You wrote:

Do you think that the Holy Father was saying the equivalent of what you followed with. Could we or should we (Catholics) understand this to be an example of the Holy Father affirming that one can be justified by faith alone without works? Would this faith itself be enough to justify so long as it included agape. Does this mean that faith alone (with agape, and hope?) can justify, without works?

I explain this in St. Clement’s Soteriology. Agape is a virtue, from which works of agape flow. A baby is justified at baptism, before he has ever done a work of agape. That is because at baptism, he receives sanctifying grace and infused agape, and is thereby made a friend of God.

Those who have reached the age of reason either choose to love God above all else, or choose to love some creature more than God. The former is an act of love for God. Even the thief on the cross did this. A person who says he has faith, but does not love God through his actions, is deceiving himself, as James explains. Agape as a virtue in the soul is, for those who have reached the age of reason, necessarily expressed in actions, or else it is expunged from the soul by mortal sin.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

UPDATE: December, 2011: I discuss this in more detail here.

Cheers,
Mark

The only part where the article quoted the Holy Father was where the Holy Father said, “For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.”

The quoted paragraph following that is a paragraph written by Bryan, not the Holy Father. Again, only that one sentence was written by the Holy Father, the rest was written by Bryan and not by the Holy Father.

“For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.”

“In other words, in Catholic soteriology we are already justified by faith alone (i.e. without works) if that faith is accompanied by love for God.4 Without love for God, we cannot be in friendship with God, even though God loves us, because mutual love is necessary for friendship. And no one who is not a friend of God is justified before God.5″

Do you think that the Holy Father was saying the equivalent of what you followed with. Could we or should we (Catholics) understand this to be an example of the Holy Father affirming that one can be justified by faith alone without works? Would this faith itself be enough to justify so long as it included agape. Does this mean that faith alone (with agape, and hope?) can justify, without works?

Peter Kreeft, in Catholic Christianity, said something similar. He said that we are justified by faith alone (he called it will-faith or heart-faith alone- which I suppose might be the equivalent of faith with agape or something like that). He also said that this faith will necessarily produce good works. I understand Kreeft to be saying that one can be justified by faith alone, even BEFORE one has done any good works or done any works (are they the same?). Do you think this is correct?

Would the dying thief on the cross next to Our Lord be an example of someone justified by faith alone without works? I have heard some say that his admonishing the other sinner, confessing the innocence of Jesus, and admitting his own sin would count as works- do you think this is right?

Before you comment on this post, you need to read the comments. (Yeah, I know there’s a lot of them.) The objection you raise has already been dealt with in the comments.

Also, sixteen [critical] comments in a twenty-four hour period is a bit much. Keep in mind that you are a guest here, a welcome guest, but a guest nonetheless. We all have day jobs and families, and we can’t respond to sixteen critical comments a day from one person. So please show us the courtesy of limiting your [critical] comments to a more reasonable number per day, just as you would, no doubt, if you were a guest at our dinner table with many other guests present as well.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

I don’t know of any Protestant who would say one can have true faith and not also love for Christ at the same time. True Faith produces love for Christ, because of His love for us. We would never say, “we are justified by a faith that is devoid of love”; that just does not make sense.

All who are justified are also changed and sanctified and are growing in their love for the Lord, but it is based on His love for us first.

“the love of Christ controls (moves, motivates, constrains) us . . . 2 Cor. 5:14

“We love, because He first loved us.” I John 4:19

Justification by faith alone does not contradict Romans 5:5 -” . . . the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”

Even Catholic Nick agrees with me here at the first comment box: (I disagree with most of the other things he writes, but he gets it right on this.)

-”The article gave off the impression the issue was “faith working through love,” with the Reformed side denying this. That’s incorrect. The Reformed Confessions expressly say the faith that justifies is the type that works by love (they are seen as a ‘package deal’ in fact). The key distinction is the operations faith and love play. Take this example: You need a fork and spoon to eat dinner, but only the spoon is used to eat the soup while the fork is used to eat the salad. Likewise, in justification, Protestants see faith as the sole instrument necessary because it alone is what ‘takes hold’ of the “righteousness of Christ” at the moment of justification. Love is still right along side ‘genuine faith’, but it plays another (though just as important) role: Sanctification.”

Blogging is one thing; the pursuit of theological truth by dialoguing electronically with informed persons holding the Catholic faith, is quite another. The former may be imprudent; but the latter is a noble and worthwhile activity, all other things being equal.

:-)

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

God bless you men,
Tim Prussic

In case you’re about to leave, can you tell me whether this summary is correct in your view before you go?

(1) Catholics claim that imputation (as Protestants describe it) is a legal fiction, in that God must be either confused or dishonest at some point in time.

(2) Protestants respond that imputation is not a legal fiction, because imputation involves real union with Christ.

(3) Catholics respond that if this “real union with Christ” doesn’t involve a change in either Christ or us, then real union is indistinguishable from fake union, bringing us back to the charge that imputation is a legal fiction.

(4) Protestants respond that this Catholic charge is false. (What is the argument here?)

(5) Furthermore, Protestants claim that in any case there are also logical problems with the Catholic case itself (I know the Catholic responses to this claim, so I don’t need to ask you about step (5)).

If this summary is correct, then can you enlighten me on step (4)? Namely, why is the Catholic charge in step (3) false?

My second question is: if God’s goal is to save us, then why does anyone care very much how much righteousness he puts into us at any given point in time, from our earthly life through our various experiences in the afterlife? Surely He can do many things in this regard without being dishonest or confused. If He wants to free our will from sin after the sacrament of penance, and leave concupiscence there until death, then what is so bad with that? And if he wants to say that we are, in a certain sense, justified after the sacrament of penance (and baptism, etc) — even though we still have concupiscence until our hour of death — then why shouldn’t He be able to handle us that way? Is it just that you think that this Catholic conception is against your interpretation of scripture, or is it that you think this Catholic conception is illogical or self-contradictory?

I’ll say off the bat that if this is just about an interpretation of scripture, then you have much more confidence in your interpretive powers than I do. I would rather listen to the Church Fathers than either myself, Martin Luther, or John Calvin (since, among other reasons, all three of us are/were too sinful in comparison with the Church Fathers who disagreed with us). But if the Church Fathers made a logical error, then please enlighten me. Is the Catholic conception self-contradictory or does it give its followers a tendency to do evil?

Sincerely,

K. Doran