Justification by faith apart from works and Justification by faith and works are seamlessly combined in the Catholic Sacramental System.

Justification by faith apart from works succinctly describes the Sacraments of Baptism, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Anointing and Eucharist.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacraments are Works of God:
740 These "mighty works of God," offered to believers in the sacraments of the Church, bear their fruit in the new life in Christ, according to the Spirit. (This will be the topic of Part Three.)

987 "In the forgiveness of sins, both priests and sacraments are instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only author and liberal giver of salvation, wills to use in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification" (Roman Catechism, I, 11, 6).


These Sacraments impart grace to the extent of one's faith:
The Church teaches that the effect of a sacrament comes ex opere operato, by the very fact of being administered, regardless of the personal holiness of the minister administering it.[3] However, a recipient's own lack of proper disposition to receive the grace conveyed can block the effectiveness of the sacrament in that person. The sacraments presuppose faith and through their words and ritual elements, nourish, strengthen and give expression to faith.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrame...atholic_Church

Justification by faith and works is the preparation of man for the reception of grace in the Sacraments:
2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:" Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing. CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2001 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2001.htm)

An adult who converts to the faith of Jesus Christ, must justify himself in preparation for the Sacraments by performing works worthy of penance. He performs these good works by exercising faith in God. Just as we exercise our muscles, this strengthens his faith making him more open to receive the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit which transforms him according to his faith. He is then sent out again to continue doing the works which God prepared for him from the beginning of time and continue to exercise and enlarge his faith so that he becomes more open and properly disposed to receive more Sanctifying grace which is imparted by the Sacraments.

Which is completely consistent with Scripture which says, only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13) apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28).

What say you?

Which is completely consistent with Scripture which says, only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13) apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28).

What say you?

I would say that the above is subject to volumes of debate.

Tut

Yes, there have been volumes of debate, however most Christians agree with the basic idea: Justification is by faith, and works are the evidence.
James 2:20.

I would say that the above is subject to volumes of debate.

Tut

That's why I posted it in this section.

Yes, there have been volumes of debate, however most Christians agree with the basic idea: Justification is by faith, and works are the evidence.
James 2:20.

I agree that works are the evidence of faith. But your statement could be construed to mean that works are the evidence of justification. That isn't what you mean, is it?

In ethics, intrinsic teleological theories claim that actions should be judged by the goodness or the badness of their consequences.

Consider the above in light of Romans 3:20

For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law. Since through law comes knowledge of sin.

The big question is, which law is Paul referring to? I don't think it matters as all laws of the time (secular or otherwise) would have been heavily influenced by deontological principles. Roughly speaking, the adherence to rules and duties regardless of their consequences.

I think Paul is criticizing the idea that absolute standards of morality need to be imposed from the outside. I think there are some good arguments in relation to this. Paul is putting forward some type of natural law theory in an attempt to overcome some of the difficulties of rule based ethics.

Basically, the idea that moral standards that govern human behaviour are in some sense objectively derived from human nature and the nature of the world. On the other hand, strictly sticking to 'a law' creates an ethical problem, not least of all 'The Euthyphro Dilemma'. I think Paul and St. Thomas recognized this as an important area of debate.

It could be suggested that a deontological position is not in conflict with natural law theory. In other words, Paul was declaring how a sinner could get right with God through faith and the natural law. James on the other hand would probably say that a saved person could show their faith was real through works.

Are these ideas contradictory?


Regards

Tut

A

I agree those are the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Yes, there have been volumes of debate, however most Christians agree with the basic idea: Justification is by faith, and works are the evidence. James 2:20.
I agree if, in fact, you mean what Eph. 2:8,9 says, justification ("grace") is a gift from God, with no effort or work on our part. Works are then our thank you to Him. We do not participate in the act of justification; it has been done for us and apart from us.

In ethics, intrinsic teleological theories claim that actions should be judged by the goodness or the badness of their consequences.

Consider the above in light of Romans 3:20

For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law. Since through law comes knowledge of sin.

The big question is, which law is Paul referring to? I don't think it matters as all laws of the time (secular or otherwise) would have been heavily influenced by deontological principles. Roughly speaking, the adherence to rules and duties regardless of their consequences.

I think Paul is criticizing the idea that absolute standards of morality need to be imposed from the outside. I think there are some good arguments in relation to this. Paul is putting forward some type of natural law theory in an attempt to overcome some of the difficulties of rule based ethics.

Basically, the idea that moral standards that govern human behaviour are in some sense objectively derived from human nature and the nature of the world. On the other hand, strictly sticking to 'a law' creates an ethical problem, not least of all 'The Euthyphro Dilemma'. I think Paul and St. Thomas recognized this as an important area of debate.

It could be suggested that a deontological position is not in conflict with natural law theory. In other words, Paul was declaring how a sinner could get right with God through faith and the natural law. James on the other hand would probably say that a saved person could show their faith was real through works.

Are these ideas contradictory?

No.

St. James and St. Paul do not contradict. Although perhaps they thought they were contradicting each other. However, they are simply speaking about justification from two perspectives. St. Paul himself touches upon both perspectives in his own writings. For instance, he says:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


Note how this verse coincides perfectly with St. James:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Therefore, both are saying that works bring us to perfection. They are an exercise of faith which is the only thing which disposes us to the grace of justification.

And in the New Testament economy, that grace is given through the Sacraments. No works necessary. Because the Sacraments are the work of God.

Does that make sense?


Regards

Tut

A

Sincerely,

De Maria

No.

St. James and St. Paul do not contradict. Although perhaps they thought they were contradicting each other. However, they are simply speaking about justification from two perspectives. St. Paul himself touches upon both perspectives in his own writings. For instance, he says:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


Note how this verse coincides perfectly with St. James:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Therefore, both are saying that works bring us to perfection. They are an excercise of faith which is the only thing which disposes us to the grace of justification.

and in the New Testament economy, that grace is given through the Sacraments. No works necessary. Because the Sacraments are the work of God.

Does that make sense?



Sincerely,

De Maria


Hi De Maria,

Yes, it does make sense. However, in the end I think justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality being (as you demonstrate) looked at from two different perspectives.

In this respect intrinsic finality is an end in itself, not a means to some other end. Some other end outside of us would require an extrinsic explanation. Saying that works brings us closer to perfection could be seen as an intrinsic justification only if it is a claim of self-perfection. Such a claim might have some type of validity, but from our point of view coming closer to God requires an extrinsic explanation.

How do we move from this position. In order to provide some claim to intrinsic validity we are forced to accept some type of objectivity about our beliefs. The intrinsic reinforcer becomes the goodness or badness of actions based on their consequences. Now this seems to be in conflict with an extrinsic explanation or an extrinsic reinforcer.

So I guess my point is can we have different perspectives pointing in different directions?

Regards

Tut

Yes, it does make sense. However, in the end I think justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality being (as you demonstrate) looked at from two different perspectives.

Most people will not know or ever use the terms intrinsic and extrinsic.

Can not all Christians agree that Salvation is by Faith and that works are the evidence of faith?

Am I being over simplistic?

justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality
Please take off your philosophy hat and say that in plain English for us poor, uneducated slobs.

Hi De Maria,

Yes, it does make sense. However, in the end I think justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality

Finality? Not yet. I'll explain further below.


being (as you demonstrate) looked at from two different perspectives.

Two different perspectives. The perspectives are different. But not the ends. I'll explain further below.


In this respect intrinsic finality is an end in itself, not a means to some other end.

Your terminology is interfering with the idea of justification.


Some other end outside of us would require an extrinsic explanation. Saying that works brings us closer to perfection could be seen as an intrinsic justification only if it is a claim of self-perfection.

Very good. Yes. That is the difference between the Law and the Sacraments.


Such a claim might have some type of validity, but from our point of view coming closer to God requires an extrinsic explanation.

The existence of a loving God.


How do we move from this position. In order to provide some claim to intrinsic validity we are forced to accept some type of objectivity about our beliefs. The intrinsic reinforcer becomes the goodness or badness of actions based on their consequences. Now this seems to be in conflict with an extrinsic explanation or an extrinsic reinforcer.

Not necessarily. It is both/and.


So I guess my point is can we have different perspectives pointing in different directions?

No. But we can have different perspectives pointing in the same direction.

Ok, here's what I mean.

Justification is only in one direction. The perfection of the Soul moving in the direction of holiness and ultimate union with God.

Above you first said:
I think justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality


Only that justification when one is perfected in the after life and enters heaven for all eternity is final. Justification here on earth is not final. That is why Abraham and the patriarchs who were perfected externally by their works could not enter heaven, could not be perfected without us:

Heb 11:
39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Their perfection was only extrinsic as it was done according to works.

The gift of Sanctifying Grace was not yet given by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. So, although the Patriarchs were perfect on the outside, that is on the outside of their soul. They had not yet been washed with the one Baptism of the Holy Spirit washing their souls clean of any defect. That could only happen when Jesus gave us His Gift of dying on the Cross for us that the Paraclete might come. This gift requires no work on our part as it is freely given to those who obey.

That justification which I am now referring to is the justification in the Sacraments. The chief example of which is Baptism. These are fountains of Grace wherein God washes our souls of every defect. Since it is God who does it, the washing is perfect. But it is not yet final. As I said before, only the Judgment of God in the afterlife will lead to a final justification. That being our entrance into union with God when we will see Him as He truly is.

Then you said:

being (as you demonstrate) looked at from two different perspectives.


As you can see, then, if I have made myself clear, is that both perspectives are oriented towards union with God. However, they don't see the path the same way. Its not as though one took the high road and one took the low road, it is more as though one is looking to the right and one is looking to the left but they are both moving forward.

When St. Paul says "faith", he assumes that works are present in that faith. When he says "works", he means works alone or that these individuals place faith in their works and not in God.

Let me show you. First he says that only doers are justified:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

That is very much in agreement with what St. James says.

But then he says:
Romans 3:26-28 (King James Version)

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

That sounds almost as though he has done a 180 degree turn and has contradicted himself. But he hasn't. Lets continue to read:

19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:

20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

In other words, because he believed, Abraham worked. Because he believed God, he got busy and had sex with his wife, even though his own body was almost dead and his wife was sterile. Abraham exercised his faith.

And then Scripture says, THEREFORE, it was imputed to him for righteousness.

So, you see, St. Paul includes works in faith. Because, for him, if works do not exist, there is no faith at all.

St. James perspective is different in that he acknowledges the existence of faith without works, but considers that faith already dead rather than non existent. It is clear to me that St. James would agree 100/% that only doers of the law will be justified. But that is why St. James says that we are justified by works and not by faith only. If we break that statement down, we see that faith is assumed. He is not saying that one is justified by works alone. But that one is justified by faith expressed in works:
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

So when St. James says justified by works, he assumes the existence of faith.

Therefore, RickJ is correct.

Does that make sense?




Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

finality? Not yet. I'll explain further below.



Two different perspectives. The perspectives are different. But not the ends. I'll explain further below.



Your terminology is interfering with the idea of justification.



Very good. Yes. That is the difference between the Law and the Sacraments.



The existence of a loving God.



Not necessarily. It is both/and.



No. But we can have different perspectives pointing in the same direction.

Ok, here's what I mean.

Justification is only in one direction. The perfection of the Soul moving in the direction of holiness and ultimate union with God.

Above you first said:
I think justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality


Only that justification when one is perfected in the after life and enters heaven for all eternity is final. Justification here on earth is not final. That is why Abraham and the patriarchs who were perfected externally by their works could not enter heaven, could not be perfected without us:

Heb 11:
39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Their perfection was only extrinsic as it was done according to works.

The gift of Sanctifying Grace was not yet given by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. So, although the Patriarchs were perfect on the outside, that is on the outside of their soul. They had not yet been washed with the one Baptism of the Holy Spirit washing their souls clean of any defect. That could only happen when Jesus gave us His Gift of dying on the Cross for us that the Paraclete might come. This gift requires no work on our part as it is freely given to those who obey.

That justification which I am now referring to is the justification in the Sacraments. The chief example of which is Baptism. These are fountains of Grace wherein God washes our souls of every defect. Since it is God who does it, the washing is perfect. But it is not yet final. As I said before, only the Judgment of God in the afterlife will lead to a final justification. That being our entrance into union with God when we will see Him as He truly is.

Then you said:

being (as you demonstrate) looked at from two different perspectives.


As you can see, then, if I have made myself clear, is that both perspectives are oriented towards union with God. However, they don't see the path the same way. Its not as though one took the high road and one took the low road, it is more as though one is looking to the right and one is looking to the left but they are both moving forward.

When St. Paul says "faith", he assumes that works are present in that faith. When he says "works", he means works alone or that these individuals place faith in their works and not in God.

Let me show you. First he says that only doers are justified:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

That is very much in agreement with what St. James says.

But then he says:
Romans 3:26-28 (King James Version)

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

That sounds almost as though he has done a 180 degree turn and has contradicted himself. But he hasn't. Lets continue to read:

19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:

20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

In other words, because he believed, Abraham worked. Because he believed God, he got busy and had sex with his wife, even though his own body was almost dead and his wife was sterile. Abraham exercised his faith.

And then Scripture says, THEREFORE, it was imputed to him for righteousness.

So, you see, St. Paul includes works in faith. Because, for him, if works do not exist, there is no faith at all.

St. James perspective is different in that he acknowledges the existence of faith without works, but considers that faith already dead rather than non existent. It is clear to me that St. James would agree 100/% that only doers of the law will be justified. But that is why St. James says that we are justified by works and not by faith only. If we break that statement down, we see that faith is assumed. He is not saying that one is justified by works alone. But that one is justified by faith expressed in works:
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

So when St. James says justified by works, he assumes the existence of faith.

Therefore, RickJ is correct.

Does that make sense?



Sincerely,

De Maria


Hi De Maria,

I would like to carry on this discussion but it obvious I am putting people off with jargon.

Perhaps it would be better if I let other people carry on the discussion.

Regards

Tut

I would like to carry on this discussion but it obvious I am putting people off with jargon.

Perhaps it would be better if I let other people carry on the discussion.

That's not the solution, to run away. Just put your comments into clear English. I am very interested to read your thoughts.

That's not the solution, to run away. Just put your comments into clear English. I am very interested to read your thoughts.



Hi Wondergirl,

Good point. Clear English is a good idea therefore I will approach the topic from a slightly different angle.

If we have faith in God's works( as did Abraham) then we need to demonstrate our faith through works. If God commands something of me and for what ever reason and I decide not to do it then this is hardly a demonstration of faith on my part.

What if Abraham decided not to obey God and kill Issac because he thought this would be an immoral act. Even though God was never going to let Abraham kill Issac it can still be argued that putting someone in that position is not very ethical on their part.

It doesn't seem possible that God can command anything immoral. Perhaps the problem is that from the human perspective it only seems immoral at the time. The other perspective says that such an act is clearly immoral and therefore God's commands have nothing to do with morality. Faith in doing works is simply doing what God commands, right or wrong. In other words,is something right because God commands it or is it a case of God not commanding anything which is not right?

Two different perspectives which don't seem compatible.

Regards

Tut

Hi Wondergirl,

Good point. Clear English is a good idea therefore I will approach the topic from a slightly different angle.

If we have faith in God's works

This is an excellent summary of what I am saying as pertains to Sacramental justification, which are the Works of God. However, the rest of the message seems to be about an entirely different subject.


( as did Abraham) then we need to demonstrate our faith through works.

By obeying, agreed. And still on topic.


If God commands something of me and for what ever reason and I decide not to do it then this is hardly a demonstration of faith on my part.

Still in agreement. And still on topic.


What if Abraham decided not to obey God and kill Issac because he thought this would be an immoral act. Even though God was never going to let Abraham kill Issac it can still be argued that putting someone in that position is not very ethical on their part.

This is off topic. But I guess we can get past it.

In law, there is a saying, the King is always right. That means that the King is above the law. The King makes the laws therefore by his actions he can void the law.

God being the King of Kings is the same way. All life belongs to Him, therefore, if He commands someone to take a life, that person is not committing an immoral act.


It doesn't seem possible that God can command anything immoral.

It isn't. Morality is, at its essence, obedience to God.


Perhaps the problem is that from the human perspective it only seems immoral at the time. The other perspective says that such an act is clearly immoral and therefore God's commands have nothing to do with morality. Faith in doing works is simply doing what God commands,

Exactly!


right or wrong.

Doing what God commands is always right.


In other words,is something right because God commands it or is it a case of God not commanding anything which is not right?

Both are true.


Two different perspectives which don't seem compatible.

But not exactly the discussion we are having.

St. James did not say that God is immoral and St. Paul did not say that God is wrong. They both take for granted that God is right.

What they seem to differ upon is whether one is justified by faith apart from works or faith and works.

My contention is that WE are comparing apples to oranges when we compare Romans 3:28 to James 2:24.

Romans 3:28 should be compared to James 1:18:
18Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

This describes Sacramental justification where we are born again, without our works.

And James 2:24 should be compared to Romans 2:13:
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

The teachings of St. James and St. Paul on justification are reflected in the Sacramental system of the Catholic Church.


Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

This is an excellent summary of what I am saying as pertains to Sacramental justification, which are the Works of God. However, the rest of the message seems to be about an entirely different subject.


Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi De Maria,

Sacramental theology could be see by some non-Catholics as a threat to faith. From my point of view I am not prepared to criticize this. So I am skirting around the topic.

The problem is that I don't see faith as an example of intrinsic finality-dogma and creed-it is an example of extrinsic finality.

It is difficult to reconcile two types of teleological explanations i.e. two types of final causes.

I would rather discuss the things I mentioned towards the end of my post (Euthyphro problem) as I believe it has some relevance to the topic.

Regards

Tut

Hi De Maria,

...
I would rather discuss the things I mentioned towards the end of my post (Euthyphro problem) as I believe it has some relevance to the topic...

Then please develop the argument since I thought I had addressed the idea of God and immorality.


Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

In law, there is a saying, the King is always right. That means that the King is above the law. The King makes the laws therefore by his actions he can void the law.

God being the King of Kings is the same way. All life belongs to Him, therefore, if He commands someone to take a life, that person is not committing an immoral act.



It isn't. Morality is, at its essence, obedience to God.



Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi again De Maria,

Most people disagree about the nature of morality, but the one thing they mostly agree upon is there should be some type of objectivity when it comes to morality.

I would argue that your 'king' example means in essence there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Morality is simply what God wants.

At best this seems to be a subjectivist position. At worst it could be interpreted as, "God commands morality. Morality is what God commands".


What do you think?

Regards

Tut

Hi again De Maria,

Most people disagree about the nature of morality, but the one thing they mostly agree upon is there should be some type of objectivity when it comes to morality.

What is objectivity to you? And what is the virtue of objectivity as opposed to subjectivity? Why do you consider one better than the other?


I would argue that your 'king' example means in essence there is no objectivity when it comes to morality.

Objectivity, to me, means that one can study the matter and come to a reasonable conclusion about its properties without undue sentiment or personal prejudice.

Subjectivity, to me, is a means of studying some matter by and come to a reasonable conclusion based upon one's feelings and preconceptions.

As long as they both lead to the truth, I see no superiority in either.

Let me give you and example. Men frequently lament that women are not objective. I agree. I believe women are more subjective than men. Yet, in my experience, women make far superior decisions than men in many stages of life. Even though they go more by feelings than by cold calculations.


Morality is simply what God wants.

I have no problem with that. Why do you? Don't you believe that God is omniscient? (all knowing).


At best this seems to be a subjectivist position. At worst it could be interpreted as, "God commands morality. Morality is what God commands".

What do you think?

I wonder why you seem to have a problem with that?


Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

What is objectivity to you? And what is the virtue of objectivity as opposed to subjectivity? Why do you consider one better than the other?

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi DeMaria,

I don't really think one is better than the other it is more a case of choosing the right examples. Many would consider moral objectivity to be intuitive i.e. the way we think.This is of course leaving aside personal morality. When in the public arena we tend to consider or judge certain actions we witness, good/ bad- evil/ virtuous.

Certain actions appear to have moral properties about them. Morally right or wrong> independent of what you or I might think about them (moral realism if you like). There are of course some problems associated with this view. Nonetheless, it is quite reasonable to try and establish the existence of God from facts about morality. In fact God is the only source of morality. On face value this is an objective account. I assume this is what you are wanting to work towards?


In answer to your last question...

I think God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving. Yet there is evil in the world. Perhaps more accurately, acts we judge to be good or evil.

We can have any three of the above propositions together but we can't have all four together.


Regards

Tut

I didn't read your last post carefully enough. In fact you were asking about the virtue of subjectivity and objectivity.

As you are no doubt aware virtue ethics centres on the nature of the individual and how well they adhere to rules, obligations and customs. Actions are right or wrong depending on how well a person adheres to rules, duties and obligations. This is, regardless of our subjectivist point of view. This is what makes it an objective theory of morality.

All this fits in well with 'The Divine Command Theory' e.g. an action is right because God Commands it. Opposed to this idea is that God would only command right actions. I think your earlier suggestion that we can entertain both propositions has problems.

On this basis objective morality exists independently of what we might think of God's commands. Even though such an entity exists independently of us the only way we can discover the moral value of such an entities commands is by consulting our state of mind.

If someone has a lot of virtue then it stands to reason they don't suffer from the problem of lacking virtue. St. Thomas borrowing from Aristotle would say that there are some virtues we can't have enough of. Nonetheless,this seems to create a false dichotomy. On this basis we have to say one of two things. Abraham was virtuous or he was non virtuous. Having virtue is what makes a person moral. It is assumed that actions are a reflection of an individuals state of mind. In Abraham's case I think this is too simplistic.


Regards

Tut

Hi DeMaria,

I don't really think one is better than the other it is more a case of choosing the right examples. Many would consider moral objectivity to be intuitive i.e. the way we think.

Doesn't that then make it subjective?


This is of course leaving aside personal morality. When in the public arena we tend to consider or judge certain actions we witness, good/ bad- evil/ virtuous.

Certain actions appear to have moral properties about them. Morally right or wrong> independent of what you or I might think about them (moral realism if you like). There are of course some problems associated with this view. Nonetheless, it is quite reasonable to try and establish the existence of God from facts about morality. In fact God is the only source of morality. On face value this is an objective account. I assume this is what you are wanting to work towards?

That is very close to the definition of justification.


In answer to your last question...

I think God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving. Yet there is evil in the world. Perhaps more accurately, acts we judge to be good or evil.

We can have any three of the above propositions together but we can't have all four together.

In fact, we do have all four together. God does not cause the evil.



Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

I didn't read your last post carefully enough. In fact you were asking about the virtue of subjectivity and objectivity.

As you are no doubt aware virtue ethics centres on the nature of the individual and how well they adhere to rules, obligations and customs. Actions are right or wrong depending on how well a person adheres to rules, duties and obligations. This is, regardless of our subjectivist point of view. This is what makes it an objective theory of morality.

Are we talking in terms of Christianity? Because Christianity teaches that the nature of the individual is fallen and therefore prone to commit sin. Which then makes it very hard to ahere to rules, duties and obligations.


All this fits in well with 'The Divine Command Theory' e.g. an action is right because God Commands it. Opposed to this idea is that God would only command right actions. I think your earlier suggestion that we can entertain both propositions has problems.

The idea that we can't or that we mustn't is wrong.

The assumptions that God is all good and that God is all powerful are the basis of Christianity. So, if you are entertaining different assumptions, I would like to know which religion you represent?


On this basis objective morality exists independently of what we might think of God's commands. Even though such an entity exists independently of us the only way we can discover the moral value of such an entities commands is by consulting our state of mind.

That is not the best way. Because of our fallen nature, and our propensity to sin, our state of mind is iffy for the discovery of moral right and wrong. The best source is the Church which God put here to lead us to Him. And the Bible, which is His Word, but which we aren't guaranteed to understand without assistance.


If someone has a lot of virtue then it stands to reason they don't suffer from the problem of lacking virtue. St. Thomas borrowing from Aristotle would say that there are some virtues we can't have enough of. Nonetheless,this seems to create a false dichotomy. On this basis we have to say one of two things. Abraham was virtuous or he was non virtuous. Having virtue is what makes a person moral. It is assumed that actions are a reflection of an individuals state of mind. In Abraham's case I think this is too simplistic.

I agree that its too simplistic. Even the Just Man falls seven times a day. Therefore, the virtuous man understands more than anyone else how sinful he is in reality:
Romans 7:
[16] If then I do that which I will not, I consent to the law, that it is good. [17] Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [18] For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. [19] For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. [20] Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

[21] I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. [22] For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: [23] But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. [24] Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? [25] The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.



Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

Doesn't that then make it subjective?



That is very close to the definition of justification.




Sincerely,

De Maria


Hi De Maria,


In a way it does make it subjective and herein lies the problem. Just briefly...

St Thomas reasoned that God would not give us commands through scripture and the church only to have them contradicted by our subjective experiences. Actions seem to have a type of 'to do' or 'not to do' about them.

Discovering things about God's commands is a bit like looking at rules from a third person perspective. Our emotional state is irrelevant as to the truth or falsity of such commands. They remain true regardless. In a way we are detached from morality, we don't decided which of God's commands are good and which are bad.

My point is there is a problem here. We want to talk about moral properties existing independently from us (objectively) yet the only way we can discover these properties is subjectively ( how we feel about actions based on experience).

It think this is the problem St. Thomas was trying to overcome yet it seems counter intuitive.

Regards

Tut

P.S I will get back to your other responses tonight.

Because of our fallen nature, and our propensity to sin, our state of mind is iffy for the discovery of moral right and wrong. The best source is the Church which God put here to lead us to Him. And the Bible, which is His Word, but which we aren't guaranteed to understand without assistance.

*tiptoes in and quietly mentions* That's probably the main difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Men frequently lament that women are not objective. I agree. I believe women are more subjective than men.


Sincerely,

De Maria

Fascinating comment. To what do you attribute this?

Are we talking in terms of Christianity? Because Christianity teaches that the nature of the individual is fallen and therefore prone to commit sin. Which then makes it very hard to ahere to rules, duties and obligations.



The idea that we can't or that we mustn't is wrong.

The assumptions that God is all good and that God is all powerful are the basis of Christianity. So, if you are entertaining different assumptions, I would like to know which religion you represent?



That is not the best way. Because of our fallen nature, and our propensity to sin, our state of mind is iffy for the discovery of moral right and wrong. The best source is the Church which God put here to lead us to Him. And the Bible, which is His Word, but which we aren't guaranteed to understand without assistance.



I agree that its too simplistic. Even the Just Man falls seven times a day. Therefore, the virtuous man understands more than anyone else how sinful he is in reality:
Romans 7:
[16] If then I do that which I will not, I consent to the law, that it is good. [17] Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. [18] For I know that there dwelleth not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, that which is good. For to will, is present with me; but to accomplish that which is good, I find not. [19] For the good which I will, I do not; but the evil which I will not, that I do. [20] Now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

[21] I find then a law, that when I have a will to do good, evil is present with me. [22] For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: [23] But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. [24] Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? [25] The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.



Sincerely,

De Maria


Hi De Maria,


Are we talking Christianity?

Yes because St Thomas argued for Aristotelian virtue ethics except that the gave it a Christian emphasis. I would say that St Thomas favored virtue ethics because it avoids the problem of consequentialism (moral actions should be judged on their consequences)


I don't really represent a religion, but I go to the Uniting Church.
I was making reference to the Euthyphro dilemma. This is a non- denominational or universal problem.


In relation to our fallen nature and propensity to sin. You say our state of mind is iffy for the discovery of moral right and wrong.

It could be argued that humans are very good at discovering right and wrong. It is just that we are very bad at adhering to what we have discovered.


Regards

Tut

His Word, but which we aren't guaranteed to understand without assistance.
The assistance we are give to understand his Word is the Holy Spirit, he is given to counsel us and lead us into all truth. The essential difference is the RCC has determined that it is in the place of the Holy Spirit to intrepret Scripture and lead us into truth

the assistance we are give to understand his Word is the Holy Spirit, he is given to counsel us and lead us into all truth. The essential difference is the RCC has determined that it is in the place of the Holy Spirit to intrepret Scripture and lead us into truth

Hi Paraclete,

Interesting thoughts- the Holy Spirit interprets scripture for us and we accept whatever is commanded based on this interpretation.

To me this suggests a dual process. We are given scripture and the interpretation is done for us. This dual process gives us an objective account of morality. In other words, we follow whatever is commanded.

There is still a problem here with the nature of ethics. My earlier point was that we want to talk about moral properties existing independently ( objective account) yet it seems as though we discover these properties subjectively ( how we feel about certain actions based on experience).

By cutting out the Holy Spirit in relation to interpreting scripture we are left with a subjective account. That is, the Holy Spirit by assisting us directly helps us better understand scripture.

It seems to me that you are saying this is the essential difference between RCC and other denominations- interesting way of looking at it.


Regards

Tut

To me as a kid the whole faith and works thing just meant that you cannot be saved by works but you can be lost if you don’t have them. It’s as if we are rats swimming in a bowl and God decides who He finds favour in. Stop swimming and you’re toast. But don’t think that swimming is going to save you because that is arrogant. It’s fine to say that only works produced by faith count, but how does that work? Do we have to only hope and pray and then automatically works are produced, or do we actually have to put in some effort and will power? Or is it offensive to God to put in effort and will power?
The point is that God is not a moron. If even man is reasonable, how much more reasonable is God? He does not disregard a sincere or faithful act because it did not follow a set ritual, and He sees right through every insincere or unfaithful act regardless of the ritual. So just because you say you are doing works in response to the love that He first showed you, does not make it faith.
The answer to the dilemma is a psychological one. The seat of righteousness is not in the mind but in the heart. Therefore the law must be written on the heart. There must be true change and understanding, a real transformation and submission before our actions become sincere. In life we experience the pain of our own sins, until the point where we truly understand and want no more of it. It does not happen all at once, but one sin at time.
The ego must die – the old nature of self-seeking and praise-dependence. We must submit to God and let go of sinful desires. When we try to please God and expect praise when our minds are able to temporarily override the sinful desires of our hearts, it is just a sign that the ego is still alive and well. Then we tend to compare ourselves to others and secretly pat ourselves on the back and point the finger at them. But with true change we seek salvation from sin itself, so that even if heaven’s doors were opened to all of mankind tomorrow we would not go back to our former ways.

To me as a kid the whole faith and works thing just meant that you cannot be saved by works but you can be lost if you don’t have them. It’s as if we are rats swimming in a bowl and God decides who He finds favour in. Stop swimming and you’re toast. But don’t think that swimming is going to save you because that is arrogant. It’s fine to say that only works produced by faith count, but how does that work? Do we have to only hope and pray and then automatically works are produced, or do we actually have to put in some effort and will power? Or is it offensive to God to put in effort and will power?
The point is that God is not a moron. If even man is reasonable, how much more reasonable is God? He does not disregard a sincere or faithful act because it did not follow a set ritual, and He sees right through every insincere or unfaithful act regardless of the ritual. So just because you say you are doing works in response to the love that He first showed you, does not make it faith.
The answer to the dilemma is a psychological one. The seat of righteousness is not in the mind but in the heart. Therefore the law must be written on the heart. There must be true change and understanding, a real transformation and submission before our actions become sincere. In life we experience the pain of our own sins, until the point where we truly understand and want no more of it. It does not happen all at once, but one sin at time.
The ego must die – the old nature of self-seeking and praise-dependence. We must submit to God and let go of sinful desires. When we try to please God and expect praise when our minds are able to temporarily override the sinful desires of our hearts, it is just a sign that the ego is still alive and well. Then we tend to compare ourselves to others and secretly pat ourselves on the back and point the finger at them. But with true change we seek salvation from sin itself, so that even if heaven’s doors were opened to all of mankind tomorrow we would not go back to our former ways.


Hi Deepinthought,

I really enjoyed reading this. I makes me think that we can get too "bogged down" in theology. It also makes a lot of sense.

Regards

Tut

Justification by faith apart from works and Justification by faith and works are seamlessly combined in the Catholic Sacramental System.


I don’t know that you can separate salvation into 'work' and 'no work'. Pope Benedict’s opening line in the encyclical letter Spe Salvi, (Hope Saves) is; “in hope we were saved, says Saint Paul to the Romans and likewise to us (Rom 8:24). According to the Christian faith, “redemption”—salvation—is not simply a given.”


I think the Pope’s encyclical answers the question about salvation. The answer is quite unlike Protestant’s understanding of a guaranteed salvific anointed from a fickled god’s whim sitting on high picking and choosing this one he likes, damn the others. This line continues, likened to Dorothy’s faith in the Land of Oz, will see the children home. Most of us recall that the wizard of Oz was the snake oil salesman – buy into this line and you get greased. The problem is that belief, in and of itself isn’t enough. Faith is like the seed of a mustard tree of redemption, you can’t separate chaff from the kernel and expect to sprout holiness. To grow and bear fruit it must receive the waters of baptism and the light of knowledge. In short to click our heels in belief only bruises the heels.


The Pope associates our salvation with a faith based hope:

The dark door of time, of the future, has been thrown open. The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life.

Yet at this point a question arises: in what does this hope consist which, as hope, is “redemption”? The essence of the answer is given in the phrase from the Letter to the Ephesians quoted above: the Ephesians, before their encounter with Christ, were without hope because they were “without God in the world”. To come to know God—the true God—means to receive hope. We who have always lived with the Christian concept of God, and have grown accustomed to it, have almost ceased to notice that we possess the hope that ensues from a real encounter with this God.

Pope Benedict explains still further; while “faith is the substance of things hoped for; it is the evidence that our faith is rightly placed.” (Heb 11:1). St. Thomas explains that virtuous act of faith is related to a good end (the object of the will) and truth (the object of the intellect). Faith deposits an interior change in attitude allowing us to stand “firm in what one hopes, being convinced of what one does not see.” At the very least we should recognize that there is a relationship between faith and hope. So, much so, that we find that hope depends on faith given by God trough His love for His creation, faith becomes the substance of our hope for redemption and eternal life, i.e. a synergistic relationship, needing both our will and God’s will, becoming one will.


Likewise, in perseverance, faith precedes our hope, hope in its turn precedes a virtuous charity. And, as St. Paul tells us, this is God’s goal, “the commandment is charity from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and an unfeigned faith.” (1 Tim 1:5). Charity can be said the greater (Cf. 1 Cor. 13:13) because it brings about faith and hope in others, i.e. the ‘fruits’ of our faith.


Understanding the relationship between faith, hope and charity, we can safely put aside the Protestant understanding of a faith that brings the future into the present; however hope can reside in the present. We will never know if we receive the grace of salvation in this world, but we can know the receipt of the ‘real’ Christ only in the sacraments; we labor in the sacraments (Cf. 1 Tim 4:10). All of which brings me back again to our persevering in works. Because in these saving sacraments we find our adoption; “we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be”. For it is only in God’s grace do we dare HOPE for salvation. This hope precedes HIs charity adopting His sons, “every one that hath this hope in him, sanctifieth himself, as he also is holy.” (1 John 3:3)

JoeT

the assistance we are give to understand his Word is the Holy Spirit,

Correct.


he is given to counsel us and lead us into all truth.

True.


The essential difference is the RCC has determined that it is in the place of the Holy Spirit to intrepret Scripture and lead us into truth

Not true. The Catholic Church also claims the assistance of the Holy Spirit leading her to all truth. The difference is that you and I are not mentioned in Scripture as Pillars of Truth.

Example:
You and I may both claim the assistance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture. But you may interpret a verse to mean "A" and I might interpret the same verse to mean "B". But the Holy Spirit does not contradict Itself, does it?

Therefore, one of us or both of us may be wrong that the Holy Spirit has anything to do with our interpreting any Scripture.

How do we know if the Holy Spirit has assisted us in the interpreting of Scripture? If we our interpretation agrees with or at least does not contradict the interpretation of the Church. That is why Scripture says:

Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

I hope that made sense.

Sincerely,

De Maria

*tiptoes in and quietly mentions* That's probably the main difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.

That's true Wondergirl. The main difference between Catholicism is that we believe in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

Whereas Protestants believe in Scripture alone.

Well, there's also a major difference in how we view justification. We believe it is by faith and works, while Protestants mostly believe it is by faith alone.

I agree if, in fact, you mean what Eph. 2:8,9 says, justification ("grace") is a gift from God, with no effort or work on our part. Works are then our thank you to Him. We do not participate in the act of justification; it has been done for us and apart from us.

You're actually very close to the truth. But do you understand that if we do not work, we will not be justified?

Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

Let me give you an example. Lets say that I see an orphan and that orphan is hungry and I buy that orphan a sandwich.

I can't then take that sandwich and wipe sin from my soul with it. No. God does that. But if I don't feed orphans or do other good deeds in conformity with the will of God, God will not purify my soul. And if I commit wicked deeds, i.e. sins, God will judge me accordingly. Even if I claim to believe in Him:
Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Therefore, without faith, we will not be saved. But neither will we be saved by faith alone, because faith alone is a dead faith.

We will only be saved by faith and works. Not BY our faith and works themselves. That is only a manner of speaking. But saved BY GOD because we obeyed His Word and kept His Commands.

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

I don't know that you can seperate salvation into 'work' and 'no work'. Pope Benedict's opening line in the encyclical letter Spe Salvi, (Hope Saves) is; “in hope we were saved, says Saint Paul to the Romans and likewise to us (Rom 8:24). According to the Christian faith, “redemption”—salvation—is not simply a given.” .... This hope precedes HIs charity adopting His sons, “every one that hath this hope in him, sanctifieth himself, as he also is holy.” (1 John 3:3)

JoeT

Hi Joe,

You've said a lot of good things, but in most you missed the point. I agree with 99.9% of what you've said above, so no need to repeat it.

Unfortunately, the one thing you said which spoke to the point of this discussion is the one with which I disagree. You said:
... Faith is like the seed of a mustard tree of redemption, you can't separate chaff from the kernel and expect to sprout holiness. To grow and bear fruit it must receive the waters of baptism and the light of knowledge. In short to click our heels in belief only bruises the heels.. .

Now, here's the heart of the matter. Do you agree that there are certain things which we do and there are certain things which God does?

Lets take for instance the baptism to which you refer above. You approach the Church and ask for Baptism, someone pours water over your head and YOU wash your soul clean. Is that correct? I think you would say, "NO!."

How about this? You approach the Church and ask for Baptism, someone pours water over your head and the PRIEST washes your soul clean. Is THAT correct? Again, I anticipate your answer is, "NO, NO, NO!!!"

You don't have to yell, Joe.

Ok, so far we agree. How about this? You approach the Church and ask for Baptism, someone pours water over your head and the GOD washes your soul clean. Is THAT correct? I anticipate that we agree the answer to that is an adamant, yes.

But what do we do when the water is poured? Do we do anything? Have you ever heard the saying, "be still and let God be God."? That's all we do, we must believe that God is God and can do the things promised for us in Baptism. That is what is called being disposed to receive His Grace. Which, in short, is the definition of having faith in God.

To paraphrase your own words, when that water is poured over our heads, "we click our heals in belief only". We believe that God washes away our sin. We don't wash it away ourselves.

Yes, we sanctify ourselves by our works, but that is before and after the Sacraments. That is why the Scripture says:
Ephesians 2:
[8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Meaning, in my opinion, that in the Sacraments, God has poured His grace in us and thus created us for good works.

This is why I say that justification by faith apart from works succinctly describes the Sacraments of Baptism, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Anointing and Eucharist. Because all of those works are works of God with which we have little to do accept to believe in Him and submit to His grace.

Am I making sense?

Sincerely,

To me as a kid the whole faith and works thing just meant that you cannot be saved by works but you can be lost if you don’t have them.

Excellent point!


It’s as if we are rats swimming in a bowl and God decides who He finds favour in. Stop swimming and you’re toast. But don’t think that swimming is going to save you because that is arrogant. It’s fine to say that only works produced by faith count, but how does that work? Do we have to only hope and pray and then automatically works are produced, or do we actually have to put in some effort and will power? Or is it offensive to God to put in effort and will power?
The point is that God is not a moron. If even man is reasonable, how much more reasonable is God? He does not disregard a sincere or faithful act because it did not follow a set ritual, and He sees right through every insincere or unfaithful act regardless of the ritual. So just because you say you are doing works in response to the love that He first showed you, does not make it faith.

You are actually expressing Catholic teaching very well.


The answer to the dilemma is a psychological one. The seat of righteousness is not in the mind but in the heart. Therefore the law must be written on the heart. There must be true change and understanding, a real transformation and submission before our actions become sincere. In life we experience the pain of our own sins, until the point where we truly understand and want no more of it. It does not happen all at once, but one sin at time.

Conversion? One sin at a time? I don't follow.


The ego must die – the old nature of self-seeking and praise-dependence. We must submit to God and let go of sinful desires. When we try to please God and expect praise when our minds are able to temporarily override the sinful desires of our hearts, it is just a sign that the ego is still alive and well. Then we tend to compare ourselves to others and secretly pat ourselves on the back and point the finger at them. But with true change we seek salvation from sin itself, so that even if heaven’s doors were opened to all of mankind tomorrow we would not go back to our former ways.

I agree with this as well.

Ok, I agree with most of what you said, but some I didn't understand. I pointed that out above.

Now, I agree that without works we can be lost as you mentioned in the first part of your message.

But do you agree that in our journey of life, God accompanies us?
And that God is not idle during our journey but God works for us? Do you agree that during some of these occasions when God works, which we, Catholics, call the Sacraments (although there are other occasions as well) we don't need to do anything but believe in Him and in His promises?

Sincerely,

Hi De Maria,


In a way it does make it subjective and herein lies the problem. Just briefly....

St Thomas reasoned that God would not give us commands through scripture and the church only to have them contradicted by our subjective experiences. Actions seem to have a type of 'to do' or 'not to do' about them.

Discovering things about God's commands is a bit like looking at rules from a third person perspective. Our emotional state is irrelevant as to the truth or falsity of such commands. They remain true regardless. In a way we are detached from morality, we don't decided which of God's commands are good and which are bad.

My point is there is a problem here. We want to talk about moral properties existing independently from us (objectively) yet the only way we can discover these properties is subjectively ( how we feel about actions based on experience).

It think this is the problem St. Thomas was trying to overcome yet it seems counter intuitive.

Regards

Tut

P.S I will get back to your other responses tonight.

Tut, you throw out St. Thomas' name quite easily. But, reference where he said any such thing. Not that I don't believe you, but I'm not quite understanding what you mean and if I could read his words, I will have a point of reference.

Sincerely,

Fascinating comment. To what do you attribute this?

To the ability to bear children in their womb. Women are equipped by God to bear and nurse children. Because of this, they seem to have a far greater capacity to love.

Because of this ability to love, women (in general) seem to, in my opinion, have a different way of thinking to resolve problems. I believe their methodology is superior to men's for the most part.

Sincerely,

Tut, you throw out St. Thomas' name quite easily. But, reference where he said any such thing. Not that I don't believe you, but I'm not quite understanding what you mean and if I could read his words, I will have a point of reference.

Sincerely,


Hi De Maria,

I could 'dust off the books' in my library if you like but I don't think there is much disagreement that St. Thomas favoured virtue ethics.

As you are no doubt doubt aware St. Thomas isolated four cardinal virtues>prudence, justice and fortitude. He also isolated three theological virtues> faith, hope and charity. The dichotomy of virtues has different ends as their object. Theological virtues has God as their object. Cardinal virtues has as their end an act. Again, I don't think this is in dispute, but I will have to wait and see.

Now, virtue ethics emphasizes the character of the person performing certain acts and NOT the consequences of the act. Rather than say( as I did) ' St Thomas reasoned that God would have not given us commands through scripture and the church only to see them contradicted by subjective experience.' I should have said something along the lines of, " It stands to reason that God would not give us commands... '

I hope this clears up that issue.


Regards


Tut

Correct.




Not true. The Catholic Church also claims the assistance of the Holy Spirit leading her to all truth. The difference is that you and I are not mentioned in Scripture as Pillars of Truth.



Sincerely,

De Maria


Just to expand on some earlier points.

On face value what you have said above appears to be true. Yet there is a problem when we come to think about this in terms of ethics.

Objective truth is something which seems desirable and God's commands working through the Holy Spirit seems to provide a suitable explanation of objectivity. If there is subjective disagreement between a Protestant and a Catholic who which to claim they are inspired by the Holy Spirit... then... ( I think this is what You are saying) we need to consult the church for the "objective" account in order to settle the matter.

All of this seems to add up to a claim there is an objective account of morality based on certain features about the nature of God and how he works. This also seems to add up to a claim that it is of no consequence how you or I feel about morality. God's commands provide an objective account of morality and that's the end of the story.

Unfortunately it is not that easy when it comes to ethics. Objectivity in ethics is not the same as say, objectivity in science.

Issac Newton provided us with certain scientific facts about the nature of velocity. There is of course no "Church of Issac Newton" Nonetheless, I am quite happy to accept the proof of mathematics as providing an objective account of velocity. Alternatively, I could set up my own experiment to determine the truth or falsity of Newton's theory.

If I don't get around to doing the experiment then I am not going to lose any sleep over it. I'll just accept that in fact it is an objective account of nature.

'Thou shall not steal' is also an objective account but it is more difficult to accept this than to accept a objective scientific account. Why? Because people have lost sleep in the past agonizing over whether to steal or not to steal. This is because there is a certain type of 'to do' or 'not to do' about morality not found in a objective scientific account but found in an objective moral account.

Whether we like it or not it seems as though at least in some ways we contribute to being 'Pillars of Truth'


Regards

Tut

Hi De Maria,

Hi Tut


I hope this clears up that issue.

No, it doesn't Tut. You also said:


St Thomas reasoned that God would not give us commands through scripture and the church only to have them contradicted by our subjective experiences. Actions seem to have a type of 'to do' or 'not to do' about them.

What does that mean that actions have a "'to do' or 'not to do' about them."??


I could 'dust off the books' in my library if you like but I don't think there is much disagreement that St. Thomas favoured virtue ethics.

I don't think so. You'll have to provide the proof.


As you are no doubt doubt aware St. Thomas isolated four cardinal virtues>prudence, justice and fortitude.

And temperance.


He also isolated three theological virtues> faith, hope and charity. The dichotomy of virtues has different ends as their object. Theological virtues has God as their object. Cardinal virtues has as their end an act.

They all have God as their object. Or at least, salvation which ultimately leads to union with God.


Again, I don't think this is in dispute, but I will have to wait and see.
]Now, virtue ethics emphasizes the character of the person performing certain acts and NOT the consequences of the act.

That is why virtue ethics is not a Catholic doctrine. And why St. Thomas would not have favored such a doctrine. The outcome of the act is definitely important in Catholic and I believe in Christian doctrine of most denominations.


Rather than say( as I did) ' St Thomas reasoned that God would have not given us commands through scripture and the church only to see them contradicted by subjective experience.' I should have said something along the lines of, " It stands to reason that God would not give us commands... '

I hope this clears up that issue.

Not quite as God did not give us any commands we could contradict for any reason subjective or objective.

Please start again.


Regards


Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi again De Maria,

I have an appoint shortly so I address the issues you raised tonight.

Just for the moment you might like to look at

Aquinas, Thomas[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] (http://www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/)

"The second part is on Ethics. Thomas argues for a variation of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics"


Regards

Tut

Hi Tut


That is why virtue ethics is not a Catholic doctrine. And why St. Thomas would not have favored such a doctrine. The outcome of the act is definitely important in Catholic and I believe in Christian doctrine of most denominations.




Sincerely,

De Maria


Hello DeMaria,

If you are now of the opinion that virtue ethics is part of Catholic doctrine then I would be interested in your evaluation of the following...

I stumbled upon this article which I hope will put forward my argument in a 'nutshell'.

It is taken from "Roman Catholic Ethics: Three Approaches", by Brian Berry.

http//www.sch.edu/theolibrary/resources/ligouri_berry.htm


"A major representative of the "virtue ethics' approach in Roman Catholicism is James Keenan. Keenan argues that the focus of ethics should not be on acts (consequences) but on who we are, who we are to become, and how to get there. The specific tasks of virtue ethics are to help us understand ourselves as the people we are, to set goals for the type of people we ought to become and to suggest significant steps we should take to achieve these ends. In other words, for Keenan, the virtues inform us both about who we are to be and about what we are to do. Like Revisionism, Keenan sees human relationships as the context with which the moral life is practiced and evaluated (consequences)."


(consequences) my assessment added.


It looks as though Keenan is pushing consequentialism out the front door at the beginning but letting it in the backdoor near the end.

It seems to me that it is difficult to escape the 'to do' or ' not to do' (consequences) when it comes to ethics.


Regards

Tut

hi again De Maria,

I have an appoint shortly so I address the issues you raised tonight.

Just for the moment you might like to look at

Aquinas, Thomas[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy] (http://www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/)

"The second part is on Ethics. Thomas argues for a variation of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics"


Regards

Tut

This is an interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas. And I don't believe it is a Catholic interpretation. So, I'd like to see it from his own writings.

Or did you get your ideas about St. Thomas from a non Catholic source?

Hello DeMaria,

If you are now of the opinion that virtue ethics is part of Catholic doctrine then I would be interested in your evaluation of the following...

I don't think you understand what is "doctrine". Catholic doctrine is not theories. We don't live according to theories. We live according to absolute revealed truth of God.


I stumbled upon this article which I hope will put forward my argument in a 'nutshell'.

It is taken from "Roman Catholic Ethics: Three Approaches", by Brian Berry.

http//www.sch.edu/theolibrary/resources/ligouri_berry.htm


"A major representative of the "virtue ethics' approach in Roman Catholicism is James Keenan. Keenan argues that the focus of ethics should not be on acts (consequences) but on who we are, who we are to become, and how to get there. The specific tasks of virtue ethics are to help us understand ourselves as the people we are, to set goals for the type of people we ought to become and to suggest significant steps we should take to achieve these ends. In other words, for Keenan, the virtues inform us both about who we are to be and about what we are to do. Like Revisionism, Keenan sees human relationships as the context with which the moral life is practiced and evaluated (consequences)."

Keenan sounds correct. But what you are giving as an example of Catholic doctrine is merely an example of someone's opinion of what Catholic doctrine might be.

The Catholic dynamic of virtue ethics is both/and. It takes into account both who we are and the consequences of our actions. The definition of virtue ethics which you propose, discarding consequences, does not represent Catholic teaching. Keenan does seem to explain Catholic teaching correctly. In other words, for Keenan, the virtues inform us both about who we are to be and about what we are to do.
But this is only someone's interpretive summary of what he teaches. For all I know the actual statement might be totally different.


(consequences) my assessment added.

It looks as though Keenan is pushing consequentialism out the front door at the beginning but letting it in the backdoor near the end.

It seems to me that it is difficult to escape the 'to do' or ' not to do' (consequences) when it comes to ethics.

Agreed.


Regards

Tut

Are you ever going to tie the ends and bring this line of reasoning back to the subject matter?

Sincerely,

De Maria

I don't think you understand what is "doctrine". Catholic doctrine is not theories. We don't live according to theories. We live according to absolute revealed truth of God.


Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi De Maria,

You above statement is correct. I don't understand what it is to be a Catholic because I am not a Catholic.

I know a reasonable amount about the theoretical basis of Buddhism, but this does not make me a Buddhist.

In light of this I don't think there is a need for me to 'drive home' a philosophical point.
This is because it will not make the world a better place. Nor will not make me a better person for it.

I am happy to withdraw from the discussion.

Regards

Tut

Hi De Maria,

You above statement is correct. I don't understand what it is to be a Catholic because I am not a Catholic.

I know a reasonable amount about the theoretical basis of Buddhism, but this does not make me a Buddhist.

In light of this I don't think there is a need for me to 'drive home' a philosophical point.
This is because it will not make the world a better place. Nor will not make me a better person for it.

I am happy to withdraw from the discussion.

Regards

Tut

Ok Tut. Thanks for your courteous participation.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Am I making sense?

Juan, et al:

Of course you always make sense. Nevertheless, I don't think we see quite eye-to-eye.

And I DON'T YELL; I NEVER YELL; MUCH

Actually, we (all Christians) have a big problem if faith operates without hope or charity. Polytheist believed in their multiple Gods, they even ritualized their ceremonies – obviously to no avail. They too had 'faith' in things yet realized. 'Religion' was little more than following ecclesiastical tradition to 'please the gods'. This type of religion relied solely on faith (Cf. Rom 1:19-23). You might say 'faith alone' – sound familiar? The Pope reminds us that the old religion of the Jews referred to in Romans, chapter one, “did not go the way of the Logos [for those that don't know, Logos is the Word, and the Word is the immutable Truth] but lingered in myths already seen to be devoid of reality…The human mind rightly turns to the truth itself, not to what by means of devious interpretation can be shown to be reconcilable with truth, though no longer containing any truth itself”. (Cf. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p 140-145).

In Christ's day some turned to a Neo-Platonism - whereby philosophy rationalized god(s) into a self-centered being whose creation has no relationship to himself – sitting among the clouds this type of god is aloof and too good for man's day to day trivial experiences. This is quite unlike our God, who suffered humanity and the cross.

Our Pope gives a very different view of the philosophy of God. That is Christians hold the truth that “pure thought that is Divine. Thus, we find, as Christ proclaimed in John 14:6 the Christian God is a personal God of Truth, an absolute." Truth regardless of the element in His Creation we might examine. As such God we find ”a boundless spirit who bears in himself the totality of Being reaches beyond the “greatest”, so that to him it is small, and he reaches into the smallest, because to him nothing is too small.” (Cf. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p 146). This is unlike the aloof god, a personal God who want us to be His son, who seeks us out, who tests us for worthiness of son- ship, who strengthens and weakens according to His plan for our redemption. His plan contains not only the faithful, but all creation – we once argued this ad infinitum. Therefore we find that His Truth and His love are His thought. Consequently, as the Pope reminds us, “it becomes apparent that truth and love are originally identical; that where they are completely realized they are not tow parallel or even opposing realities but one, the one and only absolute. “ Confessing this, we must realize that all men are gifted with faith and should they choose it grows into the virtue of hope which in its turn produces a virtuous charity – the fruits Christ sought but didn't find in the Jew.

Therefore, I've come to conclude, that while we like to bisect our salvation into its component parts of His plan to reclaim his sons, faith, hope, and charity are really one – our adoption by God into a unity with Him. Each of the three inseparable parts acts within the other, a symbiotic bond for a life eternally in God's redemption.

Think about it, what good does our belief in God do us if we do not have hope and chairty? What good dose our hope do us without faith or charity? And finally, why even bother with charity without hope and faith. That's why James can say with confidence, “wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20) Charity is the sole of faith, without, as a man is dead without a soul, so is faith dead without works. (Cf. James 2:26)

Does this make sense?

JoeT

Juan, et al:

Of course you always make sense. Nevertheless, I don't think we see quite eye-to-eye.

And I DON'T YELL; I NEVER YELL; MUCH

Actually, we (all Christians) have a big problem if faith operates without hope or charity. Polytheist believed in their multiple Gods, they even ritualized their ceremonies – obviously to no avail. They too had 'faith' in things yet realized. 'Religion' was little more than following ecclesiastical tradition to 'please the gods'. This type of religion relied solely on faith (Cf. Rom 1:19-23). You might say 'faith alone' – sound familiar? The Pope reminds us that the old religion of the Jews referred to in Romans, chapter one, “did not go the way of the Logos [for those that don't know, Logos is the Word, and the Word is the immutable Truth] but lingered in myths already seen to be devoid of reality…The human mind rightly turns to the truth itself, not to what by means of devious interpretation can be shown to be reconcilable with truth, though no longer containing any truth itself”. (Cf. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p 140-145).

In Christ's day some turned to a Neo-Platonism - whereby philosophy rationalized god(s) into a self-centered being whose creation has no relationship to himself – sitting among the clouds this type of god is aloof and too good for man's day to day trivial experiences. This is quite unlike our God, who suffered humanity and the cross.... That's why James can say with confidence, “wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:20) Charity is the sole of faith, without, as a man is dead without a soul, so is faith dead without works. (Cf. James 2:26)

Does this make sense?

JoeT

Perfect sense. You're preaching to the choir.

But although you said we should not break salvation down into its components, let me do just that.

Why? Because God wants us to understand. Scripture says, "always be prepared to give the reasons for your hope." And elsewhere, "blessed the man who can explain Me."

Therefore, I seek to understand the minutest detail of God's plan for our salvation.

You might wonder what good this particular train of thought will do? Well, I think I've discovered Luther's error. And I think this train of thought explains that error.

How? Man! You ask too many questions. Ok, you don't have to twist my arm.

Here's how. Luther says that we are saved by faith alone, right? And Scripture says that we are saved by what? Baptism.

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

And I believe that Luther made the same mistake that many Catholics make today. Did I say CATHOLICS? Why yes, I did.

Many Catholics today claim that we are only justified in Baptism. Some others claim that we are only justified in the Sacraments.

But then they turn around and confuse the Sacraments with Justification by FAITH AND WORKS.

But that isn't so. Lets go over to Trent for a minute and follow along the description of Justification by the Church Fathers.

CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]

Now, that seems to say exactly what I just said was not true. That Baptism is the only form of Justification. Justification here called Translation.

However, we must continue:
CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS

It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.

Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings:
Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply:
Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that say that God gives us grace to seek our justification. Now, although this predisposing grace is not named here, I believe it is "faith". Because Scripture says:
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

In other words, faith is that grace by which we are saved. And when we are given this grace of faith we begin to seek God:
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So going back to Trent, Trent says that we freely assent and cooperate with that grace. And assenting and cooperating are essentially works.

What would assenting and cooperating entail? For some, it might mean hitting the books, learning about the faith. For others it might mean joining some Christian endeavor, fighting abortion, passing out food in a soup kitchen. Bottom line is that this is a form of works inspired by faith.

For a person seeking entry into the Catholic Church, this also leads to RCIA.

But what happens when one is Baptized? Did I wash my soul clean? Did you? No. God did it. Free gift, no works.

This is where Luther got confused! He said, "Hey, all I have to do is be baptized and I'm saved! Free gift, no works.

But he misunderstood the Scripture. You must work in order to be baptized:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

And you must work after you are baptized:
Ephesians 2:8-10 (King James Version)

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

When we are Baptized, we are recreated in Christ's image unto good works.

So that's why I believe that we must be able to explain that there are two kinds of justification taking place in the Catholic Sacramental system.

Justification by faith and works in order to begin our justification before God and in order to perfect our justification before God.

Justification apart from works in the Sacraments which are works of God and which also continue throughout our lives.

It is really very beautiful and typical of God to leave no strings untied.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Perfect sense. You're preaching to the choir.
Then I'm in the presence of a holy choir. I better get this right! But I fear I'm not going to agree.


But although you said we should not break salvation down into its components, let me do just that. Why? Because God wants us to understand. Scripture says, "always be prepared to give the reasons for your hope." And elsewhere, "blessed the man who can explain Me."

Therefore, I seek to understand the minutest detail of God's plan for our salvation.
Ok, I'm game. But remember, those that wish to confuse the faithful, form their arguments to suit a subjective need. We are in a war, so to speak; a crusade defending Truth from the hands of those who work for themselves. They dissect scriptural meaning, taking this part and placing it over here, another part they place over there, and so on and so forth. But, when they reassemble the constituent parts, the slight of hand begins. Voilà! We have us a 3 legged horse, pointed south in a northbound race with the rider hollering giddy-up-go.


You might wonder what good this particular train of thought will do? Well, I think I've discovered Luther's error. And I think this train of thought explains that error. How? Man! You ask too many questions. Ok, you don't have to twist my arm.
Yah, like I had to twist real hard.


Here's how. Luther says that we are saved by faith alone, right? And Scripture says that we are saved by what? Baptism.

1 Peter 3:21
The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

“We are saved by hope” (Rom 8:24)

Perseverance is enduring the “trial; and trial hope; and hope confoundeth not: because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.” (Rom 5:4-5).

The line that I have continued is the foundation of our salvation and redemption is faith, a faith that can only be realized in hope, to aspire to hope, to 'work' in this faith is to claim His goal set out in love for His adopted sons – eternal life. But, we'll set this aside for a faithful door into hope, i.e. baptism.


And I believe that Luther made the same mistake that many Catholics make today. Did I say CATHOLICS? Why yes, I did. Many Catholics today claim that we are only justified in Baptism. Some others claim that we are only justified in the Sacraments. But then they turn around and confuse the Sacraments with Justification by FAITH AND WORKS.

In my work, there is sort of a running joke. When something goes wrong we say, “It's his fault” pointing off indiscriminately in several directions at once. At the same time, a chorus responds “it ain't my fault.” This not only points to the frailty of human endeavors, but it speaks to another human nature; exposing an innate desire for 'justification'. That is, relief from responsibility and liability, a covering of sins. Salvation offers up justification for our failures – it covers the liability – pays the debt; debt owed for transgressions.

To work off the debt, so to speak, may mollify our Divine creditor for a short while, but at the end the debt is due in full. This is Luther's failure, a fault too understandable; even in Catholics. Luther however was pathological seeing that the debt owed was too large he obsesses in pride at being indentured. 'Once saved always saved” is the rationalist's way of declaring bankruptcy. “Once saved always saved” speaks to hope realized – by definition it can't exist because the thing we seek is realized. Luther became obsessed with his failings – a fault in its own rite – not recognizing God's charitable love in the sacraments that forgive all debt comforting the spirit in the richness of being debt free. An achievement few men achieve in their financial affairs; fewer still achieve it in their spiritual affairs. This is the freedom from the Law that Paul speaks to in his epistle to the Romans. Luther choose to bankrupt his faith to achieve freedom from his debts in lieu of persevering in his trials and persisting in hope.

So, in the end I failed you. I still see faith -> hope -> charity which increases first faith -> then increases hope -> producing a freeman's charity which in turn intensifies unity with God – whence we become adopted sons of God, an eternal circle of faith, hope and charity, salvation.


But that isn't so. Let's go over to Trent for a minute and follow along the description of Justification by the Church Fathers.

CHAPTER IV
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER AND ITS MODE IN THE STATE OF GRACE

In which words is given a brief description of the justification of the sinner, as being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior.

This translation however cannot, since promulgation of the Gospel, be effected except through the laver of regeneration or its desire, as it is written:

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.[18]

Now, that seems to say exactly what I just said was not true. That Baptism is the only form of Justification. Justification here called Translation.

However, we must continue:
CHAPTER V
THE NECESSITY OF PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION IN ADULTS, AND WHENCE IT PROCEEDS

It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.

Hence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you,[19] we are reminded of our liberty; and when we reply: Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted,[20] we confess that we need the grace of God.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that say that God gives us grace to seek our justification. Now, although this predisposing grace is not named here, I believe it is "faith". Because Scripture says:
Ephesians 2:8
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

In other words, faith is that grace by which we are saved. And when we are given this grace of faith we begin to seek God:
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So going back to Trent, Trent says that we freely assent and cooperate with that grace. And assenting and cooperating are essentially works.

What would assenting and cooperating entail? For some, it might mean hitting the books, learning about the faith. For others it might mean joining some Christian endeavor, fighting abortion, passing out food in a soup kitchen. Bottom line is that this is a form of works inspired by faith.

For a person seeking entry into the Catholic Church, this also leads to RCIA.

But what happens when one is Baptized? Did I wash my soul clean? Did you? No. God did it. Free gift, no works.

This is where Luther got confused! He said, "Hey, all I have to do is be baptized and I'm saved! Free gift, no works.

But he misunderstood the Scripture. You must work in order to be baptized:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

And you must work after you are baptized:
Ephesians 2:8-10 (King James Version)

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

When we are Baptized, we are recreated in Christ's image unto good works.

So that's why I believe that we must be able to explain that there are two kinds of justification taking place in the Catholic Sacramental system.

Justification by faith and works in order to begin our justification before God and in order to perfect our justification before God.

Justification apart from works in the Sacraments which are works of God and which also continue throughout our lives.

It is really very beautiful and typical of God to leave no strings untied.
But, in all cases we see first and foremost either, predisposing grace ; an innate faith all creation is graced with or an unwarranted grace. We search and seek out God; failing this human nature substitutes a false god or worse still himself. So, when we get right down to the microbial level, the order of incremental elements of salvation is preceded first by God's love for his creation in the form of grace.

Did I mess things up?

JoeT

Then I’m in the presence of a holy choir. I better get this right! But I fear I'm not going to agree.


Ok, I’m game. But remember, those that wish to confuse the faithful, form their arguments to suit a subjective need. We are in a war, so to speak; a crusade defending Truth from the hands of those who work for themselves. They dissect scriptural meaning, taking this part and placing it over here, another part they place over there, and so on and so forth. But, when they reassemble the constituent parts, the slight of hand begins. voilà! We have us a 3 legged horse, pointed south in a northbound race with the rider hollering giddy-up-go.


Yah, like I had to twist real hard.



“We are saved by hope” (Rom 8:24)

Perseverance is enduring the “trial; and trial hope; and hope confoundeth not: because the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us.” (Rom 5:4-5).

The line that I have continued is the foundation of our salvation and redemption is faith, a faith that can only be realized in hope, to aspire to hope, to ‘work’ in this faith is to claim His goal set out in love for His adopted sons – eternal life. But, we’ll set this aside for a faithful door into hope, i.e. baptism.



In my work, there is sort of a running joke. When something goes wrong we say, “It’s his fault” pointing off indiscriminately in several directions at once. At the same time, a chorus responds “it ain’t my fault.” This not only points to the frailty of human endeavors, but it speaks to another human nature; exposing an innate desire for ‘justification’. That is, relief from responsibility and liability, a covering of sins. Salvation offers up justification for our failures – it covers the liability – pays the debt; debt owed for transgressions.

To work off the debt, so to speak, may mollify our Divine creditor for a short while, but at the end the debt is due in full. This is Luther’s failure, a fault too understandable; even in Catholics. Luther however was pathological seeing that the debt owed was too large he obsesses in pride at being indentured. ‘Once saved always saved” is the rationalist’s way of declaring bankruptcy. “Once saved always saved” speaks to hope realized – by definition it can’t exist because the thing we seek is realized. Luther became obsessed with his failings – a fault in its own rite – not recognizing God’s charitable love in the sacraments that forgive all debt comforting the spirit in the richness of being debt free. An achievement few men achieve in their financial affairs; fewer still achieve it in their spiritual affairs. This is the freedom from the Law that Paul speaks to in his epistle to the Romans. Luther choose to bankrupt his faith to achieve freedom from his debts in lieu of persevering in his trials and persisting in hope.

So, in the end I failed you. I still see faith -> hope -> charity which increases first faith -> then increases hope -> producing a freeman’s charity which in turn intensifies unity with God – from whence we become adopted sons of God, an eternal circle of faith, hope and charity, salvation.


But, in all cases we see first and foremost either, predisposing grace ; an innate faith all creation is graced with or an unwarranted grace. We search and seek out God; failing this human nature substitutes a false god or worse still himself. So, when we get right down to the microbial level, the order of incremental elements of salvation is preceded first by God’s love for his creation in the form of grace.

Did I mess things up?

JoeT

No. You're still right on the money! But I think I'm talking past you. I'm not denying salvation or justification by faith and works. It is just that one component of that process, the one known collectively as the Sacraments, is God's work. Not ours.

I ask you again, did you wash your soul in Baptism? Or did God?

Let me sort of run down what St. Paul said:
Romans 2:13
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

DOERS of the Law are just before God. That means that people who do the works of the Law are just before God.

But wait, in another verse he says:
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It isn't possible that St. Paul contradicted himself. So he must be talking about something else. Baptism.

Justification by faith and works is really just the acquisition of good habits and behaviors in accordance with God's will. We have to do this before and after Baptism.

But in Baptism, God cleanses us. We don't cleanse ourselves.

So, please answer the question I asked, "Did you wash your soul in Baptism, or did God wash it for you?"

Sincerely,

No. You're still right on the money! But I think I'm talking past you. I'm not denying salvation or justification by faith and works.
I understand now. The fault was my thick headedness.


It is just that one component of that process, the one known collectively as the Sacraments, is God's work. Not ours.

I ask you again, did you wash your soul in Baptism? Or did God?
Agreed; salvation is found in the Sacraments and those Sacraments are gifts from God to His Church. So, we can deduce that salvation comes from God’s graces through the Church. But, you do know this puts us in direct conflict with Protestants – they think salvation is wished for; like a child wishes for a new toy at Christmas.


Let me sort of run down what St. Paul said:
Romans 2:13
For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

DOERS of the Law are just before God. That means that people who do the works of the Law are just before God.

But wait, in another verse he says:
Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

It isn't possible that St. Paul contradicted himself. So he must be talking about something else. Baptism.

Justification by faith and works is really just the acquisition of good habits and behaviors in accordance with God's will. We have to do this before and after Baptism.

But in Baptism, God cleanses us. We don't cleanse ourselves.

So, please answer the question I asked, "Did you wash your soul in Baptism, or did God wash it for you?"

Sincerely,

Yes, I agree whole heartedly. The matter is poured with human hand, as the Holy Spirit laves the soul. We know the necessity of Baptism, it’s ordered of us; “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3). Furthermore it is a gift from God, given freely and unwarranted. “For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, II, 22.4). And we know) There is a ‘fire’ that is in Baptism mentioned in psalms 29, Isaiah 42:25 relating to the New Covenant baptism in relationship to Luke 3:16-17 and Matt 3:11, “he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire “; indeed an unquenchable fire.

Offering Himself as the manna of life, Christ’s baptism transcends the renewing baptism of the Jew from a mere renovation of the soul into a spirit burning with fire as an absent son burns with desire for his father; you might say, firing him up. Baptism is the first step of a rebirth of the spirit into adopted sons of God. “He leads us away from the old to the new polity [no doubt an ecclesiastical polity], both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12) It’s in Matthew’s Gospel that we are “born again”. Unless a man is Baptized, “he has not salvation … For when the Savior, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood." (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism to build a fire within us to become the adopted sons of God, to receive His personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life. St. Thomas reminds us: “The Apostle says (Romans 8:24): ‘What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?’ Now the blessed enjoy the sight of God. Therefore hope has no place in them.” In other words if we already have a vision of Christ, we have no need of hope, i.e. "hope has no place in them." Conversely, given baptism Christ gives us hope in the here and now for the salvation promised in the furture.


JoeT

Protestants – they think salvation is wished for; like a child wishes for a new toy at Christmas.
We do?

I understand now. The fault was my thick headedness.

GREAT!



Agreed; salvation is found in the Sacraments and those Sacraments are gifts from God to His Church.

Gifts which He only gives to those who justify themselves in faith and works. And that is how justification of faith and works is wrapped around the justification of the Sacraments, which is by God alone. But we must believe that He will keep His promises because we certainly can't do what He promised to do.


So, we can deduce that salvation comes from God’s graces through the Church. But, you do know this puts us in direct conflict with Protestants – they think salvation is wished for; like a child wishes for a new toy at Christmas.

Exactly the mystery I'm trying to unlock. Why do they believe that God does not require works?

In my opinion, they locked on to one verse of the Bible and forgot the others.

But, I think too many Catholics, and I was one of them, are in danger of committing the opposite mistake. Perhaps from overzealousness, we have locked on to the other verse by the other Apostle and tried to force that meaning on too many verses which are not talking about that at all.


Yes, I agree whole heartedly. The matter is poured with human hand, as the Holy Spirit laves the soul. We know the necessity of Baptism, it’s ordered of us; “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3). Furthermore it is a gift from God, given freely and unwarranted. “For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, II, 22.4). And we know) There is a ‘fire’ that is in Baptism mentioned in psalms 29, Isaiah 42:25 relating to the New Covenant baptism in relationship to Luke 3:16-17 and Matt 3:11, “he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost and fire “; indeed an unquenchable fire.

Offering Himself as the manna of life, Christ’s baptism transcends the renewing baptism of the Jew from a mere renovation of the soul into a spirit burning with fire as an absent son burns with desire for his father; you might say, firing him up. Baptism is the first step of a rebirth of the spirit into adopted sons of God. “He leads us away from the old to the new polity [no doubt an ecclesiastical polity], both opening to us the gates on high, and sending down His Spirit from thence to call us to our country there; and not merely to call us, but also with the greatest mark of dignity. For He has not made us angels and archangels, but He has caused us to become sons of God, and beloved, and so He draws us on towards that portion of ours.” (St. Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 12) It’s in Matthew’s Gospel that we are “born again”. Unless a man is Baptized, “he has not salvation … For when the Savior, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood." (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:10). Christ instituted Baptism to build a fire within us to become the adopted sons of God, to receive His personal call to a real salvation in an eternal life. St. Thomas reminds us: “The Apostle says (Romans 8:24): ‘What a man seeth, why doth he hope for?’ Now the blessed enjoy the sight of God. Therefore hope has no place in them.” In other words if we already have a vision of Christ, we have no need of hope, i.e. "hope has no place in them." Conversely, given baptism Christ gives us hope in the here and now for the salvation promised in the furture.


JoeT

Great stuff here. I need to keep this stuff from the Fathers' for further review. They speak right to the point.

Thanks.

We do?

There are Protestants and there are Protestants. And then there's Wondergirl. ;)

Did you ever answer my question? Do you believe we are justified by faith alone? And yet believe we are saved by faith and works?

There are Protestants and there are Protestants. And then there's Wondergirl. ;)
You won't explain?

Do you believe we are justified by faith alone?
Yes.

And yet believe we are saved by faith and works?
No.

You won't explain?

I mean that its hard to pin down what Protestants believe. There are too many flavors. You, for instance, didn't you say that you didn't believe in faith alone? Or am I getting you mixed up with someone else?


Yes.

No.

Ok, I guess I'm getting you mixed up. Who is it that said that after justification we must work in thanksgiving to God?

Ok, I guess I'm getting you mixed up. Who is it that said that after justification we must work in thanksgiving to God?
I didn't use the word "must." I said that, in thanks to God for His grace and mercy, we show our love to Him by doing good works.

Has anyone ever given you a gift -- a big one -- and it was totally free with no repayment expected?

I mean that its hard to pin down what Protestants believe. There are too many flavors.
Regarding some things, perhaps, but when it comes to salvation, I'm guessing we're pretty much in agreement.

Regarding some things, perhaps, but when it comes to salvation, I'm guessing we're pretty much in agreement.

Some believe Baptism is required.
Some don't.
Some believe in OSAS.
Some don't.
That's all I can think of right now, but there are several personal quirks to which Protestants give almost every doctrine.

Some believe Baptism is required.
Some don't.
Some believe in OSAS.
Some don't.
That's all I can think of right now, but there are several personal quirks to which Protestants give almost every doctrine.
"Personal quirks"?

I didn't use the word "must." I said that, in thanks to God for His grace and mercy, we show our love to Him by doing good works.

OK. Now lets see what Scripture says:
Romans 2:6-9 (King James Version)

6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Sounds to me that this verse says that God will give eternal life to those who continue patiently in well DOING seek for glory and honour and immortality.

Verse 8 has that word, "obey" again. This time it sounds as though those who don't obey are condemned. In verse 9, it sounds as though those who don't obey are the ones who do evil.

But to he that does good works, glory, honour and peace.

How do you interpret that section? Is eternal life equivalent to salvation?


Has anyone ever given you a gift -- a big one -- and it was totally free with no repayment expected?

Yes. But they were generally people who already loved me and whom I loved in return. They didn't go around giving big gifts to everybody for no reason.

That's what you claim that God does. That He gives everyone salvation for no reason.

Yes. But they were generally people who already loved me and whom I loved in return. They didn't go around giving big gifts to everybody for no reason.
Did you try to pay them back somehow? Did you feel any obligation toward them?

That's what you claim that God does. That He gives everyone salvation for no reason.
He makes salvation available for everyone. Each/any of us can refuse.

Is eternal life equivalent to salvation?
No.

No.

What's the difference between eternal life and salvation? And how do you interpret Romans 2:6-10?

"Personal quirks"?

Yep.

Did you try to pay them back somehow?

Non sequitur. Our relationship was already set. They didn't give me gifts because I was a stranger to them.

The only ones who ever gave me gifts which I didn't need to pay back were relatives for whom I had done many chores. I was raised in the days that children were sent to the store on the corner to buy all kinds of stuff.


Did you feel any obligation toward them?

Yes.


He makes salvation available for everyone.

No, He doesn't. Scripture says so:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


Each/any of us can refuse.

By disobeying Him. He doesn't send us a questionnaire.

Non sequitur. Our relationship was already set. They didn't give me gifts because I was a stranger to them.
Did a non-relative ever give you a large gift?

raised in the day when
I was there then too.

By disobeying Him. He doesn't send us a questionnaire.
Each/any of us can say, "No, thanks," and many do.

Exactly the mystery I'm trying to unlock. Why do they believe that God does not require works?

In my opinion, they locked on to one verse of the Bible and forgot the others.

But, I think too many Catholics, and I was one of them, are in danger of committing the opposite mistake. Perhaps from overzealousness, we have locked on to the other verse by the other Apostle and tried to force that meaning on too many verses which are not talking about that at all.



I recently reviewed some of Hume's philosophy. He is acclaimed by some Protestants as a philosopher who proposes that "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part God and His supernatural creation is denied ; this autonomous intellectual demands the right to be free of moral and social order. Indeed, Protestantism is in conflict with the Church, and perhaps directly opposed to the Divine.

Furthermore, I've come to the opinion that Protestantism is symptomatic of the H1N1 virus of faith. This is a designer virus attacking right reasoning since it's introduction by an errant monk. (I've recently been convinced that he was pathologically mad – but that's for another thread). It's defined by Catholics of that day as liberalism; being somewhat similar to the political variant. Liberalism as Protestantism holds as a right emancipation from Divine Sovereignty in all sectors of life that control and judge any matter, whatsoever. Satisfaction demands that Divine will of God conform to that of man's. Protestantism views itself as the true authority that resides in the interior of the each individual with the power remake God's creation in the Protestant image.

What Liberalism holds for itself is best described by the definition adopted by Herm Gruber; "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part and perhaps in some cases without realizing it, liberalism denies God in pursuit of an autonomous freedom; ultimately finding conflict with the Church. This is true whether the liberal is Catholic or Protestant. Once completely overtaken by the disease, no 'right' or no 'wrong' can be identified; only that which warms the interior, what feels good becomes good. When applied to an exegesis of Scripture, without right reasoning in the Magisterium the Gospels become distorted, to the point of being unrecognizable by its holy author.

As an autonomous authority Protestantism requires “freedom from” morals as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God's will. As such Scriptures become subjective to the individual, as well as different for each individual (or from group to group); thus we hear the refrain "one religion is as good as another."The regard for the Sacrament of Communion is another example of a proxy faith found Protestant Churches. Faith becomes a social construct based on whether it feels right, changing from time to time depending on expediency. Discipline in faith is exercised less and less, becoming weedy with the passing of time, until all discipline in right reasoning is rejected. The fault seems to be conclusions drawn from an autonomous intellect lacking guidance and authority. As such judgments become rationalizations, without a foundation in an absolute truth such as that only found in Catechism. Protestantism, as does liberalism, becomes the program of rationalism; where “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic).”

Like the viruses found in nature, there is no real immunity short of the protection the Church offers. The body of beliefs merely become accustom to invading profanation with each variant of liberalism mutating from simple schismatic sects to complex variants completely void of any vestige of Christianity. There is however a treatment facility, a Divine hospice, the Catholic Church. The medication is found daily in Mass, in the meat and blood of the Real Presence.

JoeT

There is however a treatment facility, a Divine hospice, the Catholic Church. .

JoeT

Not a good analogy Joe a hospice is where you take the dying. Are you suggesting catholics are waiting for death in the busom of the Church?

I recently reviewed some of Hume's philosophy. He is acclaimed by some Protestants as a philosopher who proposes that "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part God and His supernatural creation is denied ; this autonomous intellectual demands the right to be free of moral and social order. Indeed, Protestantism is in conflict with the Church, and perhaps directly opposed to the Divine.

Furthermore, I've come to the opinion that Protestantism is symptomatic of the H1N1 virus of faith. This however, is a designer virus attacking right reasoning since introduction by an errant monk. (I've recently been convinced that he was pathologically mad – but that's for another thread). It's defined by Catholics of that day as liberalism; being somewhat similar to the political variant. Liberalism as Protestantism holds as a right emancipation from Divine Sovereignty in all sectors of life that control and judge any matter, whatsoever. Satisfaction demands that Divine will of God conform to that of man's. Protestantism views itself as the true authority that resides in the interior of the each individual with the power remake God's creation in the Protestant image.

What Liberalism holds for itself is best described by the definition adopted by Herm Gruber; "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part and perhaps in some cases without realizing it, liberalism denies God in pursuit of an autonomous freedom; ultimately finding conflict with the Church. This is true whether the liberal is Catholic or Protestant. Once completely overtaken by the disease, no 'right' or no 'wrong' can be identified; only that which warms the interior, what feels good becomes good. When applied to an exegesis of Scripture, without right reasoning in the Magisterium the Gospels become distorted, to the point of being unrecognizable by its holy author.

As an autonomous authority Protestantism requires “freedom from” morals as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God's will. As such Scriptures become subjective to the individual, as well as different for each individual (or from group to group); thus we hear the refrain "one religion is as good as another."The regard for the Sacrament of Communion is another example of a proxy faith found Protestant Churches. Faith becomes a social construct based on whether or not it feels right, changing from time to time depending on expediency. Discipline in faith is exercised less and less, becoming weedy with the passing of time, until all discipline in right reasoning is rejected. The fault seems to be conclusions drawn from an autonomous intellect lacking guidance and authority. As such judgments become rationalizations, without a foundation in an absolute truth such as that only found in Catechism. Protestantism, as does liberalism, becomes the program of rationalism; where “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic).”

Like the viruses found in nature, there is no real immunity short of the protection the Church offers. The body of beliefs merely become accustom to invading profanation with each variant of liberalism mutating from simple schismatic sects to complex variants completely void of any vestige of Christianity. There is however a treatment facility, a Divine hospice, the Catholic Church. The medication is found daily in Mass, in the meat and blood of the Real Presence.

JoeT


Hi Joe,

That is a 'big call' at the beginning. What does Hume have to do with being a Protestant? Hume was a important influence in the development of Agnosticism. Are you saying that Protestants are agnostic?

Are you blaming Hume everything liberal? The main body of you thesis is an oversimplification of the development of liberal thought.

There is also a strange call at the end as well. You say, 'Protestantism, as does liberalism, becomes the programme of rationalism;... '


Hume rejects ethical rationalism. In other words, he rejects the idea that we discover morality through a process of reasoning.


Regards

Tut


P.S. I think I get it. We have been though this before. If you substitute 'empirical methodology' for 'rationalism' then it would make sense.

It probably should read 'Protestantism, as does liberalism, becomes the programme of empirical methodology... '

Your definition of rationalism is one that doesn't acknowledge or take into account British Empiricism.

Not a good analogy Joe a hospice is where you take the dying. Are you suggesting Catholics are waiting for death in the bosom of the Church?

You might say that. ”Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ” (Rom 6:8)

I thought 'hospice' was a right fine choice of words.

JoeT

I recently reviewed some of Hume’s philosophy. He is acclaimed by some Protestants as a philosopher who proposes that "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part God and His supernatural creation is denied ; this autonomous intellectual demands the right to be free of moral and social order. Indeed, Protestantism is in conflict with the Church, and perhaps directly opposed to the Divine.

Furthermore, I’ve come to the opinion that Protestantism is symptomatic of the H1N1 virus of faith. This is a designer virus attacking right reasoning since it's introduction by an errant monk. (I’ve recently been convinced that he was pathologically mad – but that’s for another thread). It’s defined by Catholics of that day as liberalism; being somewhat similar to the political variant. Liberalism as Protestantism holds as a right emancipation from Divine Sovereignty in all sectors of life that control and judge any matter, whatsoever. Satisfaction demands that Divine will of God conform to that of man’s. Protestantism views itself as the true authority that resides in the interior of the each individual with the power remake God’s creation in the Protestant image.

What Liberalism holds for itself is best described by the definition adopted by Herm Gruber; "It is contrary to the natural, innate, and inalienable right and liberty and dignity of man, to subject himself to an authority, the root, rule, measure, and sanction of which is not in himself.” At least in part and perhaps in some cases without realizing it, liberalism denies God in pursuit of an autonomous freedom; ultimately finding conflict with the Church. This is true whether the liberal is Catholic or Protestant. Once completely overtaken by the disease, no ‘right’ or no ‘wrong’ can be identified; only that which warms the interior, what feels good becomes good. When applied to an exegesis of Scripture, without right reasoning in the Magisterium the Gospels become distorted, to the point of being unrecognizable by its holy author.

As an autonomous authority Protestantism requires “freedom from” morals as well as “freedom to” implement a proxy ethic independent of God’s will. As such Scriptures become subjective to the individual, as well as different for each individual (or from group to group); thus we hear the refrain "one religion is as good as another."The regard for the Sacrament of Communion is another example of a proxy faith found Protestant Churches. Faith becomes a social construct based on whether or not it feels right, changing from time to time depending on expediency. Discipline in faith is exercised less and less, becoming weedy with the passing of time, until all discipline in right reasoning is rejected. The fault seems to be conclusions drawn from an autonomous intellect lacking guidance and authority. As such judgments become rationalizations, without a foundation in an absolute truth such as that only found in Catechism. Protestantism, as does liberalism, becomes the program of rationalism; where “Free thought begets free morals, or immorality- Restraint is thrown off and a free rein given to the passions. WHOEVER THINKS WHAT HE PLEASES WILL DO WHAT HE PLEASES (sic).”

Like the viruses found in nature, there is no real immunity short of the protection the Church offers. The body of beliefs merely become accustom to invading profanation with each variant of liberalism mutating from simple schismatic sects to complex variants completely void of any vestige of Christianity. There is however a treatment facility, a Divine hospice, the Catholic Church. The medication is found daily in Mass, in the meat and blood of the Real Presence.

JoeT

I agree. But I caution or at least I feel I should mention that Protestantism is made up of individuals. It is not a monolith. And by the grace of God there go I.

And so I focus on how to bring that grace to them. Scripture says that God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of truth. Therefore I seek to convey to them and to all the truth taught by the Catholic Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Then they can begin to receive that medication that WE ALL sorely need.

Did a non-relative ever give you a large gift?


Not that I can recall.



I was there then too.

I'm not telling my age.


Each/any of us can say, "No, thanks," and many do.

But we didn't, did we?

What would you do if a stranger sent you $500?

I'm not telling my age.
I've already guessed it.

Would you say that to your mother?
Yes, I have, especially when I thought I was smarter than she. Bet you have to.

People say no to God's gift of salvation (in addition to His other gifts) all the time.

What would you do if a stranger sent you $500?

Probably ask what its for?


I've already guessed it.

Shhh!


Yes, I have, especially when I thought I was smarter than she. Bet you have to.

Caught that one huh? I changed it because I was confused whether you were referring to the Gift of God or the gift a family member had given us.


People say no to God's gift of salvation (in addition to His other gifts) all the time.

Yes. But we haven't. So, what would happen to those who say yes, but indeed do not show any gratitude:
Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Probably ask what its for?
It's a gift. That's all.

It's a gift. That's all.

$500 from a stranger? Let me ask you, what would you do?

$500 from a stranger? Let me ask you, what would you do?
I'd say thank you and pay it forward.

I'd say thank you and pay it forward.

Lol! I don't even give my wife $500.

Ok, so what's the point?

Lol! I don't even give my wife $500.

Ok, so what's the point?
Grace (salvation) is a free gift, and we thank God for it by paying it forward.

Grace (salvation) is a free gift, and we thank God for it by paying it forward.

All is grace. Faith is grace. But salvation is only given to those who obey Christ. That is in Scripture:


Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

And only those who do the work of the law are just before God:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

And did you ever answer, what do you consider the difference between eternal life and salvation?

And did you ever answer, what do you consider the difference between eternal life and salvation?
I had Labor Day company and just now sent him home.

salvation - the sentence
eternal life = the exclamation point at the end of the sentence

salvation = what Jesus accomplished on the cross
eternal life = what Jesus accomplished with His Resurrection

I had Labor Day company and just now sent him home.

Is today labor day? I get all turned around since I work an 8 and 7 schedule. 8 days at work and 7 days off. I love it.


salvation - the sentence
eternal life = the exclamation point at the end of the sentence

salvation = what Jesus accomplished on the cross
eternal life = what Jesus accomplished with His Resurrection

That I will sleep on. Very interesting.

Wait, before I logoff. So you're explanation for Romans 2: 6-10 is that we must work to get eternal life? Or no?

Wait, before I logoff. So you're explanation for Romans 2: 6-10 is that we must work to get eternal life? Or no?
No. It's a gift that we can refuse.

Schlaf gut.

No. It's a gift that we can refuse.

Eternal life? Read Romans 2 again:
Romans 2:6-10 (King James Version)

6Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Schlaf gut.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to sleep yet. I've got some personal research to do.

But thanks. Good night.

Eternal life? Read Romans 2 again:

We will be judged by our works, but we cannot be saved by our works. In other words, we cannot be saved by works, but we have been saved to do good works. God will judge men according to their works. Romans 14:12--"Every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

We will be judged by our works, but we cannot be saved by our works.

According to that verse, will those who do not perform good works receive eternal life?


In other words, we cannot be saved by works, but we have been saved to do good works. God will judge men according to their works. Romans 14:12--"Every one of us shall give account of himself to God."

That is correct. Even to the accounting of every thoughtless word that comes out of our mouth.

I wonder if the same pertains to keyboards? ;)