Pilgrim wrote:Cathapol,<br><br>Let me play the "moron" here just for fun. IF what you are proposing and claiming is the "whole truth", i.e., that your clearer use of terms is in fact what Trent, Vatican II and the Catholic Encyclopedia actually teach:<br><br>Justification is a one time thing which cannot be increased nor decreased. That works will naturally flow from one who is justified and they only increase or decrease rewards for the justified. That once justified there is no possibility of hell.<br><br>then why was there so much disagreement by the Reformers with Rome? Why did Rome pronounce myriad "anathemas" upon what the Reformers taught on the matter of Justification (Sola Fide), when in fact they taught exactly the same things?<br><br>Either the Reformers and most Protestants since them have totally misunderstood the OFFICIAL Catholic documents in regard to the doctrine of Justification, and/or Rome has consistently been likewise guilty of totally misunderstanding what the Protestant doctrine of "Sola Fide" teaches.<br><br>Would you like to provide an explanation as to how this most unfortunate misunderstanding came about and continues even to this day? I'm sure there are many besides myself who would be most grateful to get this "breach" repaired. <br><br>[color:purple]Scott replies:<br><br>Well, first off I believe there are some that believe that no works are meritorious in any way, shape or form - this would be absolutely wrong from the Catholic perspective. Trent's anathemas point to those who reject works in this fashion. For those that accept that works are necessary for justification/sanctification - then we are in agreement. <br><br>Trent also opposes the "once saved, always saved" mentality. Grace is a gift, but those who do not "persevere" in Grace can lose that "gift." We generally hear a challenge to "God's Sovereignty" in this regard - but in reality, there is no usurption of God's Sovereignty in the Catholic belief system. In God's Sovereign Will, He has deemed to "give" man a will similar to His Own (in His Image). He desires that we get to know, love and serve Him in this world so that we might live happily in eternity with Him in the next. The "knowing, loving and serving" of Him is not possible if one is pre-programmed (or elected in the Calvinist sense). If you take away man's ability to choose to accept God's Gift, or reject it, then you've taken away his ability to truly love Him. God wants our love - and offers His Free Gift to all who will accept it. Those who reject His Gift will be condemned. If one is condemned, it is not because God has failed, but that person has failed to accept the Gift. John 3:16 sums up the Gospel message quite well, "For God so loved the world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." <br> <br>As far as sola fide is concerned, the only plausible explanation I have heard from Protestantism is the statement of "justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone" (RC Sproul, Faith Alone, p 155). That statement from Sproul (and others) makes doublespeak of sola fide, for what is "faith alone, but not a faith that is alone?" RC is saying that something else is necessary to go along with faith (reconciling Protestantism to James 2:24) stating works are necessary to show a saving faith. Well, why it took Protestantism so long to come to that conclusion is beyond me, it has always been part of Catholic teaching, and to use the title of sola fide is a bit misleading (and hence the anathemas from Trent follow for those who adhere to a strict interpretation of "faith alone").<br> <br>Does this clear up some of this "gross misunderstanding?"<br> <br>In JMJ,<br><font face="Brush Script MT" class="bigger">Scott<<<</font><br></font color=purple><br> <br>
