishment is then carried out in purgatory. I don't know of any definition from the Church on when this occurs, though.

As for citations for what I'm saying, well, much of it is theology that follows from definitive points of Catholic teaching which can be found in Catholic theology. I'm a catechist; part of my job is to take a doctrine, break it down inductively into its main points (which one can find in the Catechism, just not all in one place), string them together, and build them back up deductively into a conclusion which is an approach to a doctrine from an angle where my audience can best see the truth and beauty of the doctrine. Basically, I examine doctrine, find the main points, and contruct a lesson based on those points, making them relevant, all pointing to the truth of the doctrine. That's whay I've been doing through this whole thread. So the Church does teach all these things, but often they aren't synthesized in this way...they're more broken up and need to be led to their conclusions and synthesized together, as you said. One can't take definitive Church teaching in another direction without contradicting some other defined point of Church teaching.

[jesussaves]

I'm not sure how to take the faith and works thing. Here is my mind..

On the one hand, one thing. it is better I would agree to say someone who is on the inside and out justified is really justified, as opposed to legally justified when on the inside they are dung.

On the other hand, three things. can we really expect to ever justify ourselves, even with God's grace, if the underlying chooser is ourself? Maybe, but it's hard to believe. The other is that passage, I think from Galatians, that said.... "it is by grace that you are saved, not of works, lest any man should boast". Now, I know you'd say it's not completely works, as that's Peligianism, but it's faith and works by the grace of God. And cause of that grace, the passage is legit with the Catholic position. That does seem to me to be stretching the passage, in fancy footwork. But I admit it's possible. Also, if the atonement of legal justification is true by Aquanis, then we don't need to justify ourselves, we can be justified by God's legal work, yet we are still expected to increase in holiness.

I'm not sure which position is true. They are both noble.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1148067' date='Dec 23 2006, 11:42 AM']
I'm not sure how to take the faith and works thing. Here is my mind..

On the one hand, one thing. it is better I would agree to say someone who is on the inside and out justified is really justified, as opposed to legally justified when on the inside they are dung.

On the other hand, three things. can we really expect to ever justify ourselves, even with God's grace, if the underlying chooser is ourself? Maybe, but it's hard to believe. The other is that passage, I think from Galatians, that said.... "it is by grace that you are saved, not of works, lest any man should boast". Now, I know you'd say it's not completely works, as that's Peligianism, but it's faith and works by the grace of God. And cause of that grace, the passage is legit with the Catholic position. That does seem to me to be stretching the passage, in fancy footwork. But I admit it's possible. Also, if the atonement of legal justification is true by Aquanis, then we don't need to justify ourselves, we can be justified by God's legal work, yet we are still expected to increase in holiness.

I'm not sure which position is true. They are both noble.
[/quote]

Well, I also agree, of course, that justification is better considered true justification inside and out than a mere legal condition being met. Let's look at the three points in your second paragraph:

1. You bring up that we can't justify ourselves if we're the underlying chooser. If I get your meaning, then this is based on a more Protestant view of man, i.e. that he is totally or fundamentally corrupt and thus incapable of choosing the good. The problem with this is that it doesn't come out in human experience. Even before anyone had the grace of Jesus Christ in their souls, mankind did good things...Abraham was not under the covenant of Christ, yet his faith was credited to him as righteousness. Now, faith is a gift from God, but as I've shown, there must be an acceptance of it and a using of it, otherwise, God is forcing it on us. How did Abraham, without grace in him, choose the good and believe? It is because man, while damaged in a very big way by the Fall, is not totally corrupt. I'll pose a thought to you...if the sun and the stars and the moon, the day and the night, the sky and the seas, the land and the vegetation and the beasts of the field...if all of these are good, yet do not have supernatural grace in them, how is it that man, having lost supernatural grace, is bad? Man is created by God...with or without grace, he is still intrinsically good, since he is God's creature. Jesus Christ Himself tells His yet unsaved followers that they are worth more than many sparrows. If God calls all the birds of the air good, but says that we are worth more, even without grace, what does that say about our fallen state? Now, don't misunderstand me, heaven is certainly out of our grasp without grace, but our nature is not so fallen as not to be able to choose God with God's help. Then, though, I mention God's help, and you might say, "but right there, God is the first mover...does one accept God's help from the outside in acepting God's grace on the inside?" This is why our theology distinguishes between types (functions, really) of grace: actual and sanctifying. Actual grace is that which helps to lead a person to act in ways that will bring them closer to God...closer to getting sanctifying grace, which is grace in the soul. Clearly, God has to be the first mover in any restoration or salvation of fallen man (we can't get it without Him...we wouldn't even think of salvation without His inspiration), but He does this by acting first on the soul from the outside to help show it the way...the soul must cooperate with this grace as well, although it is less direct and far less likely that the soul knows it is God who is leading.

Anyway, back to human nature...we know that even fallen man has the use of reason (although it is impaired) and the use of will (it's also impaired). We know this because there are atheists who may be brilliant men on the natural order (not on the supernatural) or may live naturally virtuous lives (but lack in supernatural virtue). When God moves us by actual grace from the outside to see certain things, He usually works slowly...directing our attention to some bit of truth we must recognize, for instance, that there is indeed a higher power, He gives us the grace to accept that. Once the person has accepted that, God may direct them to some other truths or may move the heart to wish to be joined to that truth and to live in it...ultimately, God will direct them to Himself and His Church. However, even in this case, as you can see, the person must cooperate...although he may not realize exactly what it is he's cooperating with.

2. The verse you mention from St. Paul is an interesting one. I'd always understood his reference to works to be a reference to the works of the law, as in the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law, St. Paul saying that they have no salvific power. However, applying them to the more general concept of works, it would appear at first glance that he's against Catholic teaching. This is until we realize exactly what Catholic teaching is. If, as Catholics say, faith must be lived out in works and that faith has no form except works (faith is like a soul, works are the body, the form, of that faith, as St. James said), then we can read St. Paul in a different light. Catholics do not say that, in order to be saved, you must meet two conditions: faith and works...rather, we say that you must have faith in works; it is an acting faith that saves...and this is the case because there is no other kind of faith but an acting faith (faith without works is dead). Read with that in mind, St. Paul can clearly be seen as saying that it is by faith ("acting faith" being St. Paul's meaning, since St. Paul would assume that his readers knew that the only kind of faith was an acting faith) that you are saved, not by works ("works without faith" being St. Paul's meaning, since there were some who were trying to be saved simply by doing as Christians do without believing as Christians believe). In other words, if you read the verse with the assumption that St. Paul had in mind the Catholic definition of faith, it becomes clear that St. Paul meant faith acting through love but simply said faith because there was no need at the time for him to clarify exactly what he meant by that and which stipulations (i.e. living faith) were required for the presence of real faith. He simply said "faith" because he meant true faith, living faith, faith which acts, and thus he meant "faith brought to life in acts," which clearly would mean faith with works. Likewise, he simply said "works" because he meant works that have no faith. The assumption in his mind was that faith necessarily included works...it was carried out in works...but that works didn't necessarily come from faith. Thus, by referring to faith, it is natural to assume that he means living faith, since that is the only kind of faith there is, whereas by works, it is natural to assume that he means dead works, since there are two kinds of works, living and dead, and it is only living faith-works that can save.

3. Aquinas' legal satisfaction, as I understand it, only covers the objective. I think St. Thomas would be the first to say that the objective redemption brought about in Christ needs to be brought into the soul as well, i.e. subjective redemption. That is where cooperation with grace comes in, i.e. faith acting through love. Humanity is objectively saved through Christ's sacrifice on the cross because Christ offered Himself for all sins and thuse the payment covered all sins. However, subjectively, not all humanity is saved, because some do not have a living faith which seeks to bring that objective salvation into the individual soul. Protestantism oftentimes tries to say that Christ's legal satisfaction to the Father redeems the individual who will accept that Christ paid for him...but [b]merely[/b] accepting that Christ did it is really a dead faith...it's a faith that simply believes that something happened (I believe Christ died for me, so I'm saved), not one that places trust in Christ and seeks to live for Christ. We differentiate between what's called the [i]fides quae[/i] and the [i]fides qua[/i] in Catholic theology. The first is the faith which...it's the actual fact that Christ came to save us...the second is the faith by which...it's the actual virtue of faith, the living faith in a soul which saves. A lot of Protestantism says that you have to accept the faith (fides quae) by praying a sinner's prayer and acknowledging that Jesus died for you (an initial form of fides qua), but that afterward, you are saved, and you simply need to grow in holiness. It's an idea that all of Christ's salvific merit is brought into the soul at once, simply on the basis of the fact that one acknowledges that Christ died for them...but if all Christ's infinite merit comes to a person at once, they would be sinless...and that simply doesn't happen, although I've heard some more fundamentalist leaning Christians claim that it does happen that way. Another idea is that, while the individual remains a sinner and continues to sin, they are saved by the legal merit of Christ being applied to them...but that doesn't make much sense either, since God isn't a minimalist...if God wants to save humanity, it's not just going to be a little fancy work tinkering with the numbers in the book of life...he's actually going to restore and purify a soul (thus all the imagery of the potter and the clay, the silver refiner, the gold in the furnace, etc., in Scripture). Now, if all of Christ's saving merits are only applied on the outside of the soul (like snow covered dung), then God isn't doing all He can do. Futhermore, if that's all there is to it, then God really is just altering the records; not actually saving man, but simply accounting guilty man as innocent...that's not just and it's not honest. God actually wants to make us really and truly innocent. Therefore, this subjective dimension is necessary, so that, by inspiring in us the virtue of faith (fides qua) which accepts, believes, and lives by (cooperation of living faith) the faith (fides quae) with the help of God's grace, we may be purified and refined like gold in a furnace or bleached whiter than any fuller on earth could make us...in order that God may make us worthy to enter heaven...that is, that God, by aiding our weak nature with supernatural grace, may make us able to dwell in heaven.

God bless,

Micah

[jesussaves]

You mentioned a point that I didn't so I will address it. All I mentioned is graced works. You are saying the faith works is what saves. So he naturally must have meant the works that he mentioned were not with faith. But, he could have implied when he said faith that it must have works, but that the works do not justify, which technically the Catholic Church teaches. That later interpretation is more straightforward, to my bias I suppose, but I couldn't argue if you said yours was the most straightforward.

Abraham wasn't doing works of the Law, he was doingwhat the Father asked.
[quote]What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [/quote]

But this all boils down to how to reconcile the passages that seem to conflict.
[quote]Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
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.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. [/quote]

Reconciling them with your interpretation versus mine. Your interpretation would say the James passage refers to works only, and that would make the Romans passage make sense. My interpretation would say the Romans passage refers to him doing works that are necessary and he was therefore justified, but not that the works justified, and the James passage referred to thinking the works that are neceessary if you are justified.


I would agree that the bible says works are necessary, and even stresses it. But so many emhpasize believing, so that's what I think the Protestant is the best, though I will have to pray about it.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8-9)

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

Acts 16:31: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved."

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."


I've thought about how mortal sins intertwine with this, and have come to no firm conclusion. I will have to think about how falling away can work into this. Most protestant theology says you are justified at conversion, so how can you ever fall away? You couldn't to most. But I am one who says the plain meaning is that you can fall away. So if you are justified, how can you fall away? I guess your interpretation would make it make sense more, because you were never fully justified, but were only working on it. Then I could argue the one who fell away is never had real faith or was justified to begin with, but at this point I admit I seem to be stretching it. This may prove fatal to my theory, but I will have to think more about it.

[jesussaves]

But note, even that passage from James, which is notoriously a Catholic used passage, says
[quote]Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham [b]believed[/b] God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. [/quote]

I think this post was important though, to draw attention to this issue of the bolded area.
That could mean he believed and that's what mattered. The works only justified him in my thoery that says you have to have works. Of course, your theory is still possible that he believed and his works caused him to increase in justification, whichw ould be supported by the first sensetence.
Straightforwardly, he believed God, and that's what mattered, even in this passage.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Again, I say that St. Paul understood "faith" to be inclusive of the works which flow from faith, since there is no such thing as faith without works. Therefore, St. Paul's only usage of the word "faith" is the meaning of the phrase "living faith" or "faith lived out in work." Now, contrast with that what St. Paul (and, I would argue, the other NT writers) meant by "work." When they talk about work by itself, they mean work without faith.

Now read those passages you listed again:

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." -James 2:21-26

Now, in this passage, St. James says that Abraham was justified by works, but it is clear from what he says later that these works flowed from and completed his faith...so it was a faith-lived-out that saved. It was because of his good works that we could say he had faith, because only one with faith would do the things Abraham had done and one who would not do those things would not have had faith. Therefore, what St. James is saying is that faith alone doesn't exist...faith, by its very nature, acts through works. Therefore, faith-works justify, because living faith justifies. When St. James speaks of work in this context, it is clear that he is discussing faithful works and not dead works.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast." -Ephesians 2:8-9

St. James appears to differ from St. Paul here, but not really. St. Paul is speaking of a different kind of works, clear from the context, since he creates a dichotomy between them. If we know that faith and works are not opposed, but are both necessary, yet St. Paul seems to say that works are not necessary, then it must be concluded that St. Paul is not talking about works in the same way as St. James. Rather, St. Paul is assuming the same relationship that St. James believes about faith and works, which is detailed above. Thus he says that we are saved through faith (he understands this to mean living faith and doesn't bother to define terms) and not through works (in this context, since he sets works in opposition to faith, it is clear that he is not talking about faithful works, but different works...works of the law, particularly circumcision). Because of what St. Paul means by "faith" and "works" in this passage, it is not at all against what St. James says; quite the contrary, it helps clarify, by showing that works must flow from faith, the faith in a New Covenant and not from the legalistic obedience to a now fulfilled law (although, one must be clear that that obedience was righteous in its time, but no longer, despite what some of the Ephesians were saying). Some members of the Church at Ephesus had been claiming that the converts from paganism had to be circumcized. St. Paul was saying that living faith (faith acting through love) saves, but not circumcision or works of the old law.

"Then he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" And they said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you and your household will be saved." So they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once. He brought them up into his house and provided a meal and with his household rejoiced at having come to faith in God." -Acts 16:30-34

Now, in this passage, it is clear that Sts. Paul and Silas meant that he must have faith, but here their definition is the same...to have faith is to live the faith. Thus, it does not ever say that the guard believed the word they spoke; rather, it says that they were Baptized and then it says that they had (past tense) come to faith in God...when did that faith-filled moment come? It came in their willingness to act in faith and thus in their very act of faith, that is, in that they were baptized (it should be clear that the will to be baptized and making the effort to be, even if it is unable to happen, is saving; thus the Church always considered those who expressed a desire to be baptized as saved, but even expressing this desire is an act and as such is the beginning of faith). To be baptized is a work, but it shows that there is faith...it is living faith, faith acting through love. To believe is the requirement provided for salvation...they fulfill this requirement by acting in faith, that is, by being baptized. To have faith is to live the faith.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life." -John 3:16

St. John also has no conflict with this definition of faith, if you simply accept that for the Early Christians, it was a no-brainer that faith had to be lived out or else it was not faith at all. Therefore, by "faith," all the early Christians simply meant "living faith" or "faith-lived-out." That is why St. James provides such a great insight...his writings lead to no other conclusion and help us to see what their definition of faith was.

I would argue that it was not until much later, when philosophy started to see a dichotomy between thought and action, that the idea of faith as separate from works (albeit that they believe faith led to works) began to develop. Thought and movements of the will are only fancy unless they become embodied in action. You can "want" to believe all you wish, but until you will to believe, you do not believe...that is, until you make the choice to believe...and, as we know, choices are a living out of a thought. Naturally, to choose faith requires that you live by faith. Therefore, it is the living by the faith, not just the idea of faith, that saves. Our Lord did not say, "come, look at my cross and acknowledge it, and you will be saved." He said, "come, take up your cross daily and follow me and you will be saved." First, God reveals His truth to us, then we, by virtue of faith, accept it by living it out in our daily choices and actions. Our intention to act upon it without acting upon it is not enough (unless the reason we can't act upon it is that, say, we die at the very moment that we first intend to act upon it, in which case God has mercy because He knows that we would have acted upon it, had we been given the opportunity). Naturally, there are certain acts of faith which are laid out by God as necessary for salvation, i.e. Baptism, avoidance of mortal sin, etc. This is because these are His chosen means of communicating grace to us as a response to our living faith. Thus, the living faith is a gift and the salvation which comes because of the faith is a gift. These are the things which faith absolutely demands and without which none can be saved. Faith also absolutely demands our very best, but we are often unable to fulfill this demand and the life of grace in us is damaged, but not completely destroyed, unless we commit mortal sin.

[jesussaves]

You can reconcile James given Paul, or Paul given James. I realize Jesus didn't say "come acknowledge me", but you could still say as long as you acknowledge and have some works your faith is sufficient.

I really don't know how to respond. I do acknowledge Jesus often spoke of the requirements of works, and never really said faith is enough in so many words. It again goes back to how to reconcile the passages, but the fact its set up that way in the gosples is something to consider.

I would point out one more thing. James says..
"Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" Matthew
which you could imply as saying he had faith, but the works made his faith perfect. The faith may or may not be saving without it, and very possible not without out, but it's there you could argue.

I would tend to argue that, especially given the notion that we are expected to at some point be perfect, which seems unreasonable. Though, I must say today I heard a passage, "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Seems pretty straigtforward, even if the other gosples weren't as stringent as this one. )Luke says "be merciful, instead of perfect)

Edited December 24, 2006 by jesussaves

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1148734' date='Dec 24 2006, 01:11 PM']
You can reconcile James given Paul, or Paul given James. I realize Jesus didn't say "come acknowledge me", but you could still say as long as you acknowledge and have some works your faith is sufficient.

I really don't know how to respond. I do acknowledge Jesus often spoke of the requirements of works, and never really said faith is enough in so many words. It again goes back to how to reconcile the passages, but the fact its set up that way in the gosples is something to consider.

I would point out one more thing. James says..
"Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" Matthew
which you could imply as saying he had faith, but the works made his faith perfect. The faith may or may not be saving without it, and very possible not without out, but it's there you could argue.
[/quote]
You seem to have discovered something very important...the Scriptures don't interpret themselves. This is why we don't believe in Sola Scriptura. The Scriptures were written from what was passed from God to the faithful and the Scriptures were themselves on form of handing down the faith...the intention of the writers isn't always clear because they often assumed that the audience understood their meaning, because their audience already had the context...that's why we interpret Scripture in light of the Tradition. By seeing what interpretations were handed on to us in Tradition, we can better understand the Scriptures...by seeing what the Scriptures say about the faith, we can better understand Tradition...they are both sources of Revelation...if you take one away, you can't see the other with complete clarity.

[quote]I would tend to argue that, especially given the notion that we are expected to at some point be perfect, which seems unreasonable. Though, I must say today I heard a passage, "Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Seems pretty straigtforward, even if the other gosples weren't as stringent as this one. )Luke says "be merciful, instead of perfect)[/quote]

The following is merely my own insight and not something I've heard or been taught, but it is in line with Catholic teaching and sort of flows necessarily from it...I've just never heard it formally taught. A better translation might be "become complete." "Perfect" literally means, "made thoroughly," or "made complete." Given the context of the call to be perfect, I would think that Christ is referring more to the need for us all to be complete and love completely. He was talking about loving both good and bad, friend and enemy, so it seems that "perfect" or "complete" in this sense is referring to the quality of being even-handed in love. In other words, it's a perfect of harmony with others. Now, in Catholic philosophy, we understand that a fundamental trait of a person is to be in relation to others...so if you are supposed to have perfect harmony with others, it will correlate with your own internal perfection. Anyway, my point is that this isn't so much demanding that people be perfect here and now, but that they learn to love all people as God loves all, so that they may individually and as community acheive a sort of perfection of harmony.

Further, while I've only heard this from theologians and can't verify it myself, the word in the Greek of the Gospel actually means "become perfect," not "be perfect," thus Christ is telling us to strive for perfection, not to lose sleep over being imperfect, but to keep perfection as our ultimate goal. That, in fact, further advocates the Catholic position on salvation, which is that the person actually becomes better (ultimately perfect), rather than having goodness attributed to him.

Anyway, I'm going to let this sit for a couple days, given Our Lord's Nativity. Have a blessed end of Advent and a Merry Christmas. May Our Lord bless you abundantly.

God bless,

Micah