www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Inaccuracies of the Apocryphal Books

Aside from my spiritual father, you are the first person that I have ever met who voluntarily and clearly distinguishes between faith and belief.

I am thrilled to see it in print!

I think I will wait till I see if Joel picks back up on this thread and comments on either your message here or John's above before I interject anything more into the topic.

I did not want the moment to pass though where it would be opportune to recommend an especial note bene to your comments above.

Eli

Eli,

I'm glad that you are thrilled. I have preached on this in both my Latin and my Melkite parishes and the people seem to get the message. I've also used it in a talk with teenagers, and they got it too. I wonder if that means that there's an element of truth in what I say?

Fr. Deacon Edward

The elephant in the living room!!

Eli

A similar, though not completely identical distinction is made by the phrases "fides qua creditur," and fides quae creditur." "Fides quae creditur" literally means "the faith which is believed" and is equivalent to the content of the faith, while "fides qua creditur" means "the faith by which it is believed" and is the active faith of the believe in making "real," in a sense, "the faith which is believed." There is an important distiction here. It is one thing to give assent to the "faith which is believed." It is another to make that faith active (the "faith by which it is believed") on a level beyond mere intellectual assent (I would not want to trivialize assent to the teachings of the Church, but mere assent doesn't allow for much depth of a life in Christ). I learned this distinction during the first week of an introductory Christian theology course. It is unfortunate that so little, if anything, is made of the distinction between passive belief (not unlike "fides quae creditur") and active faith (like "fides qua creditur").

Indeed. To think that one has to take a course on that which should be taught right in the parishes, as Father Deacon Ed now does, is bothersome in the extreme. So much else of what we believe rests on the foundations of that small teaching.

Well. Clearly all is not lost.

Eli

I am by no means a biblical scholar but I once read that due to improper translation the protestants are a little off. It is not the faith in Jesus that saves but rather the faith 'of' Jesus, meaning we need not merely believe He was God incarnate but rather be obedient to the Father unto death. Heck, if simply believing in Him assured salvation, wouldn't satan be saved?

Earlier this morning I had found a wonderful quote from St. Gregory Palamas where he says that faith finds its full expression in the keeping of the commandments. Somehow the quote got lost so the beauty of it is truncated by my poor words, but you get the message.

Eli

With all due charity to the Protestant position:

"And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?

26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead."

-Epistle of St. James 2:18-26

I hope I haven't offended anyone by the tone of this post.

Humbly,

Dr. Eric

You know, Christ often offended people when he spoke the truth. He didn't seem to be terribly bothered by it, so you shouldn't be either.

uh, I realize that this is a week late, but as far as Abraham being justified by works, take a look at Hebrews chapter eleven. I am not arguing with you, but I thought I would give a heads up when discussing the matter with Evangelicals. okay?
Much Love,
Jonn

One thing that is very clear in Evangelical teaching is that true faith is much more than simply believing in God. Real Christianity requires a complete conversion of the heart, a decision to follow Jesus, to be transformed by the renewing of the mind, to live in such a way that you give glory to God. Evangelical Christianity is all about transformation, becoming equipped to live the Christian life, and acting on what you have learned. The Scriptures quoted by Dr. Eric are the very ones that an Evangelical would use to point to the need for true conversion in the heart and soul of the individual. That old expression you hear everywhere these days sums it up: if you're going to talk the talk you have to walk the walk. Rather than being offended by the suggestion that believers must put faith into practice, I find it surprising how often it is assumed that Evangelical Christianity is just about "getting saved" or "fire insurance", if you will. However, I guess in large part that's our own fault. We have been seen to be obsessed with just getting people in the door, getting them to pray the prayer, getting them to provide the illusion of church growth. We talk about how many attended a church outreach or a stadium event, about how many "made decicions" and we have very public spokesman who sometimes appear to be selling Jesus rather than following Him. It makes me sad. We(Evangelicals and Catholics) are both motivated by the same issue, which is the eternal life of the soul and the fear that some are rejecting the most important things and will thereby lose all hope. Praise to the Lord Jesus Christ, crucified, raised from the dead and coming again in glory. In Him, all will be made right.

Dear Friends,

So when Protestants talk about "faith alone" - what do they really mean?

Obviously, I don't understand that and neither does William Barclay!

Alex

Alex,
I believe that for many "by faith alone" is a formula that embodies a whole package of beliefs, actually. I can understand how it can be seen, and used, as a rejection of the efficacy of the sacraments and of human works. A true Calvinist would go so far as to say that our faith alone can save us because, due to the total depravity of man, nothing we can do is of any value to God at all and it is only His work through us that has any value. In that economy there is ample fodder for despair. However, there is also hope, even for a strict Calvinist, because when we fix our eyes on Jesus Christ and not on ourselves, we are looking at the source of all hope and truth, rather than on ourselves. Whether or not one believes that human beings lost every shred of grace at the Fall, it is clear, the longer one lives, that compared to Christ, our own resources are limited and shallow next to the incomparable riches of Christ.
In general, when a Protestant claims to be saved by "faith alone" he is saying that nothing he can do in his human strength is enough to save him. It does not deny the necessity of working for God, learning obedience, and being formed into the likeness of Christ. It is expected that a person who gains faith will seek God's will and strive to follow it, conforming their own will to God's, often giving up many things that are good and valuable in order to have things which are eternal.
Having said all that, it is also true that some who claim "faith alone" as their battle cry use it to continually hammer home the point that your works will not save you and any church body that teaches you must do something in order to begin and to maintain your relationship as an adopted child of the Father is leading you down the path of destruction. To me this reflects a very simplistic view of Catholic teaching, and churches whose very existence depends on a defense against Catholicism are in error. Protestant Christianity, despite appearances to the contrary at times, is not merely a rejection of Catholic teaching, but is meant to be a transforming experience which draws one into deeper relationship with Christ, eqipping believers to go out make disciples of every nation.
So, does any of that make sense?
Hoping to understand and be understood,
Michele

Dear Michele,

Thank you for that elucidation! I see now what John Wesley meant when he railed against Calvinism!

And why he called himself an "Arminian!"

(I thought he was "English!")

Cheers,

Alex

Peace and greetings all.

Some of you may know me from forums.catholic.com over on the Eastern Christianity forum.

Just thought Id comment on some of the earlier posts, before this thread derailed.

I think, without exception, all posters have stated that there ARE errors in the bible, but thats because it was written by human beings and that the Holy Ghost was kind of only inspiring "the message" behind the stories.

Hmm, if you really believe that there are errors in the bible, how far are we trusting Almighty God.

Would HE allow a book that he inspired to have errors in it?

What good or purpose would it serve?

Im pretty sure that none of the Church Fathers held a similar view.

Are we comprising our faith with "science" (be it archealogy, biology, or paleontology) ??

Peace and God Bless.