re: Did you attend Church today?

quote:

---

This is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. Your unwillingness to accept that is astonishing my friend.

---

I thought Rome taught this plus cooperative good works?

I'll go back through the points and ask you some questions:

1. Jesus obeyed the requirements of the law (not us)
I thought Rome actually denies the imputation of Christ's active obedience. I thought the Trent taught that justification involves an infusion of righteousness that makes the sinner inherently righteous, rather than the imputation of Christ's perfect law-keeping credited to the believer's account. Is that right?

2. Jesus died a sinner's death (not us)
I thought that while Rome affirms penal substitution in some sense, but that the sufficiency is questioned by the teaching that Christ's sacrifice must be re-presented in the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, meaning Christ's once-for-all death is treated as insufficient without continual priestly re-offering. Am I wrong on this?

3. Jesus' death removes God's wrath (not our good works)
I thought Rome teaches that temporal punishment for sin remains even after forgiveness, and must be satisfied through penance, indulgences, and removal of sin after death in purgatory. This means that the believer must personally satisfy the temporal consequences of sin rather than having God's wrath against our sin removed by Christ upon faith in Him. Am I wrong in my understanding of what Rome teaches here?

4. Jesus' death provides perfect righteousness (we don't earn it)
I thought that Trent explicitly anathematized anyone who says that the ungodly are justified by faith alone, apart from works, and that meritorious works performed in a state of grace are required as a genuine cause of justification, meaning the believer's Spirit-assisted works are genuinely meritorious before God rather than the sinner receiving the imputation of Christ's righteousness by faith alone. Am I wrong about what Rome teaches here?

5. Jesus' death provides peace with God (we cannot appease God with works)
I thought that Rome requires satisfactory works like penance, prayers, and fastings to appease God's justice for temporal punishment. I thought the entire sacrament of penance was structured around this (contrition, confession, and satisfaction), meaning that peace with God is not fully secured by Christ alone, but requires ongoing human satisfaction. Am I wrong about what Rome teaches on this?

6. Jesus' death allows us to live with God forever (not what we do)
I thought that Rome teaches that justification can be lost through mortal sin and must be restored through acts of penance, meaning that final salvation is not secured by Christ's work alone but depends at least partly on persevering in meritorious cooperation with grace, rather than being made right with God and able to enter into His presence based on the perfect righteousness of Christ alone. Am I wrong about my understanding of what Rome teaches on this?

quote:

---

It does not. Every point goes back to your misunderstanding of the Church's teaching on faith. The Church teaches that we are saved by grace through faith (which is exactly what you believe). Faith in Christ is not just announcing "I believe in Christ". You're doing the Michael Scott "I declare bankruptcy" scene. If you lead a life rejecting Christ, you don't actually have faith. I think you agree with that but want to go back to "the Church says we can earn our way to heaven" because you have to invalidate the Church. We're saying the same thing, but you need the Church to be wrong.

---

I really don't think we mean the same thing by what we're saying. At all.

I don't believe faith is a mere announcement of mental assent or agreement. James 2 is clear that there is a type of faith that the demons have that does not save, and saving faith is not that type of faith. Saving faith is knowledge, assent, and trust in Christ's work on our behalf. The trust part is critical, because demons do not trust in Jesus' work on their behalf, even though they know who He is and what He has done.

This trust in Christ is sufficient for justification, and this faith (trust) is a gift of God's grace. That's what I mean.

What Rome means is something else, because faith is insufficient to have peace with God. It's why the sacramental system exists in the first place: to have a mechanism to infuse grace through meritorious works.

And that gets to the main difference: grace/faith and works. I believe the Bible teaches that we are saved by God's grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, because faith receives what Christ has merited for us, which is what we cannot merit for ourselves.

We cannot add anything to what Christ has already done to forgive us and to bring peace with the Father, so our works do not add to our justification, but only evidence our justification (which Trent directly rejects). The Bible teaches justification by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. Rome teaches cooperation of faith and works as meritorious for justification, so to say that we are saying the same thing is either a lie or it is pure ignorance. I believe that faith alone receives justification while works evidence that justification, while Rome teaches that faith and works cooperate together to merit justification.

quote:

---

You're absolutely wrong.

---

No, I don't think so.

From your own quotes:

"Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification."— CCC 2010 (emphasis mine)

The RCC speaks of initial grace and growth in grace. Growth in grace comes about by multiple means, including and especially our own contributions through good works.

Unless you want to say that good works, themselves, are acts of God's grace (as Protestants say), then you are still stuck with grace plus meritorious works.

At the end of the day, the Reformed (biblical) position is that justification is a monergistic work of God while the RCC position is that justification is synergistic. I believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, and the RCC teaches that grace plus works performed by us merit salvation; that it's Christ's merit and ours and the saints; that it's both Christ's suffering for sin and our own suffering in purgatory that allows us to enter into Heaven.

We do not mean the same thing.

quote:

---

the Reformed (biblical) position

---

quote:

---

(biblical)

---

quote:

---

lurking

---

If you'd like to expand upon the emoji and explain what you think is unbiblical about Reformed theology, I'd be happy to discuss with you and provide my reasoning for why I believe it is biblical.

quote:

---

I believe the Bible teaches that Christ's work alone merits justification, and that Christians receive all the benefits from justification through faith alone, apart from any good works done by the Christian. Good works necessarily flow from justification rather than contribute to it, and are an evidence that one is justified rather than merit justification. If you agree with this statement without any additions or qualifications then I'll admit I'm fundamentally misunderstanding the Rome teaches, including the anathemas of Trent.

---

That is the Catholic Church’s understanding. When Trent says “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, let him be anathema”, it means exactly what you’ve already said:

quote:

---

James 2 is clear that there is a type of faith that the demons have that does not save, and saving faith is not that type of faith.

---

Saving faith is one that is in cooperation with grace. It isn’t a separate contribution added to grace.

quote:

---

So you would then affirm that good works are not a necessary merit of justification, but only an evidence of justification merited by Christ alone, received through faith alone?

---

Correct. Not only me, the Catholic Church holds that view as well.


Edit: Please watch:

quote:

---

the Catholic churches I have attended and studied look nothing like the church I read about in Acts and the epistles.

---

When you say the Church you attended looked nothing like Acts, am I to assume you mean not during the Mass? Because again, every part of the Mass can be linked directly to the Bible.

quote:

---

They can, but again no specific mention of baptising babies.

---

There’s no specific passage about baptizing only adults. Just because it doesn’t single out babies doesn’t change the fact that it says to baptize the whole family, which would include babies. That coupled with the fact that we have accounts of infants being baptized in the 3rd century means you shouldn’t have a problem with it.

quote:

---

So you would then affirm that good works are not a necessary merit of justification, but only an evidence of justification merited by Christ alone, received through faith alone?
Correct. Not only me, the Catholic Church holds that view as well.

---

What happens if you place your faith in Christ but don't get baptized ever (infant or adult) or don't take the Eucharist ever, or don't go to confession ever, etc. and then you die?

So how is one that is not catholic saved?