;)
Questions on Justification by Faith
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology
There are times when I post that I have something to say on which I am pretty well convinced, and my motive in posting is to convince my readers to see things the way I see them. There are other times, however, when I am not so certain on what I believe about some matter or another, and I post looking for input from my readers in order to help me as I seek to develop my beliefs and convictions on a certain issue. There are yet other times when I have a relatively set opinion on a certain issue, yet there are certain lingering questions on which I am hopeful the input of others may help me to think more clearly. This post is of the final category.
I have some thoughts and beliefs regarding what I consider to be the correct answers to all of the following questions. And yet, I recognize that many of those who might answer these questions differently than I do have some pretty good arguments on their side. I want to remain open to learning from others, and to being shown where I am wrong, if indeed I am wrong.
I think blogging is a great forum for teaching one another, especially if we are open and willing to learn from one another. In the comment stream of this post, I want to place myself primarily in the learner’s seat and not the teacher’s seat.
The questions I pose here are all related, from my perspective, to a broader issue, which is that of Christian unity. On Jan. 28, in comment #33 of the comment stream of Chris Johnson’s post entitled So….You Want A New Name! I made some comments and posed some questions to Bart Barber related to the difference between unity and uniformity, and what it means to be “within the fold.” This got me to thinking about who really is, and who is not, within the fold, and some important and difficult questions related to all this.
Now, I may eventually pipe in and give my own opinion on the answers to some of these questions. My post Faith, Works, and Rewards, and the ensuing comment stream, touched on some of these issues, although, perhaps, more indirectly than directly. But, I really want to hear, most of all, from you, how you would answer these questions. I would especially like to hear from representatives of differing sides of these issues, interacting with each other, presenting arguments in favor of your position, and counterarguments answering the positions of others. Who knows? Maybe we all might learn a thing or two.
Here are the questions:
1. Is it necessary to believe in justification by faith to be justified by faith?
2. Is it necessary to believe in justification by faith alone to be justified by faith?
3. Is it possible to believe you could lose your salvation and still be justified by faith?
4. If justification by faith is a sine qua non of our beliefs as Christians, why was it not spelled out in the creeds of the early church? Or was it?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
David: My answer to the first four questions would be no. Salvation is faith in Christ alone. The rest comes in time as we study scripture and learn more of Christ and what He did on the cross. The good news is that while there may be those who do not believe or have never heard of justification by faith, it still applies to them. The bad news is that if they do not know about it they cannot live like it.
It is hard to find anything in the early church concerning justification by faith before the Reformation, although I believe it has been taught since the New Testament church, through Paul and the disciples. You can find justification by faith in the Apolegetes, but as far as early church creeds, no. I believe the creeds of the early church were very much like our BFM in that it dealt with the heresies and wrong teaching of the day. Although justification by faith was taught it was widely taught and therefore not in the early church creeds. Now this is just speculation on my part, so I could be wrong.
I should say my answer to number three is yes. You can believe you can lose your salvation and still be saved. Faith is in Christ alone.
Dave,
When I was dead in sins I don’t think I could honestly say that I believed in justification by faith the way justification by faith really is. I remember one minute I had a kind of knowledge of faith which I would call dead faith today and then the next minute I had a glimpse of the “kingdom”, so to speak, and the connection between my dead life and the eternal became possible; a living faith, if you will. I see that now as not a faith I “had”, but, a different kind of faith that started or came from elsewhere. I had nothing to do with the “opening” into the spirit world but, at the same moment, it was a conscience effort, like the pearl of great price that I cling to the finished work of Jesus Christ. God did the rest of the transformation.
Are we really looking for a “bare minimum” of what is required for justification? In essence, that is where these questions lead and result in an anemic faith that lazy believers use to justify their lack of spiritual depth and growth.
Why not rather follow Peter’s advice?
His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
The idea that you must have the right set of beliefs about how salvation works to be saved is a stain of gnosticsm. The scripture is clear in Romans 10:9, adding anything to that is gnosticism. To say you must confess Jesus as Lord, Believe in your heart, and hold these doctrines true to be saved is. . . .well incorrect.
Brother David,
1. Is it necessary to believe in justification by faith to be justified by faith?
Not at all,…. It is believing in and confessing Christ that “reveals” and testifies to the faith once for all delivered to the Saints.
2. Is it necessary to believe in justification by faith alone to be justified by faith?
Not at all,…. Faith is never alone; the essence of faith is the substance and evidence of Christ as the Lamb of God slain before the foundation of the world.
3. Is it possible to believe you could lose your salvation and still be justified by faith?
Yes of course, …… a small faith is not an indication of the lack thereof. A belief that I am not worthy of His Grace at some point in time is not “necessarily” a testimony from a heart of stone, but moreover a pleading for more of Christ.
4. If justification by faith is a sine qua non of our beliefs as Christians, why was it not spelled out in the creeds of the early church? Or was it?
Not really,….. as Rick has given us by way of the Apostle Peter,…as an adopted child,…it is a privilege to carry all things to Christ so that he can nourish us and lead us in this life of the divine nature.
Blessings,
Chris
1. No
2. No
3. Yes
4. It isn’t, and probably wasn’t in the early creeds because it wasn’t an issue. The creeds were formed to combat certain heresies.
One need not believe (or know) all true things to be the recipient of those things. Gravity springs to mind.
Everyone, however, should be instructed in the doctrine (assuming the church holds it to be true).
It would be astounding to me if most SBCers would answer yes to the first two questions, since many (if not most) people getting “saved” in our churches are doing so by “asking Jesus into their heart.”
I used to ask a question of Deacon nominees … how do you know you’re “full of the Holy Spirit?” I think someone ought to look for roadsigns as to where we are, Spiritually. (Sadly, nobody ever had what I’d deem a “good answer”).
It’s possible we’ve made too much of a thing about “justification by faith alone”. I mean James said (James 2:24, NIV) “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” And I messed, with my limited knowledge, with Strong’s, and that verse seems to mean what it says.
My opinion: saving faith is of such a strength that works will, necessarily, follow. And that’s a faith that comes from outside ourselves (Ephesians 2:8-9, anybody?).
As to the questions, however it is that we’re saved, it must be something a little child can understand (since that’s how we have to come to Him). I doubt eternal security is well-understood by children, so I doubt an understanding of that is necessary. If it were, then someone who professes faith in Jesus and confesses Him as Lord (and the other stuff you gotta do) wouldn’t be saved until he learned a bunch of stuff.
As to what our predecessors believed, I couldn’t care any less. Their faith isn’t saving anybody today. For me, it’s about reading the roadsigns in my own life, which is what convinced me I was really saved (10:00 a.m. +/-, downtown Indianapolis, day after Thanksgiving 1967, corner of Illinois & Maryland, about to step off a curb).
I think I’m supposed to still be doing that, today.
So far, it looks like the consensus answers to questions 1, 2, and 3 are no, no, and yes.
Without giving my complete answers to any of the questions yet, let me make it a little bit harder:
Taking into consideration the following Bible passages, and the following quotes from the Council of Trent, would you say it is possible to understand and accept what was stated by the Catholic Church at Trent, and still be justified by faith?
Romans 9:30-32. What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works.
Romans 10:1. Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Romans 11:5-6. So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
Galatians 1:6-9. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
Galatians 2:15. We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 5:4. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
QUOTES FROM COUNCIL OF TRENT
Canon 9: “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.”
Canon 12: “If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified … let him be accursed.”
Canon 14: “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.”
Canon 23: “lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,- except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.”
Canon 24: “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”
Canon 30: “If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.”
Canon 33: “If any one saith, that, by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.”
Brother David,
The Council was simply responding to their political structure being confronted. They had no other choice, but to defend the Papacy for their control of works, in spite of faith. When faith is seen in arrears, it is not of the substance of the faith once for all delivered to the Saints.
Biblical faith though…. confirms that the smallest of faith contains the same power of the Gospel that compels all that believe into action…… (Hebrews 11)
One theologian put it this way……
“When someone believes something, regardless of what it is, that belief changes them and results in some action or behavior that is characteristic of the belief. Every one of the characters in Hebrews 11 had faith, but that faith always, without exception, resulted in an outward action. Noah did not say, “Well, if God said it’s going to rain, then I believe it’s going to rain, but that doesn’t really affect me or demand anything from me.” No, Noah built an ark as a result of believing what God said. Was Noah’s action the cause of his salvation? No, it was an evidence of his salvation. Faith is a verb. It’s always an action, and it must have an object.”
The substance (object) is Christ…without which there will be no living action,…only dead works.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
The Council of Trent confirmed the deadness of the faith they invent, demonstrating it by their defense to deny the faith that is outside of themselves, delivered by God to His people.
Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
Blessings,
Chris
David,
You said, “Taking into consideration the following Bible passages, and the following quotes from the Council of Trent, would you say it is possible to understand and accept what was stated by the Catholic Church at Trent, and still be justified by faith?”
If someone truly understands and truly believes those quotes from the Council of Trent, they aren’t believing biblically and have rejected Christ as the sole means of their salvation.
For a Catholic to be saved (which I think is the underlying question) they have to believe things that the Catholic church officially condemns, which counts as a mortal sin (heresy), which, under the Catholic understanding, makes one damnable to hell.
In short, you can’t be a Catholic in good standing and a Christian unless 1)you’re beliefs on the subject are unknown to others and 2)the official teaching of the Catholic church is unknown to you.
Please correct me if I’ve made a mistake here on Catholic teaching.
David,
The Catholic Church has the ability to constantly reinterpret, in an authoritative manner, how Scripture is to be interpreted. That is not an ability that you and I as evangelicals have. Trent was 500 years ago. Yes, it is still authoritative for Catholics, but its remoteness in historical and political perspective make so many of its points less than transparent for both Catholics and non-Catholics. Why don’t you try the same neat trick of proof-texting with Vatican II or the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
Whatever Trent proposed seems less egregious than the Southern Baptists (former) support of slavery and abortion. I only mention these historical realities because it is healthy to remember the brokenness of our own communities before casting that stone at others.
To answer you original question:
1. Is it necessary to believe in justification by faith to be justified by faith? No, one must believe in the Gospel which is coterminous with allegiance to Messiah himself. To divide faith from works is a Western, individualistic novelty, utterly foreign to the mind of the Scriptures.
2. Is it necessary to believe in justification by faith alone to be justified by faith? No.
3. Is it possible to believe you could lose your salvation and still be justified by faith? Yes.
4. If justification by faith is a sine qua non of our beliefs as Christians, why was it not spelled out in the creeds of the early church? Or was it? It was not spelled out, because it is not a sine qua non.
Blessings from the Middle East.
Abu Daoud
Abu Daoud,
I can understand how what I have written may come across as denigrating or attacking, but that is not really my motive here. As I stated in my post, my main motive is to learn, and take advantage of what others may have to say that might help me to see these things in a better light. In order to truly do that, though, I think it is helpful to ask the hard questions, even though, at times, they may come across as uncharitable.
I don’t think comparing the degree of egregiousness of various confessional communities’ errors is really a helpful tack here. I am not trying to defend Southern Baptists vis-a-vis Roman Catholics. Rather, I am trying to understand and apply as well as possible what the Word of God teaches. If Southern Baptists have errors that need to be corrected, then, by all means, let’s do what we can to correct those as well. And, if I personally have errors that need to be corrected, I hope I am open and humble enough to admit that as well.
Before I share my own answers to the questions, I would like to get some further input from others. Up till now, all I have done is ask some questions, quote some Scripture verses, and present some quotes from the Council of Trent.
I will forward that I think it is fairly safe to say that, as Southern Baptists, almost all of us would agree that:
“While we are saved by grace through faith alone, the faith that saves is never alone.”
I think that also sums up pretty well what I was trying to say in my “Faith, Works, and Rewards” post I link to in my post here.
Abu Daoud,
I will also add that, having said that I agree that, “While we are saved by grace through faith alone, the faith that saves is never alone,” I am still trying to wrap my mind around what you say here:
“To divide faith from works is a Western, individualistic novelty, utterly foreign to the mind of the Scriptures.”
Are you saying that, if it weren’t for our Western cultural bias, we would read the verses I quoted in comment #9, and never even think in terms of a distinction between faith and works?
The Council of Trent may be a very good example as to why creeds should not be considered iron clad or equal with the Bible.
Chris said the rest well.
To all:
From what I pick up from bits and pieces I have read here and there, N.T. Wright has written some things that have a bearing on the questions I ask here, and John Piper has written some things in response to Wright. I have not yet had the time and opportunity to read either. I imagine that when I do, that may well help me to think through these questions a little better.
In the meantime, any of you who have read Wright and/or Piper on these questions, would it be possible to give a brief synopsis of how you think they might answer my questions here?
David,
I have read N.T. and Piper’s work on this…. it would take quite a long summary to digest and parse the words. Piper’s framing of N.T.’s potential intent is interesting. I will dig out my notes from last year and see if I can make some attempt at a summary by tomorrow. The reading is mind numbing…but fun.
Blessings,
Chris
I’m not sure how to answer your questions and no offense I’m not sure they are the right ones.
They may be valid questions, I just don’t think they are the ones that decide my salvatiion.
Couple thoughts in the ballpark of what I think you are talking about or searching for.
I think I have a better chance at eternal security with you, David, asking the questions, than say your Dad, or Mohler or Paige Patterson or Richard Land.
Another thought, I think Cormac McCarthy gets to some very valid points about inspiration about page 140 in his book The Crossing; and that passage, say had he been a Jew and lived 4,000 years ago could easily have made the canon.
Roughly he talks about Grace and Witness
My final point before I leave a strong passage with you is Hebrews 11:13; if that is the test, I’m in.
Live by faith, persuaded by the afar off promised, while confessing to be a stranger and a pilgrim on the earth.
I qualify, I’m in.
I was baptized a long time ago, resisted the conservative in the SBC cause I’m convinced as I’ve said many times on this board it was more about the legacy of the Texas Regulars than it was about a High view of Scripture.
As an example of a High View of Scripture I offer this blog quote that rings very true for me.
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:35:36 +0000
http://www.one-eternal-day.com/2009/12/are-never-at-home.html
Several friends have told me that I should read Marilynne Robinson, especially Gilead and Home. I possess an irrational reluctance to accept such suggestions even when I know that my friends have tastes and interests similar to my own. “Simple Gifts” by Cheryl Miller in the current Claremont Review of Books may succeed where they have failed. It is a review of those books that makes very clear why I ought to like them. For instance, Miller on Robinson and original sin and the wages of utopianism:
…. “Gross error survives every attempt at perfection, and flourishes.” Robinson may call herself a liberal Protestant, but it’s not for nothing that she says “my heart is with the Puritans”—no novelist working today has a deeper understanding of original sin. For Robinson, discontent is our natural condition. “There is a wound in the flesh of human life that scars when it heals and often enough seems never to heal at all,” Ames reflects in Gilead. Glory too wonders “how the soul could be put at ease, restored. At home.” But such a restoration cannot be achieved: “[W]e are the Ishmael of species…while we belong in the world, we have no place in the world.” We are never at home.
Robinson allows that this might seem a “harsh doctrine,” but it has proven far kindlier than the belief that we can “reason our way to a code of behavior that is consistent with our survival, not to mention our dignity or our self-love.” Ever the student of history, Robinson asks, “what could have been more brutal than these schemes to create happy and virtuous societies?” It is our desire to remake the world “without strain and conflict,” she reminds us, that has “made most of the barbarity of our century seem to a great many people a higher philanthropy.” By contrast, “the belief that we are all sinners gives us excellent grounds for forgiveness and self-forgiveness.” ….
The Claremont Institute – Simple Gifts
We wouldnt need the greatest of commandments(i.e. Love thy Neighbor) if our justification was a matter of private faith. Good works perfects faith in its public witness, actions and attitude. If man could achieve the proper level of perfection through private faith alone, then why does James say that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone? Why does Jesus repeatedly call on us to act out good works if only faith is needed? In fact, the only place in the Bible where the phrase “faith alone” appears is in James 2:24 where it says we ARE justified by works and NOT by faith alone.
“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
James 2:24
Catholics do not deny that through perfect faith one can attain salvation, but that level of perfection is unattainable without a complete surrender of not just your conscience, but your outward disposition through living your life in accordance to God’s will. The dialogue with protestants on this issue always seems to degrade into cause and effect relationships instead of mutual enrichment.
Irenaeus,
Thanks for joining in the conversation. I think that because we frequently mean different things by the terms we use, we as Protestants and Catholics sometimes end up talking past each other. As I understand it, as Protestants, we make a distinction between justification and sanctification, while, for Catholics they are all part of the same process. As I understand it, James is talking about justification more from the Catholic point of view, while Paul talks about it more from the Protestant point of view. This is not to say that either one is more correct than the other, just they are looking at the same reality from two different perspectives.
In my “Faith, Works, and Rewards” post I link to above, I deal with the supposed conflict between James and Paul a little more directly. I would be interested on your thoughts on what I say there.
I would also be interested to know if you find fault scripturally in the phrase I quoted above: “While we are saved by grace through faith alone, the faith that saves is never alone.”
I guess I must confess it is hard for me to discard the “cause and effect” aspect of salvation as unimportant or irrelevant. As a matter of fact, as I understand Scripture, it seems crucial. Though I am open to being shown how this is just my cultural and/or denominational bias that makes me see it that way.
Also, as I understand Scripture, it is not a “perfect faith” that saves, but rather a “mustard-seed” type of faith in a perfect sacrifice accomplished by a perfect Savior on Calvary’s cross.
Hi David,
Thank you for the welcome. I agree a lot of the confusion has to do with different understandings of the same words that Catholics and Protestants use. As I understand it. Paul is talking about works of the Law, as in the Jewish Law, not the Christian. We as Christians don’t observe mosaic law, because Christ abrogated them by his death and resurrection. When Paul is exhorting Jews about faith and not works, he is saying to them…. you don’t need the Law of Moses, you need faith in Christ. Now when we look at James, he is talking about Christian works as exemplified by Christ. As I see it, this means all the difference.
“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. ”
Romans 4:2
Paul was talking about works of the Mosaic Law in his letter. Neither does the Catholic Church promulgate works of the Mosaic Law. However, the works promulgated by Christ, do help justify you before God.
“For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.”
Matt 16:27
In regard to my thoughts on “While we are saved by grace through faith alone, the faith that saves is never alone.”…. As a Catholic, I would say, if faith is never alone as Luther says…. then neither does faith alone save you. Faith is almost synonymous with joyful hope to the point where they are used interchangeably in scripture. However, it is not hope that aids the poor, or that clothes the naked. I think the cause and effect relationship is misleading because I can do great works and yet be a worshipper of some Hindu god. And conversely, I can have great faith or hope that Christ will save many, but I deliberately exclude myself by my works. Faith is not an action, it is interior disposition. Reason states that it can be divorced from your exterior disposition, but when they are in sync for Truth, that is what is most pleasing to God.
In closing, when I earlier spoke of perfect faith, I meant it as a process that one aspires to. I didn’t intend for it to sound as though I was saying you required perfect faith, as that is not attainable. You rightly quoted the mustard seed, but even that tiny amount of faith is immeasurably hard…. or we would all be able to walk on water or raise the dead as St. Peter did.
David and Irenaeus,
I had the opportunity to pull out my notes from Piper’s response to N.T. Wright in his book “The Future of Justification”. N.T. seems to imply there is a middle ground that better describes justification than the Protestants, …who see the Apostle Paul teaching an alien righteousness (Christ’s righteousness) that is imputed to those the Father has given to His Son which stands in vivid contrast against the Roman Catholic position of infused righteousness seen in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states:
“Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy.”
“Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.”
So justification for the Roman Catholic is not the imputation of the obedience of Christ,..but moreover the infusion of righteousness as Irenaeus defends. N.T. Wright, though he uses different and more tolerant wording, for the most part agrees with the Roman Catholic view where “the role of our own obedience in relationship to justification and final judgment is enormously important.” (The Future of Justification, page 183).
Piper’s response puts into perspective “The Place of Our Good Works in God’s Purposes”…. “Our own works of love do not create or increase God’s being for us as a Father committed to bringing us everlasting joy in his presence. That fatherly commitment to be for us in this way was established once for all through faith and union with God’s Son. In his Son, the perfection and punishment required of us are past and unchangeable. They were performed by Christ in his obedience and death. They cannot be changed or increased in sufficiency or worth.” Piper goes on to say…. “ if we make the mistake of thinking that our works of love (the fruit of God’s Spirit) secure or increase God’s commitment to be completely for us, now and in the last judgment, we compromise the very reason that these works of love exist, namely, to display the infinite worth of Christ and his work as our all-sufficient obedience and all-sufficient sacrifice” (The Future of Justification, page 185,186).
I believe Piper has again rightly stated the confusion unleashed by Roman Catholic theological redefinition of grace,… where justification becomes simply another mysterious means through meritorious works over time,…as opposed to a declaration and standing by the Christ whose work is completed for His bride without reservation (She is made alive, born again from above unto good works).
Blessings,
Chris
Hi David,
To answer your question, no. Western Christianity has a faulty anthropology, probably thanks to Augustine’s deficient Trinitarian theology. (That’s another story.)
Trent is Western through and through, just like evangelicalism is Western through and through. If you start with the wrong theology of man (anthropology) you can not end up with an adequate soteriology (and it works the other way too).
There is something very unnatural about asking questions like, what if someone had faith but not works? Or what if someone had genuine good works, but they did not have faith? To Christians here asking such questions is much like asking the other sort of bizarre questions people in the West talk about all the time: what if two men got married? What if gay sex could really reflect God’s charity? What if we could clone human beings and use the embryos’ body parts for scientific research?
Trent and evangelicalism are both Western. They are two peas in the same pod and suffer from the same malady. Just they have gone in search of two radically different cures, neither of which can really work.
Well…you asked!
Salam,
Abu Daoud
Abu,
You said, “To Christians here asking such questions is much like asking the other sort of bizarre questions people in the West talk about all the time: what if two men got married? What if gay sex could really reflect God’s charity? What if we could clone human beings and use the embryos’ body parts for scientific research?”
I am curious about this last question. You ask the fist two, presumably, as counterfactuals as if they could never happen that two men could get married (theologically impossible at any rate, even if made legal by the state) and gay sex could reflect God’s love. I would agree with those.
However, your last question has me stumped. I see the theological impossibility of gay marriage/sex, but I’m not sure cloning has such a clear theological impossibility. I believe it is a question that needs investigation and one that has been debated from the earliest days of the church, namely when does a lump of tissue become a human soul?
I can argue that women shedding eggs once a month or me spilling semen is not the destruction of a human being, but is instead a loss of cells with no moral impact. The question becomes thornier when we unite that egg and sperm and form a single cell. Is a single undifferentiated cell a human being? Strict pro-lifers would make the statement that it is, yet have no problem donating blood, of which more theological importance is attached than a fertilized egg. So these topics warrant discussion. I’d be curious to hear why you think there is a theological impossibility attached to embryonic tissue for transplants. And what if we can harvest our own stem cells, clone our own tissues for organ transplantation? Is that morally wrong as well?
Irenaeus,
While I do agree that the moral and ethical guidelines of Christianity are a bit different than in Judaism, it doesn’t make sense to me that what Paul (and the rest of the NT) are making a case for is merely changing religions, replacing one set of laws for another. If anything, the moral and ethical requirements of Christianity are more stringent, and more impossible to keep, than those of Judaism. How is that really “good news”?
Chris,
Thanks for the homework on Wright and Piper. From what I can tell, Piper is basically defending the traditional Protestant perspective on this. Do you think he would agree that it is possible to be justified by faith without truly believing in justification by faith, though?
Abu Daoud,
It seems pretty clear to me, cultural biases apart, that both James and Paul speak of a division between faith and works, at least on a hypothetical or theoretical basis. And, while James is pretty clear that faith without works is dead, I still think it is vitally important that we have clear that good works come as a result of our faith, and not as a cause or contributor to it (Eph. 2:8-10).
Brother David,
“Do you think he would agree that it is possible to be justified by faith without truly believing in justification by faith, though?”
From what I know of Piper’s teachings, I think he would agree that it is not belief in “the doctrine” that saves, but it is belief in “the Christ” of the doctrine. So, as Christ teaches us …..John 6:51 “I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh.”….when rightly understood, this analogy make clear sense in the language Christ used as He exposed this truth,..since in Hebrew the word for bread is synomous with Syriac and Arabic forms for “flesh” this would have been understood in that way….since it is obvious that the eating of flesh was never done or instructed by Christ or the Apostles. So Christ’s teaching is opposed to the Roman Catholic / Westernized inventive form of transubstantiation designed (moreover creating a mystery where none is required)to reform the analogy made by Christ as He explained the propitiation and the effects of the faith to which Christ’s sacrifice and ressurection is the substance.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother David,
To clarify a bit more…. To place trust in a doctrine is quite the opposite of confessing Christ as Lord and Savior. What appears to be at the crux of the Roman Catholic and Protestant view is what you have stated….. about whether believing in justification by faith is necessary. That is quite a different question than to say…. Am I being saved by the Roman Catholic system (process) of thought? Because to believe in the Roman Catholic system of thought is to believe in a doctrine, not necessarily Christ…..since Christ is more a less a “mystery” in the Roman Catholic system with respect to what He has actually accomplished when reduced to such a human system of belief. So the question that some like to ask would be …Are there any Christians in the Roman Catholic System? I would say there certainly is….since it is not the doctrine that saves, but it is the Christ of the doctrine that actually does impute His righteousness to the adopted as they are now a new creation.
What has to be very confusing for the Roman Catholic that is born again (made alive in Christ),….is the stark contradiction of the Papacy’s teaching over and against the words of Christ and the doctrines of the Apostles, as the Spirit matures the heart,…. This was probably Luther’s greatest struggle while being saved in the Roman Catholic system. Luther obviously continued to retain much of the Catholic system, simply because of poor training (i.e…baptism). Yet,… Luther began to recognize the faith (of Christ’s Righteousness) once for all delivered to the Saints even while in the Roman Catholic system.
It is no surprise that the Roman Catholic system in Luther’s day was furious at the newness of life he exposed….. Because as light shines into darkness,…all kinds of things become exposed to the light. The reaction of the Papacy was to kill the light and reform their own system in such a way so that its adherents (political structure and support) would not rebel. This is obvious from history, and is repeated over and over, not only in the Roman Catholic system, but in many other denominationally aligned groups as well. Baptist’s are not immune.
Blessings,
Chris
Nice series of posts, Chris. Exactly the clarification needed.
Sometimes we mistake the map for the territory.
This leads to all sorts of excesses. One of them is to argue over who has the best map or the most accurate map. Many of us have gone to school to become expert map readers and are able to chart a course unerringly across the landscape because we know our map so thoroughly. Not only that, but we are also able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of our map compared to other maps. However, we sometimes fall short in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of our map with respect to the territory.
I do believe it is an error on our part as map-readers, scholars of maps, and in some cases even map makers, to say that one cannot move from one place to another across the landscape unless they have the proper map. This is not to subvert the value of maps, map-reading, or map-making, but rather to admit to a genuine humility in our endeavors.
I think I can say with a fair degree of reliability that a topographic map is ill-suited for identifying political boundaries and that a road map might provide hints to geologic features and that both are better than the maps that I used to color in kindergarten. More importantly, I think I can also say with a high level of confidence that no one map will completely describe the territory. That being said, I do believe that some maps are more accurate than others and that is even when they are attempting to be the same kind of map.
I might draw four spiritual compass points on the back of a napkin that gets you across the nearest bridge, but I certainly would not want to rely on it for anything more than that. By the same token, I don’t need an encyclopedic world atlas to get from my house across town, nor could you say I’m steering wrong because I didn’t bring all that baggage with me. Rand McNally may be all I need for that particular journey.
Y’all have fun with the rest of the metaphor.
David,
Good discussion. As I understand your questions my answers would also be no, no, yes for 1-3 and number 4 is complicated.
In some ways this reminds me of the which came first the chicken or the egg question. Do you need to believe in justification by faith before you can be justified by faith or must you be justified by faith before you can believe in justification by faith?
Al Mohler made the following statement.
“Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.”
David, I would be interested in your understanding of what Al Mohler is saying. I believe belief in the virgin birth is an important doctrine. Is it possible to not believe in the virgin birth and still be justified by faith? This is similar to your question, “Is it possible to believe you could lose your salvation and still be justified by faith?” Is Mohler saying we must believe certain doctrines such as the virgin birth in order to be saved or is he saying if we are truly saved we will believe certain doctrines such as the virgin birth. If so, are there other doctrines such as eternal security that someone who is truly saved will believe in without fail.
Ron West
I will take a stab, now, at answering the questions I have posed here.
1. While, as others have alluded to already, it is not realistic or fair to expect everyone to be able to articulate correctly Christian doctrines, such as the doctrine of justification by faith, if I understand the Bible correctly, everyone who is justified, is justified by faith in the finished work of Jesus on the cross of Calvary.
In lesson #4 of the evangelistic course “Christianity Explained” (http://www.christianityexplained.com/), the following practical illustration is used in order to show the difference between salvation by grace and by works:
The person taking the course is asked to write down privately on a sheet of paper their answer to the well-known 2nd “diagnostic question” of the Evangelism Explosion gospel presentation: “Suppose you were to die today and stand before God and He were to say to you, ‘Why should I let you into My heaven?’ what would you say?”
After a few minutes for reflection and writing down the answer, two large envelopes are placed on the table. On one of the envelopes, there is written an “X,” indicating the wrong answer. On the other, there is a check mark, indicating the correct answer.
Upon opening first the envelope with the “X,” there is another envelope inside that says, “What I Have Done.” Then, after opening up that envelope, there are a series of cards inside, each one containing a typical answer someone who is trusting in their own works might give, as a response to the 2nd diagnostic question: “going to church,” “raising a family,” “being a good citizen,” “giving to the poor,” “being baptized,” etc.
Then, upon opening the second envelope, there is an envelope that says “What Christ Has Done.” And, inside that envelope is a diagram representing the truths covered in lessons 1 to 3 of the “Christianity Explained” course: “Jesus is the Son of God”; “Jesus died on the cross to pay for our sins”; and “Jesus rose from the dead.”
While many people may have trouble articulating and explaining correctly the doctrine of justification by faith, I believe that those who are truly saved, when faced with a dilemma like this, will realize that, at the bottom line, it is not anything that they have done or might do that saves (or justifies) them, but rather what Jesus has already done for them.
If, after being shown this illustration and understanding the point behind it, someone still insists that any one of the things included under “What I Have Done” is what really saves (or justifies) them, I would seriously question whether they were truly justified by faith.
2. For me, the answer to the second question is a little more tricky. I can envision a scenario where someone, in the bottom of their heart, really is trusting in Jesus, and His finished work on the cross, as the basis of his/her salvation, and yet, because of what they have been taught in their particular background, believe that some of the things in envelope #1 might be helpful to assure their ultimate salvation. I suppose we are basically talking, here, about the proverbial 18 inches between one’s heart and one’s head. As I understand it, faith is essentially a heart condition, and not an intellectual assent to a series of propositions. And thus, someone may be confused, in their head, about what they believe, and yet, in their heart, really and truly be trusting in Jesus for their salvation, and not their own good works. By the same token, someone who has all of the facts about justification by faith straight in their head, but who is not, in their heart of heart, trusting in Jesus for their salvation, is not saved.
Most of us, I imagine, are familiar with the story of Blondin, the famous tightrope walker, who crossed Niagara Falls on a tightrope, then crossed again pushing a wheelbarrow. Then, upon informing the admiring onlookers that he was going to cross again with the wheelbarrow, and asking them if they believed he could make it across, and hearing them all reply, “Yes! Yes!” turned, and asked a young boy in the crowd “Do you think I can make it?” When the young boy replied, “Yes,” he answered, “Well, then, get in the wheelbarrow.”
Faith, as I understand it, is the equivalent of placing ourselves in the metaphorical wheelbarrow Jesus is pushing along the tightrope of life. Either we are in the wheelbarrow or we are not. It does not do any good if we say we believe He is able to do what He claims, if we do not follow through, and actually place ourselves in the wheelbarrow. But, if we try to cross the tightrope on our own, without first getting into the wheelbarrow, that is not faith at all, and will do nothing to save us.
Now, to force the illustration a little further, I suppose it is theoretically possible to place oneself in the wheelbarrow, and, at some place along the way, think that, by staying especially still, we are helping the wheelbarrow-pusher to maintain his balance. In such a case, we may indeed have faith in the wheelbarrow-pusher, but not technically be believing “justification by faith alone” at that particular moment. Personally, I think that to think that would be a grave mistake. Our divine Wheelbarrow-Pusher is much, much more competent at completing the task before Him than Blondin ever dreamed of being. And, our wiggling in the wheelbarrow will not throw Him off course. But, as I mentioned to Irenaeus in a previous comment, it is not the theoretical perfection of our faith that saves us, but rather our “mustard-seed” faith in the perfect sacrifice on the cross of our perfect Lord and Savior.
3. By the same token, an imperfect faith may doubt, at some juncture along the path, what it believed at an earlier one. Following through with the Blondin illustration, I believe that Jesus is able to keep me buckled in the wheelbarrow, as it were. The fact that I might be convinced, or convince myself, that I could theoretically unbuckle myself, and jump out of the wheelbarrow, does not change that reality. The important thing, once again, is the condition of my heart: Am I truly trusting Jesus, or am I trusting in my own efforts? To be sure, the person who makes it across in the wheelbarrow without entertaining these thoughts will arrive on the other side in a much better frame of mind than the one who continually worries about falling out of the wheelbarrow along the way. But, it seems to me, they will both make it to the other side, as it does not, at the bottom line, depend on them, but on the Wheelbarrow-Pusher.
4. Basically, as I understand church history, the answer to this question is that already given by various commenters: the creeds were written in response/reaction to various heresies that were creeping into the Church at that time, and not a full summary of crucial doctrine. It is disheartening, though, to see so little emphasis in this stage of church development on a doctrine, which, according to what I consider to be an objective reading of Romans and Galatians, seems so central to our belief system as Christians.
This is a question I want to ask the Lord about, when I get to heaven, and which I hope to research a bit more down here on earth, in the meantime, as well.
I would love to hear your responses to this, and continue the conversation.
I come very late to this party, so I may repeat what others have said, or may look silly in the light of the collective wisdom of the commenting group. In answer to David’s questions, here’s my thoughts.
1. Is it necessary to believe in justification by faith to be justified by faith?
I would say that one does not need a developed theology, but a simple faith in Jesus Christ.
2. Is it necessary to believe in justification by faith alone to be justified by faith?
Here’s where I have a little problem. Do you need a developed doctrinal and theological understanding to be saved? No, of course not. But can one be saved if he holds to the idea that his works are somehow a part of the saving process. If I come to Christ believing that I am combining his grace with my works, am I truly saved?
I would have some serious doubts here.
3. Is it possible to believe you could lose your salvation and still be justified by faith?
I do not think even most BI adherents believe that a belief in apostasy nullifies salvation. However, I think this could be a logical deduction made from their statements about the flawed soteriology of those who believe in apostasy. Can you really be saved with a “flawed soteriology?” Kind of an oxymoron, isn’t it?
So, I don’t think anyone would come out and say that, but I think it is a logical extension from the ecclesiological comments of some.
4. If justification by faith is a sine qua non of our beliefs as Christians, why was it not spelled out in the creeds of the early church? Or was it?
Actually, if you look at the sermons of Acts, the words of the Apostles themselves, the Resurrection of Christ was the sine-qua-non of Christian belief.
Now that I’ve answered the questions, I’m going to read all the comments. Should be interesting.
Ron West, looks like we’re headed to Taiwan this summer – Lord willing.
Brother Rick,
I know one thing….if I go on a trip of any length, I’m going to consult with you first…
Blessings,
Chris
David, I guess that as I have read through the comments, I may be dissenting a little (or maybe I’m not) from the consensus on question 2. As I said above, I do not believe that one needs a completely developed theology to repent and believe.
But, doesn’t belief in Christ require that we forswear faith in our own works? So, there is a certain sense in which I would say a belief in justification by faith without works is necessary.
Does that make any sense?
Dave,
Great! There is a slight possibility I could be taking a team back but I am still officially on STAS so I probably should wait another year. Will you be working with Dan?
Ron
Yep, Dan and Otey. We will probably be helping at TMF and then staying another week for an “English Camp”
Chris states -
[---
since it is obvious that the eating of flesh was never done or instructed by Christ or the Apostles. So Christ’s teaching is opposed to the Roman Catholic / Westernized inventive form of transubstantiation
---]
John 6:53-58, 66-67
So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.’ After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, ‘Will you also go away?’”
Most Protestants believe that the bread and wine offered by the Catholic priest in the Holy Mass are only symbols of Christ’s body and blood. They do not believe that Christians have to actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ to have eternal life. They do not believe that Christ’s flesh is actual food, and His blood actual drink. Why, then, does Jesus repeatedly say in these verses that we must eat His flesh and drink His blood or we have no life in us? Why does Christ say that His flesh is food indeed, and His blood is drink indeed, if His flesh and blood really aren’t food and drink indeed? This teaching of Jesus on the Eucharist is the most profound in all of Scripture, and these verses are very problematic to the Protestant contention that the bread and wine of the Mass are just symbols.
When John 6 is prayerfully read, we see how Jesus gradually teaches the faithful about the life-giving bread from heaven that He will give to the world (through the multiplication of the loaves, the reference to the raining manna given to the Israelites, and finally to the bread that Jesus will give which is His flesh). When the Jews question Jesus about how he could possibly give them His flesh to eat, Jesus becomes more literal in His explanation. As we learned in the link on The Eucharist, Jesus says several times that we must eat (in Greek, “phago”) His flesh to gain eternal life (which literally means “to chew”).
When the Jews further question the strangeness of His teaching, Jesus uses an even more literal verb (in Greek, “trogo”) to describe how we must eat His flesh to have eternal life (which literally means “to gnaw or crunch”). The word “trogo” is only used two other times in the New Testament (Matt. 24:38; John 13:18) and it is always used literally (physically eating). Protestants are unable to provide a single example of where “trogo” is ever used in a symbolic sense. To drive His point home, Jesus says that His flesh is real food indeed, and His blood is real drink indeed (Jesus says nothing about the bread being a symbol of His body and blood).
What is perhaps most compelling about the foregoing passages is what happens at the end of Jesus’ discourse. We know that the Jews understood Jesus as speaking literally. This is demonstrated by their question, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” They could not conceive of why consuming Jesus’ flesh was life-giving and how they could possibly do such a thing. We also know that Jesus responds to their question by being even more literal about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. But we learn at the end of Jesus’ discourse that many of His followers, because of the difficulty of His teaching, decided to no longer follow Him – and Jesus let them go. Then He turned to His apostles and asked them, “Will you also go away?”
Would Jesus, the Incarnate Word of God who became man to save humanity, allow his followers to leave Him if they misunderstood His teaching? Of course not, especially when the teaching regarded how they were to obtain eternal life which was at the heart of Jesus’ mission. Jesus always explained the meaning of His teachings to His disciples. Mark 4:34. Jesus did not say, “Hey, guys, come back here, you got it all wrong.” He didn’t do this because they did not have it all wrong. They understood correctly – we must eat Jesus’ flesh and drink His blood, or we have no life within us. The Protestant who contends that the Catholic offering of bread and wine in the Mass is just a symbol (and does not miraculously become the body and blood of Christ through the actions of the priest acting “in persona Christi”) must address John 6:53-58, 66-67 – why Jesus used the words He did, and why Jesus allowed His followers to leave Him if they understood Him correctly (which is the only time in Scripture where Christ allows His disciples to leave Him based upon a doctrinal teaching).
When we meditate upon this mystery with an open mind and heart, we come to believe and know that the Eucharist is the way the Father gives us His Son in the eternal covenant of love by the power of the Holy Spirit. The Eucharist is an extension of the Incarnation. If we can believe in the Incarnation (that God become a little baby), than believing that God makes Himself substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine is easy. The Church has thus taught for 2,000 years that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian faith – the consummation of the sacrificed Paschal lamb, by which we are restored to God and share in His divine life. Thus, Saint Paul says, “our Paschal lamb has been sacrificed; therefore, let us celebrate the feast.” 1 Corinthians 5:7-8.
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.”
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
FYI, What I posted above are not my words, but the words of John Salza (http://www.scripturecatholic.com/).
I agree with Dave Miller. If someone doesnt believe in justification by faith, then they have no salvation. We are saved by grace thru faith, not of works, lest any man should boast. If someone doesnt understand that they are justified by faith, then how in the world are they gonna get saved? They cant. Now, do they have to have a theological degree in all the fine points of faith and justification? of course not. But, we must come to Jesus thru faith, or we will not be saved.
Also, about the virgin birth, of course someone can be saved, who doesnt understand everything about the virgin birth. But, what is the Gospel? Do you believe that someone must believe the Gospel to be saved? What are we supposed to preach to the lost? The Gospel?!? And, if someone can look at the virgin birth, and deny it, then they are probably as lost as a goose in high weeds. They do not know the Savior, if they can imply that He is a mere man, who was the result of fornication. I really doubt that someone like this knows the Lord.
David
Irenaeus,
Jesus explains his mystery by giving ears to those who hear and eyes to those who see. In a couple of days on this site, I will explore this “mysterious” Latin concept of the Greek term mustērion when compared to the biblical definition as given by Christ to his disciples.
But until we get to that…., it is clear that Christ used many ways to teach his disciples.
John 4:10-16 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” (11) She *said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water? (12) “You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?” (13) Jesus answered and said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will thirst again; (14) but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life.” (15) The woman *said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw.” (16) He *said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.”
Jesus did not tell the Samaritan woman that she will have unlimited supplies of “aquafina” at her home, and he did not become actual water before her eyes. She also did not set a cup on her table at home the next day and trust that water would always appear in the cup so she would never thirst again. Nor did she believe that any substance she put in the cup would become living water for her as she drank it. She learned and possessed a much greater truth. The most startling answer to her question had nothing to do with H2O (water)…. To answer her question Jesus said, “go, call your husband and come here”…. With Christ’s words, the Samaritan woman was already beginning to drink of the well of water springing up inside of her. This did not mean that she was the next actual water source.. up until her stint with Christ in heaven…. This meant that the water, already eternal (Christ)…from before the foundation of the world, was meeting an eternal thirst. And this eternal thirst quenching was explained in an object lesson pointing to Christ in “Go, call your husband”. And this teaching was not necessarily given on her behalf,…but for the benefit of the disciples who were learning of “eternal water”. O, but how wonderful it was for a Samaritan woman that day!
This is no different than the eternal blood and body of our Lord, Jesus Christ. He is our high Priest and sprinkles us clean from before the foundation of the world, as the lamb slain. The mystery is explained…which is the pattern set before us by Christ.
Hebrews 9:8-16 The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing, (9) which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, (10) since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation. (11) But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation; (12) and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. (13) For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, (14) how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (15) For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (16) For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.
So, John Salza is right about one thing. The blood is real blood, and the flesh is real flesh, as it was before the foundation of the world, when Christ was slain. You see, there is not a mystery any longer,…the mystery is revealed in Christ, and we eat his flesh and drink his blood. To believe that actual wine and actual bread become our sustenance is to misunderstand what Christ has done before the foundation of the world, and wrongly place trust in our own believing, and not on Christ from where hearing and sight (belief) come. We don’t place trust in a mystery, we place trust in Christ alone. To invent another reality of the wine and bread is to miss the entire point of Christ’s teaching in Matthew, and to not understand the phago and trogo of our Savior. Jesus made it very clear that some will not understand this hard teaching.
Jesus trumps Salza’s thinking concerning mystery as he responds to his disciples….
Matthew 13:10-13 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” (11) Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. (12) “For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. (13) “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
God grants his adopted children knowledge of him without mystery.
Blessings,
Chris
I find Salza’s argument, the biblical argument (and that of the Christians in the 1st century) much more convincing. To say that you fully understand God and his ways, is to say that you believe in a very finite and small God. In fact, that is proof against God. It is easy to fall into the trap of diminishing God’s mystery, due to pride. Even Job did so when he tried to fit God into his understanding, and finally questioned God as to why this was not so.
“Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding.”
Job 38:4
Irenaeus,
Whether I am convincing or not is of little value. Jesus answers to your and Salza’s question of mystery is well documented.
John 8:30-39 As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him. (31) So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, “If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; (32) and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” (33) They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone; how is it that You say, ‘You will become free’?” (34) Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. (35) “The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. (36) “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed. (37) “I know that you are Abraham’s descendants; yet you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you. (38) “I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.” (39) They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus *said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, do the deeds of Abraham.
Freedom is no mystery according to Jesus. Faith is not a mystery,…it is substance and evidence yielding the same deeds that Abraham’s children know as Job has given testimony.
Blessings,
Chris
Vol, just to clarify – a person does not need a sophisticated understanding of justification by faith. However, my question is whether if someone is trusting in their own works for some part in their salvation, are they actually trusting in Christ?
Doesn’t trust in Christ imply a rejection of works as a means of salvation?
Dave,
I didnt say that they needed a sophisticated understanding of justification by faith. And, I believe I said as much. But, if they dont know what faith is, how can they put their faith in Jesus for their salvation? If they are depending on works, rather than simple, childlike faith, then they cannot be saved.
David
Irenaeus,
By the way,…to fully understand God is impossible for us as created beings. To fully understand is not in the same argument as to know the Savior, being Justified by Faith. Knowing Him, Justification,and Faith are not mysteries according to Christ, …..in no way according to me. Christ brings the understanding to his adopted children.
Blessings,
Chris
Vol,
I wasn’t saying that’s what you said. I just wanted to clarify my point and make sure it was understood.
In my post, I said that this discussion is tied in, at least as I understand it, to the broader issue of Christian unity.
Basically, to summarize, I believe that we share a common relationship of brotherhood/sisterhood in Christ (aka Christian unity, as I understand it) with all those who are truly justified by faith, and with none of those who are not truly justified by faith. Thus, in relation to Christian unity, these questions are important.
As I argued in my discussion with Bart Barber on the comment stream of the “So….You Want A New Name!” post, I don’t believe you can have one foot within the fold, and another foot outside. And thus, at this most basic point, there are not different levels of unity. As the saying goes, “The ground is level at the foot of the cross.”
In keeping with the Blondin/wheelbarrow illustration, I would say that all of those who have placed themselves (or, more accurately, allowed Christ to place them) in the wheelbarrow are common participants in this unity.
Looking at it from another angle, though, there are not a bunch of individual wheelbarrows carrying a bunch of different individuals. There is one “big” wheelbarrow, as it were, carrying all of the justified together, in the same journey across the Falls, as it were. Perhaps, our Catholic friends will find something to appreciate here. I would agree there is, indeed, a sense in which, we, as Evangelicals, have overemphasized the personal aspect of salvation to the neglect of the community aspect. At the same time, though, I would say that each of us must make a personal decision, or have a personal change of heart (faith and repentance) that allows us to enter into the “big” wheelbarrow.
On another point, our unity, as I understand it, is essentially with other members (i.e. individual persons) in the Body of Christ, and not with organizations or institutions. Thus, it is relatively unimportant what particular denomination or ecclesial community one belongs to. If they are truly justified by faith, they are in; if not, they are not.
This leaves open the question of what should be our relationship, as justified individuals, to the various organizations and institutions seeking a cooperative relationship with us.
Teasing out the illustration a bit further, I would say that these organizations and institutions are like signposts on the side of the Falls, pointing the way. Some of them do a better job than others at pointing the way to the wheelbarrow. For those that truly do more to point people to the wheelbarrow than they do to keep people out of the wheelbarrow, we can view them as friendly to our cause, and worthy, in varying degrees, of our support and cooperation. There are some (e.g. Arminian organizations and institutions) that truly point people to the wheelbarrow, but, at the same time, teach them that, once they are in the wheelbarrow, they need to be concerned about the possibility of unbuckling themselves and falling out. At the core, I think we should view these types of institutions as allies in the cause of getting folks into the wheelbarrow, but as in need of being corrected in the teaching they are giving folks about the possibility of falling out of the wheelbarrow.
Once again, though, the key in all of this is that none of the organizations and institutions, whether they be the bad ones, good ones, or the best ones, are, in and of themselves, in the wheelbarrow together with us. The only ones who are in the wheelbarrow are redeemed individuals, justified by faith in the crucified and risen Son of God.
If justification comes only through faith, and if there must be at least some minimal understanding of repentance in order for faith to be present, what do we conclude about aborted/stillborn babies, mentally incompetent people, etc?
Is justification unavailable to them? Or does it come by some other means?
Patrick,
I don’t think you have to reach a conclusion on that issue to be justified by faith
.
Andrew,
Of course not. But it seems we are recognizing, by omission, a category of people for whom justification is impossible because they cannot have even minimal faith. This seems strange to me. I’d like to hear how others think about it.
I really think…my personal opinion…based on some Scriptures…especially the one where King David’s baby dies, and King David said that the baby could not come back to him; but that one day he will go to be with the baby…that babies and mentally retarded people, etc. never reach the age of accountability. They never reach the age where they are held responsible for their sins. That God will allow them to come into Heaven. Because they dont know, nor understand sin, nor have the capacity to understand faith, etc.
That’s just my personal opinion…but it is based on some Scriptures that seem to hint that way, and it’s based on the goodness of God.
But, people who are old enough, and have the mental capacity to understand; are very responsible for their sins, and they will not go to Heaven without repenting and putting their faith in Jesus. The Bible is very clear about this.
David
Volfan, I’ve heard that idea before. Here’s the problem: it means you can lose your salvation. Just follow the sequence.
You were saved when you were a baby…
Then at some point you sinned and were lost…
Then you found faith and were saved again.
Who is to say you won’t lose it again, too?
Another quandary is that this idea means justification isn’t by faith alone. There is another way to heaven: don’t grow up. The best way to help your child achieve salvation is to abort him/her before he matures and has a chance to sin.
Patrick,
I dont think what I said means a person can lose their salvation, nor does it mean that there’s another way to Heaven. It simply means that they wont be held accountable for their sins, because God has chosen to save them…to deliver them…due to their not reaching the age of accountability. They dont understand things, nor can they understand things.
Who is to say that you wont lose it again, too? The Bible tells us that we will never lose our salvation…those who are saved by grace thru faith.
I do believe what I posted #51 due to the goodness of God. He is a gracious God. And, due to what King David said about his baby, that he had with Bathsheba, the baby who died. And, due to some other passages of Scriptures that talk about people who dont know their right from their left, etc.
I do believe…personally…that every retarded person, every down syndrome person, every aborted baby, every child who dies before the age of accountability, etc. will be in Heaven; due to God’s grace. I cant prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt, and I dont believe that we can be dogmatic about this particular issue; but I personally believe it.
David
A wise man once said:
When we find out (in heaven?) for sure how God treats infants who die, or the profoundly disabled, etc, we will agree that he was holy, just and good in all he did.
We can all have theories here about what will happen, but those theories must remain speculative because there is little direct biblical evidence.
I like to believe that David W is right. But ultimately, when we are given full understanding, we will all agree that God is right.
I agree with Volfan on this one. A lot of times we throw around terms like “saved” rather loosely. Technically, though, there is a difference in between not being held accountable for our sins, being justified, being regenerate, and being sanctified. A child, before he/she reaches the age of accountability, has not been justified, born again, or sanctified. And so, when they do reach that age, they lose none of these things.
I also agree with Volfan that the evidence for this in Scripture is a bit sketchy, and so it is a belief on which we should not be overly dogmatic.
We can completely trust in God, though, that He is infinitely good, merciful, just, faithful, and able to save to the uttermost.
David said, “When we find out (in heaven?) for sure how God treats infants who die, or the profoundly disabled, etc, we will agree that he was holy, just and good in all he did.”
Pretty tragic that we cannot agree here on this earth that God is holy, just and good in all that it pleases Him to do now.
Thanks for the replies. I’m not convinced but will set it aside for the moment.
Now I’m curious why the evidence for age-of-accountability belief is so sketchy, as David and Volfan admit. To a parent who has just lost a baby, there may be no more important question than “Where is my baby now?”
This would have been even more evident to the Apostles and early Christians, since they lived in a time when child mortality was so high. Jews practiced circumcision because they wanted to make sure their children were brought into the covenant. But now it just a kind of optional belief. Why are the Scriptures so vague about this?
Brother Rick,
Your right,…God is infinitely holy, just and good. He also knows all that are His. We should not be so curious as to presume upon His sovereignty, but understand that not one of His adopted family will be missing in heaven.
Blessings,
Chris
Patrick,
There are a lot of questions I wish Scripture were more specific about. However, I choose to accept that God sovereignly left us with the information He deemed necessary for us in order to live a life that is pleasing to Him. That doesn’t mean, however, that we don’t have to dig deep, at times, to get to it.
Rick,
I would just point out that your conclusion was not the intent of what I am saying.
My point is that many people say, “A God of justice would have to…” Or “A loving God must…”
People say that it would be unfair of God to do this or that.
My point is that when we are in glory, no one will question the righteousness of God in anything he does. People do that here. I’m not accusing anyone here of doing that.
I’m not sure exactly what you were implying in your comment, but it went in a direction I wasn’t comfortable with, so I thought I would clarify.
Unless I missed it, Volfan is the only person to respond to my question in #29 about Al Mohler’s statment that one cannot deny the virgin birth and be saved. I think it is related to David’s orginal questions. Even Volfan used terms like probably lost and I doubt if they know he Lord. He does not seem sure about Mohler’s statement. Others response to David’s question #3 would imply some others might not agree.
David,
Not sure, in this awkward medium of electrons, what you find about the direction of my post that sits ill with you. You affirmed what I was implying, that we cannot agree here on this earth about the holiness, justice and goodness of God when you referenced those who would preface their statements with qualifications like, “A God of justice would have to…” or “A loving God must…”
I have said often that a Fundamentalist is someone who truly believes that God is exactly as they conceive him to be. And I say that as a former practicing fundie. It is when we develop a humility about our knowledge of the Most Holy that we pass from the ranks of Fundamentalist into something a little more collegial.
It was not until I learned to say, “I don’t know,” that I feel I really began to discover Who God was for Himself, and not merely a theological formula describing who he was.
In much of the argument here, I find staunch defendants of a theological formula, which formula may or may not have a thorough correspondence with reality. I even see some who state that failure to intellectually assent to their preferred theological formula is sufficient to negate a nascent faith in the subject of the formula. I smile because such a statement elevates the creation, the theological formula, above the Creator who made heaven and earth and all things therein. That is not to downplay the importance of theological formulas, but as I stated above, we need to be cautious not to mistake the map for the territory, not to mistake the chemical formula for the chemical compound, not to mistake the theology of justification for a real, personal relationship with the justifier of men.
Rick, we may be saying the same thing in different ways.
I believe we are, Dave.
Something about great minds…
Brother Ron,
I don’t have the context in which Mohler made the statement, but it may be more appropriate to think of Mohler’s statement as ….. if someone, lets say a Jewish lawkeeper in the first century, was reading the Prophets and came to those passages that speak of the Christ being born of a virgin….and that Jew rejects that notion. In fact, that same Jew remarks that because he rejects the idea of the scripture which teaches the Messiah will be born of a virgin; in his mind this testimony of Christ and this Christian belief of Christ being born before the temple was destroyed in 70AD cement his rejection of this Jesus Christ as Messiah. By his own admission and string of evidence concerning the rejection of Jesus as the one being born of a virgin… this would clearly be positive evidence that the Jew has not confessed Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
That is quite different than someone having doubts or wondering how in the world a virgin can be pregnant by way of the Holy Spirit, ….even as this person reads with concrete evidence to that fact from the scriptures. This doesn’t make the virgin birth a mystery, …it is only the understanding or faith of that person is small. But at the same, the one with this small but significant faith (based in the substance and evidence of Christ), ….this person continues to trust that God has told the truth and this person does not reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah. That type of trust is born from above.
Denying and not understanding the virgin birth are two different and distinguishable confessions. So instead of wondering if a Jew for instance is saved, you simply share the gospel of Jesus Christ being persuaded that he will not reject the Messiah, but will be given eyes to see and ears to hear.
Blessings,
Chris
Rick,
If this is a fundie, theological formula; then it’s a true one: someone who can deny the virgin birth is not saved. Do you agree with that?
Also, if someone is to be saved, do they not have to hear the GOSPEL to be saved? You know, those fundie, theological formula’s like: faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God; and Peter and the Apostles preaching theological formula’s like the Gospel, and demanding that people adhere to, submit to, formula’s like repentance and faith?
I think sometimes, in our attempt to downplay legalism and fundamentalism, people go way out there….over the edge. I know that I dont know everything….lol. And, I know that I dont have all the answers….lol again. I know that there is much about God that I do not know nor understand…lol again. lol because that’s obvious. But, there are some things that we can know about God, and that we do know about God; because the Bible tells us very plainly and very clearly about these things.
David
Ron,
As I understand it, the only One who could make the perfect sacrifice atoning for our sins, so that we might believe on Him, and thus be justified by faith, is the One who is both God and man at the same time: the Son of God made flesh. And, the only way I know of that this could be accomplished was through the virgin birth. Now, if this could be accomplished another way, perhaps it may not be a sine que non of our salvation. But, we do know this is the way that God chose.
Just like the mechanics of justification by faith, though, there are surely those who are justified by faith who are unable to articulate correctly the whys and the hows of the virgin birth, and even those who, for whatever reason, have not yet come to see that it is necessary. But, as Chris wisely answers above (and Mohler as well), someone who would come to the point of actually denying the virgin birth is demonstrating that he/she is not truly submitted to the Lordship of Jesus (i.e. has not placed themselves in the “wheelbarrow”).
David,
I see no such litmus test for assurance of one’s eternal destiny contained in the word of God. For that matter, I find the one’s confidence in their confession rests less in the content of their credo than an accompanying spiritual transformation. James is unimpressed by a confessional statement about a (presumably accurate) belief in God when unaccompanied by spiritual transformation. I believe our approach should reflect this biblical position.
While I’m sure you would agree that faith without a corresponding evident change in outward disposition and deportment is at best dead and at worst demonic, would you confess that the reverse is also the case? For instance, is it possible for one to live a transformed life in harmony with ethos of Christ’s example while not affirming confessional statements or assenting to them? You say someone cannot deny the virgin birth and be saved. I say that such a statement misses the whole point of James. Specifically, what if we watch a former reprobate live a transformed life, even though they are a member in good standing with the Church of Christ, giving full verbal assent to their confessional position? Can we say with a good degree of confidence that they will burn for all eternity because they have an incorrect intellectual apprehension of baptismal regeneration?
And why would the virgin birth not be one of those things that ignorant or ill-informed or immature but genuinely saved Christians must come to an understanding of over time (at least in some cases)? And what of those who remain imperfect after they are saved? Are you comfortable consigning the ignorant, ill-informed, and immature to eternal damnation and torment because they’ve not yet arrived at a place where they can articulate a fully cogent and coherent systematic theology in complete conformance to your own? (I hope you don’t mind me leaping to the assumption that your theological formulation is of course perfect and without error, as of necessity it must be, correct? After all, your eternal destiny hinges on an accurate articulation of your theological formula, no? Of course, if my assumption is incorrect, you can disabuse me of it by pointing out beliefs that you hold in error, or used to hold in error, which do not endanger your soul.)
And I will confess my own position as well, Dave. I do not believe that the GOSPEL is an articulation of an intellectual proposition. I do not believe that the apostles’ declaration of the gospel rests in formulaic statements requiring cognitive assent. While I do believe cognition is involved, Jesus tells us in the gospel of Luke that he came to preach sight to the blind, to give feet to the lame, to release those who are oppressed, and to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. This was the confession of Jesus while he was in Nazareth. Clearly, Jesus has a much fuller idea of the gospel than intellectual assent to theological articulations, as does the apostle James.
Let me be clear: it is not a “statement” of faith or repentance that saves, it is the EXERCISE of repentance and faith that saves. Without the latter, the former is dead and demonic. Without the former, the latter is merely ill-informed, ignorant, or immature. My Savior would not break a bruised reed or stamp out a smoldering wick, however tenuous its “statement of faith.” Nor will I.
Rick,
Not sure whether that last comment was directed to me or to Dave Miller. But, I will answer briefly, just in case.
In this comment stream, I have tried my best to differentiate between a correct articulation of belief in propositional truth, and a heartfelt submission to and trust in the Lord behind that propositional truth. However, I don’t think we can completely divorce authentic faith from propositional truth. Otherwise, a heartfelt faith in the flying spaghetti monster might just as well be sufficient for salvation.
The early Church dealt with this by way of the creeds. As has been pointed out already here, though, the creeds they came up with were limited in their scope, and only addressed those issues that had arisen in one particular context and time of history.
I think that the theological triage model is helpful here. The Level 1 issues are those issues (call them propositions, if you will) on which the integrity of the gospel, and ultimately our salvation, hinge.
Once again, though, I need to make clear that I differentiate between an imperfect ability to correctly articulate or understand even Level 1 issues, and an out-and-out denial of these issues.
Rick,
I understand completely that repentance and faith are something that takes place in the heart of a man. But, how can a man repent, if he has no idea what repentance is? How can a man put his faith in Jesus, if he has no idea about Jesus, or about surrendering faith? It cant happen. Now, I never said that he had to have a theological degree in understanding these two things, but someone must have a basic understanding of what repentance and faith are in order to repent and put their faith in Jesus as their Lord and Savior!!! And, according to Acts 20:20-21, people must repent towards God and put their faith in Jesus as Lord in order to be SAVED! The heart cant do what the mind dont know.
Also, I said if someone can deny the virgin birth…I didnt say anything about them not understanding it. I said if someone can see the truth of the virgin birth, and deny it. Then, that person is not saved. For them to deny the virgin birth is to call Jesus a mere man, who was born due to fornication. Blasphemous. Heresy. That’s what that is. And, some yo yo head, who can deny the virgin birth, does not know the Savior. Period.
You can call this fundamentalism. You can call this theological formulas. You can call it dogmatism. But, it is what it is. It’s the truth. Plain and simple, without all the deep, philosophical, mystical, hogwash added in.
Also, I do agree that a true faith works. Of course it does. If someone gets saved, then their heart is changed. They become a new creation in Christ, who will want to obey the Lord Jesus and live for Him. Someone who is truly saved will do good works; not to earn salvation, but it will naturally flow from the heart of a truly saved person. A true faith works. Yes. I agree.
Also, I will say this about your Church of Christ(Campbellite) illustration. Of course, a Campbellite can be saved in the Church of Christ…in spite of what they teach. I dont think that he will be able to stay there long, though, as a true Believer. I think that he will see all the errors of the Campbellite teachings, and will want to leave them. But, if he is trusting in water baptism to wash away his sins, then he aint saved. Works will not save anyone. And, if we’re trusting in anything besides the finished work of the Lord Jesus for our salvation, then we aint saved, no matter how much we claim it. If someone is trying to be saved by the works they do, rather than by grace thru faith, then they are lost. Unsaved. Unregenerate. Dead in their sins. Do not know Jesus. On their way to Hell lost.
Rick, did you used to be a Church of Christ member? Is that the legalism that you were once involved in? Is that the fundamentalism that you’re talking about?
David
David Rogers, I think Rick’s comment may have been to David Worley.
Dave Miller
Oh yeah. David conflation strikes again!
From 1st grade all the way through seminary, I don’t think I was ever in a class in which I was the only David.
We really need some kind of scorecard.
I bet twenty dollars to a rolling hole in a doughnut that I can tell you which of the three Davids write any given statement without seeing the true identity of any of the three.
Frankly, you all three could be identical in appearance and I could still tell you which of you ordered a hamburger at Wendy’s if you wrote out the order on a piece of paper and mailed it to restaurant.
The only people who get the three of you confused is the three of you.
BTW, good post Mr Rogers.
cb
Is it my wit, intelligence and literary style that gives me away?
Dave,
I cannot divulge my secrets of specific discernment in public (or privately for that matter; else our brother in Enid might create a post from “excerpts” of the email and cause quite a stir about nothing in his “Don Quixote” war with imaginary SBC dragons.) But I will give you something to substantiate my claim.
David Rogers writes in the style of a Baptio-Brethrennary. (short for Southern Baptist-Plymouth Brethren-Missionary)
David Worley writes in the style of a Tennessee Ridge-Running, Baptistic Identified SBC-SECite.
And you, my beloved brother, David Miller; You write like a BUZZARD-EYED YANKEE.
I hope that helps.
BTW, Kentucky will win the National Championship in Basketball. LSU will win the National Championship in baseball. That will be a SEC run across the board in all the real major sports, ’cause who cares about Hockey anyway and what in the world is Soccer?
And BTW, what part of the world is the WHO-DAT nation from? Right. Next door to the SABANATION. No wonder they won the Super Bowl.
cb
CB,
Send me a private email about all of this, and tell me things that you dont want anyone to know. I’ll keep it confidential.
David
Vol,
That is because you live in the VOLUNTEER NATION and not in SOONER NATION. Honor still counts in the SEC.
cb
CB,
Tell Saban to send me the Tides playbook by email. I wont let it slip out to anyone in Knoxville….I promise.
David
Reading the few questions you ask, I have one single answer : The Bible just ask us to be in communion with Christ to be saved.
More, there is a huge difference in believing in Christ and believing in faith of Christ….
And I think there, evangelical “faith alone” is biased : because belieing in the “only justifiying faith” is something more and difference than believing in Christ alone. Then you can add “believing in faith and X or Y”, X or Y being everything you want, for example : “believing in faith but that you can loose your salvation”….
Just read the following article which deals with some of the questions on this post:
http://www.chris-tocentric.com/2010/02/27/are-catholics-brothers-and-sisters-in-christ/
For the record, I generally agree with Chris Castaldo’s (the author) perspective on this.