Catholic Faith and Works vs. Protestant Faith Alone - Fallible Blogma
Someone posted a comment saying that works of the law are works before conversion and not comparible with the works done by faith in Christ.
"Many protestants who insist on believing in “faith alone” seem to do so by saying that faith is all that is required, but of course works naturally flow from that. But I think this is a bit confusing and I’ll tell you why.First, their definition of faith here includes a natural outpouring of good works. They say that if it doesn’t include good works, then it’s not a real, justifying faith. In other words, what they are saying is that it is necessary for their faith to include good works in order to be justified. So it’s the same exact thing as saying that the requirements for justification (i.e. what is necessary) is both faith and works.
“But no, no, no,” they protest, “faith is all that is necessary…but good works are a consequence of it.”
“But what if someone’s faith doesn’t result in good works?” I ask.
“Well then they aren’t justified,” they say.
“So good works are required and necessary then?” I ask.
“Uhm, yes. No, wait,” they stumble, “if there are no works, then it’s not real faith,” they continue.
So we can see how the confusion comes about. I believe they are saying that their definition of a justifying faith includes good works. Because as soon as good works are taken away, they no longer believe that faith is justifying. Perhaps they no longer believe it is faith? I’m not sure. Either way, for the protestant in this conversation it seems that good works are required and necessary to at least turn faith into a justifying faith. Therefore, good works are required for justification. You can’t separate it."
Do you think there is some truth in this?
Someone posted a comment saying that works of the law are works before conversion and not comparible with the works done by faith in Christ.
"Many protestants who insist on believing in “faith alone” seem to do so by saying that faith is all that is required, but of course works naturally flow from that. But I think this is a bit confusing and I’ll tell you why.First, their definition of faith here includes a natural outpouring of good works. They say that if it doesn’t include good works, then it’s not a real, justifying faith. In other words, what they are saying is that it is necessary for their faith to include good works in order to be justified. So it’s the same exact thing as saying that the requirements for justification (i.e. what is necessary) is both faith and works.
“But no, no, no,” they protest, “faith is all that is necessary…but good works are a consequence of it.”
“But what if someone’s faith doesn’t result in good works?” I ask.
“Well then they aren’t justified,” they say.
“So good works are required and necessary then?” I ask.
“Uhm, yes. No, wait,” they stumble, “if there are no works, then it’s not real faith,” they continue.
So we can see how the confusion comes about. I believe they are saying that their definition of a justifying faith includes good works. Because as soon as good works are taken away, they no longer believe that faith is justifying. Perhaps they no longer believe it is faith? I’m not sure. Either way, for the protestant in this conversation it seems that good works are required and necessary to at least turn faith into a justifying faith. Therefore, good works are required for justification. You can’t separate it."
Do you think there is some truth in this?