How do protestants get around this epistle regarding faith without works? I know the whole Luther "gospel of straw" argument....but in reality, how do they explain this away?
They dance around it by saying that faith brings about good works. Then they throw 10 other verses at you.
It was never about reason, its an emotional decision.
To elaborate a bit more, they will say that faith brings about good works, like how a good tree brings forth good fruits. Its the faith that saves, the works are just its good fruits. If you then ask if a man with the faith can commit horrific sins they will either say no, such a man never had the faith, or they will say "all sins are equal" and leave it at that and then throw irrelevant verses at you to shift the topic. But let's leave the latter person behind, for those conversations never go anywhere. If you ask the former interlocutor if such a person with the true faith can commit murder they will either waffle or say no. If you ask if God thus controls them like a robot in some deterministic fashion they waffle. I've never gotten beyond this point with any sola fide believer.
On the other side, but really the same thing, if you ask if you can get to Heaven without good works this person will say no, you must have good works but they are just the fruit of the good tree which is faith. Its the faith that saves. If you then press further and ask if a person with the true faith can choose to never do anything good, they'll say no. This is the same thing of course as the horrific sin. If you ask if God thus controls these people forcing them to do things against their will, they waffle. Again, I've never once gotten beyond this point in any of my many conversations with sola fide believers.
The more thinking ones become Calvinists. Unfortunately the Calvinists do not see that the god they believe in is a monster and not the true God.
It's sad because the ones who recognize that works and abstaining from sin are necessary get the obvious reality of that, but they are locked in this ridiculous sola fide belief which James specifically and vociferously refutes.
They get around it the same way they get around tons of other verses which condemn their theological views: explain away unsatisfactorily (by any accepted standard of argument), ignore, or simply admit they don't understand it and trust the Holy Spirit to clarify all at some point in the future.
There's tons of verses which are difficult for Protestants. The Church has solid scholarship and answers on typical Protestant "gotcha!" verses.
http://www.drbo.org/difficult.htm
https://www.amazon.com/Catholic-Verses-Passages-Confound-Protestants/dp/1928832733/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?crid=345IW8212V7CM&keywords=the+catholic+verses+95+bible+passages+that+confound+protestants&qid=1552827730&s=gateway&sprefix=the+catholic+verses+%2Caps%2C197&sr=8-1-fkmrnull
There is no need to "explain it away" since there is no conflict between St. James and St. Paul in Romans. Let's read the passage in context:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24
Typical RC exegesis of this text usually begins and ends with simply quoting the above verse feeling that ends all debate.
So first let's define what we mean by faith. Contrary to popular mischaracterization what is meant by this word among Protestants is not a simple intellectual ascent to a set of theological propositions. We know this is not saving faith since James tells us:
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! James 2:19
So essentially a faith which only acknowledges the truths of who Christ is without living that understanding only qualifies one to be a demon. What kind of "faith" does James tell us doesn't save?
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? James 2:14
So the faith that doesn't save is one that does not produce the fruits of saving faith. Saving Faith is an active Faith which produces fruit and has Christ as the Lord of one's life.
Quote from: abc123 on March 17, 2019, 12:02:44 PM
There is no need to "explain it away" since there is no conflict between St. James and St. Paul in Romans. Let's read the passage in context:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24
Typical RC exegesis of this text usually begins and ends with simply quoting the above verse feeling that ends all debate.
So first let's define what we mean by faith. Contrary to popular mischaracterization what is meant by this word among Protestants is not a simple intellectual ascent to a set of theological propositions. We know this is not saving faith since James tells us:
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! James 2:19
So essentially a faith which only acknowledges the truths of who Christ is without living that understanding only qualifies one to be a demon. What kind of "faith" does James tell us doesn't save?
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? James 2:14
So the faith that doesn't save is one that does not produce the fruits of saving faith. Saving Faith is an active Faith which produces fruit and has Christ as the Lord of one's life.
Well and good, but not the typical Protestant argument.
I'll let Gardener, Xavier, Gerard, etc. take it from here since my apologetic capacities are exceeded:
https://www.str.org/articles/faith-and-works-paul-vs.-james#.XI6nEJNKjBI
Quote from: abc123 on March 17, 2019, 12:02:44 PM
So the faith that doesn't save is one that does not produce the fruits of saving faith. Saving Faith is an active Faith which produces fruit and has Christ as the Lord of one's life.
This is where the more thoughtful Protestants are (but most are not thoughtful, but then again most modern Catholics are not either). It is close to the Catholic belief. But given that the Faith comes from Christ it then suggests that He gives two types of Faith, one that is Saving and one that is not. It makes God a monster. Instead the Catholic belief is that there is one Faith, it is salvific, if the man lives by the Faith (which is obedience to God - to abstain from sins and do good works out of love). If he chooses to not live by the Faith given to him, then he loses it, and is not saved.
The Calvinistic approach is hyper focused on God's sovereignty and thus has to create two types of Faiths in order to remove the good works entirely from man's choice. It also makes God evil by having Him give fake Faiths to some people.
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on March 18, 2019, 02:04:01 AM
Quote from: abc123 on March 17, 2019, 12:02:44 PM
So the faith that doesn't save is one that does not produce the fruits of saving faith. Saving Faith is an active Faith which produces fruit and has Christ as the Lord of one's life.
This is where the more thoughtful Protestants are (but most are not thoughtful, but then again most modern Catholics are not either). It is close to the Catholic belief. But given that the Faith comes from Christ it then suggests that He gives two types of Faith, one that is Saving and one that is not. It makes God a monster. Instead the Catholic belief is that there is one Faith, it is salvific, if the man lives by the Faith (which is obedience to God - to abstain from sins and do good works out of love). If he chooses to not live by the Faith given to him, then he loses it, and is not saved.
The Calvinistic approach is hyper focused on God's sovereignty and thus has to create two types of Faiths in order to remove the good works entirely from man's choice. It also makes God evil by having Him give fake Faiths to some people.
The Calvinist God is not terribly different from the Islamic Allah. Neither could really be described as lovable.
Yes, in its plain sense, the passage refutes Protestantism. The good works Abraham did justified him, that's what St. James is teaching. St. James is teaching Protestants (and Luther knew it refuted him, that's why he threw it out; Protestants today are inconsistent in claiming it agrees with them) that good works done in grace are truly meritorious and cause sanctifying grace to be increased in us. In 1 Cor 3:13-15, the same is plainly taught by St. Paul himself when the Apostle teaches (1) every good work done in faith will obtain a reward from the Lord on the day of judgment, while (2) every sin or bad work, even by those in Christ, will need to be purified in fire, i.e. Purgatory.
1 Cor 3:13 "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."
Lord knows the majority of Protestants sadly seem to ignore or even despise these things, just like they do the necessity of the Sacraments, so clearly taught them by the Lord Himself, when He told them that unless the Apostles, the Bishops and Priests of His Church remit their sins, their sins will be retained. When He taught them that if they eat of Him, they will live by Him as He lives by the Father; but if they refuse to eat of Him, they cannot have life in them; which again confirms that the Sacraments impart necessary graces, either to be restored to grace after one has fallen into grave sin, or to grow and increase in the grace of God, which is necessary to obtain perseverance in grace. Just like good works increase the degree of the state of grace in us, and will merit a corresponding increase in the degree of glory in heaven - Protestants also generally deny the Blessed Virgin or St. Joseph, according to their mistaken understanding, are any greater than the average believer in grace and glory - so also the Sacraments of the Church do.
Protestantism introduced a false heresy known as a merely "imputed justification", a forensic exterior cleansing which allegedly can neither be increased nor lost; which makes a mockery of so many texts in Holy Writ. For this reason, Luther could write blasphemous nonsense like, "Sin cannot tear you away from him [Christ], even though you commit adultery a hundred times a day and commit as many murders." See: http://alaskandreams.net/ekklesia/Luther%20Quotes.htm
Whereas St. Peter tells - allfrom the Protestant KJV - to add virtues and goods works to faith, to confirm one's election and grow in grace,2 Pet 1:5 "And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; 6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; 7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." So all the Apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, together with St. James the Apostle, refute Luther's Protestant errors.
Quote from: Xavier on March 23, 2019, 11:37:48 PM
Yes, in its plain sense, the passage refutes Protestantism. The good works Abraham did justified him, that's what St. James is teaching. St. James is teaching Protestants (and Luther knew it refuted him, that's why he threw it out; Protestants today are inconsistent in claiming it agrees with them) that good works done in grace are truly meritorious and cause sanctifying grace to be increased in us. In 1 Cor 3:13-15, the same is plainly taught by St. Paul himself when the Apostle teaches (1) every good work done in faith will obtain a reward from the Lord on the day of judgment, while (2) every sin or bad work, even by those in Christ, will need to be purified in fire, i.e. Purgatory.
You are confusing two different concepts. First define what you mean by
meritorious. If by that term you mean that which justifies a sinner before God than Reformed theology would most certainly disagree. The only truly meritorious act in human history; that act by which a sinner is made righteous, is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
No Protestant will deny that those works done in Christ, ie: done while in a state of Justification, are meritorious in that they increase our sanctification and more perfectly form the image of Christ in us. However they do not justify us in themselves (which is what Sola Fide means). There is no confusion or contradiction between this understanding and what St. Paul says in the above quoted Scripture. Good works DO obtain a reward, but only if you are in Christ to begin with. Justification is by Grace through faith apart from works.
I debated whether I should respond since your M.O is to usually completely ignore what is said and/or quote some other proof texts out of context but.....I had 10 minutes to kill so what the heck.
Quote from: Gardener on March 17, 2019, 12:09:14 PM
Quote from: abc123 on March 17, 2019, 12:02:44 PM
There is no need to "explain it away" since there is no conflict between St. James and St. Paul in Romans. Let's read the passage in context:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24
Typical RC exegesis of this text usually begins and ends with simply quoting the above verse feeling that ends all debate.
So first let's define what we mean by faith. Contrary to popular mischaracterization what is meant by this word among Protestants is not a simple intellectual ascent to a set of theological propositions. We know this is not saving faith since James tells us:
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! James 2:19
So essentially a faith which only acknowledges the truths of who Christ is without living that understanding only qualifies one to be a demon. What kind of "faith" does James tell us doesn't save?
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? James 2:14
So the faith that doesn't save is one that does not produce the fruits of saving faith. Saving Faith is an active Faith which produces fruit and has Christ as the Lord of one's life.
Well and good, but not the typical Protestant argument.
Actually, it's the text-book Reformed exegesis of James.
It can't get more typical than that.
I love how abc123 says "no Protestant" as if all Protestants believed the same thing! Abc123, I know Protestants who believe that good works in grace do have a reward in heaven, and others who say they do not. Most Protestants deny the Blessed Mother is greater in grace than you or me. That is one consequence of the mistaken soteriology many Protestants hold. And almost no Protestant believes in an intermediate state of purification, and prayers for the departed though St. Paul teaches it, and both Catholics and Orthodox do.
And Yes, without Christ's Sacrifice, we could never have been justified. The very state of grace itself is a gratuitous gift. No natural good work could possibly merit it. These things are taught in Trent. http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm "we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace itself of justification" After justification, every good work done in union with Christ now becomes meritorious through Him. Do you agree with that?
This is how Trent interprets St. James, "CHAPTER X. On the increase of Justification received. Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, "Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity." Are we in agreement?
St. Paul said that even if we have the faith that moves mountains, it avails nothing without love. Elsewhere, St. Paul said it is faith that works through love that counts. An act of "faith working through love" is what Catholics call an act of contrition for our sins, where we repent because we are sorry we have offended God and Christ Crucified. Yes, this avails, or recovers justification. After that, we must keep the Commandments and receive the Sacraments, where grace is given to those who are not justified, or increased in those who are.
If you disagree, explain where. What you call "the state of justification" and "sanctification", Trent more correctly describes as "the state of grace after justification is received" and "the increase of justification received". But if you believe sanctification is indeed an increased conformity in grace and union with Christ of those in the infused state of justification, then you are close to the Catholic doctrine.
Now, to the next part of what St. Paul said. Do you believe bad works, or venial sins, of those in grace, for which penance was not done, needs to be purified after death before entrance into heaven? This is what the Apostles teach and why they command prayers for the dead. The Catholic Church has kept that Tradition. Have Protestants?
QuoteFirst define what you mean by meritorious. If by that term you mean that which justifies a sinner before God than Reformed theology would most certainly disagree. The only truly meritorious act in human history; that act by which a sinner is made righteous, is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
This is because Protestants see justification as a one-time event rather than a process. If it is a singular event then only Christ's sacrifice is meritorious, if it is a process then all good works done in a state of justification are further meritorious and increase one's justification.
QuoteJustification is by Grace through faith apart from works.
Unless, again, justification is a process rather than a singular event. If it is a process then works are directly involved with justification (after the initial justification which is pure grace).
Quote from: Davis Blank - EG on March 26, 2019, 11:30:17 PM
QuoteFirst define what you mean by meritorious. If by that term you mean that which justifies a sinner before God than Reformed theology would most certainly disagree. The only truly meritorious act in human history; that act by which a sinner is made righteous, is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
This is because Protestants see justification as a one-time event rather than a process. If it is a singular event then only Christ's sacrifice is meritorious, if it is a process then all good works done in a state of justification are further meritorious and increase one's justification.
QuoteJustification is by Grace through faith apart from works.
Unless, again, justification is a process rather than a singular event. If it is a process then works are directly involved with justification (after the initial justification which is pure grace).
Yes. The process of justification is normally completed in Baptism or in the Sacrament of Penance, when Sanctifying Grace is given or restored. But then Justification can be lost on account of evil works (mortal sin) and must be restored again. Sanctifying Grace and Justification can be increased using various means of grace. The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the process here:
QuoteWe now come to the different states in the process of justification. The Council of Trent assigns the first and most important place to faith, which is styled "the beginning, foundation and root of all justification" (Trent, l.c., cap.viii). Cardinal Pallavicini* (Hist. Conc. Trid., VIII, iv, 18) tells us that all the bishops present at the council fully realized how important it was to explain St. Paul's saying that man is justified through faith. Comparing Bible and Tradition they could not experience any serious difficulty in showing that fiduciary faith was an absolutely new invention and that the faith of justification was identical with a firm belief in the truths and promises of Divine revelation (l. c.: "illumque [Deum] tanquam omnis justitiae fontem diligere incipiunt"). The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God. The same process of justification is repeated in those who by mortal sin have lost their baptismal innocence; with this modification, however, that the Sacrament of Penance replaces baptism. Considering merely the psychological analysis of the conversion of sinners, as given by the council, it is at once evident that faith alone, whether fiduciary or dogmatic, cannot justify man (Trent, l. c., can. xii: "Si quis dixerit, fidem justificantem nihil aliud esse quam fiduciam divinae misericordiae, peccata remittentis propter Christum, vel eam fiduciam solam esse, qua justificamur, a.s."). Since our Divine adoption and friendship with God is based on perfect love of God or charity (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13; James 2:17 sqq.), dead faith devoid of charity (fides informis) cannot possess any justifying power. Only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides caritate formata) can justify man, and this even before the actual reception of baptism or penance, although not without a desire of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. iv, xiv).
The whole article on justification is here: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm
For reference and further reading here are the Council of Trent canons on Justification: http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm
Quote from: abc123 on March 17, 2019, 12:02:44 PM
There is no need to "explain it away" since there is no conflict between St. James and St. Paul in Romans. Let's read the passage in context:
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24
Typical RC exegesis of this text usually begins and ends with simply quoting the above verse feeling that ends all debate.
So first let's define what we mean by faith. Contrary to popular mischaracterization what is meant by this word among Protestants is not a simple intellectual ascent to a set of theological propositions. We know this is not saving faith since James tells us:
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! James 2:19
So essentially a faith which only acknowledges the truths of who Christ is without living that understanding only qualifies one to be a demon. What kind of "faith" does James tell us doesn't save?
14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? James 2:14
So the faith that doesn't save is one that does not produce the fruits of saving faith. Saving Faith is an active Faith which produces fruit and has Christ as the Lord of one's life.
Except James doesn't say that faith which produces works justifies; he says works justify. And nobody for o er 1,000 years, until your "Reformation", understood this in the sense of the sophistic exercise of your "exegesis".
Quote from: abc123 on March 26, 2019, 04:25:09 PM
Quote from: Xavier on March 23, 2019, 11:37:48 PM
Yes, in its plain sense, the passage refutes Protestantism. The good works Abraham did justified him, that's what St. James is teaching. St. James is teaching Protestants (and Luther knew it refuted him, that's why he threw it out; Protestants today are inconsistent in claiming it agrees with them) that good works done in grace are truly meritorious and cause sanctifying grace to be increased in us. In 1 Cor 3:13-15, the same is plainly taught by St. Paul himself when the Apostle teaches (1) every good work done in faith will obtain a reward from the Lord on the day of judgment, while (2) every sin or bad work, even by those in Christ, will need to be purified in fire, i.e. Purgatory.
You are confusing two different concepts. First define what you mean by meritorious. If by that term you mean that which justifies a sinner before God than Reformed theology would most certainly disagree. The only truly meritorious act in human history; that act by which a sinner is made righteous, is the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.
No Protestant will deny that those works done in Christ, ie: done while in a state of Justification, are meritorious in that they increase our sanctification and more perfectly form the image of Christ in us. However they do not justify us in themselves (which is what Sola Fide means). There is no confusion or contradiction between this understanding and what St. Paul says in the above quoted Scripture. Good works DO obtain a reward, but only if you are in Christ to begin with. Justification is by Grace through faith apart from works.
I debated whether I should respond since your M.O is to usually completely ignore what is said and/or quote some other proof texts out of context but.....I had 10 minutes to kill so what the heck.
Like your disastrous hit-and-run in the "Catholic faith proved by Protestant Bible" thread?
Let's cut through the crap. All of this is a sideshow following from the Reformed meaning of "justification", namely, a legal declaration by which the Reformed "deity" merely imputes righteousness to what is unrighteous through a juridical loophole, turning the Apsotolic view of justification through sanctification and salvation as theosis upon its head. Everything else, whether it be faith alone, eternal security or the Satanic horror that is the penal substitution theory of atonement, follows from this, which is itself spun from the Reformed view of the nature of their "deity", good, evil, law and sin, itself the product of a legal mind to whom legal concepts, not real essences and energies, are the ultimate reality.
The premise of this character's response is of course self-exposing bollocks, since at the moment of the one-time act of "justification" there is just belief and apparently no real distinction between "faith" that produces works and "faith" which does not, unless we want to argue for some essential distinction at the time in a potential to bring about works, but you'd have to define what exactly constitutes this.
But in light of who this megalomanical legalist obviously is, the debates are pointless. The truly-convinced "Reformed", or Calvinists if you will, are the willing slaves of a different "god", a beast who resembles to a tee the Gnostic demiurge, and the indoctrinated zealots of his ideology, an ideology that goes beyond mere theological propositions and into a way of seeing the world from.
Quote from: Vetus Ordo on March 26, 2019, 04:48:47 PM
Actually, it's the text-book Reformed exegesis of James.
It can't get more typical than that.
Yes and no. It is a classical Protestant exegesis, but modern Protestants run into a few issues:
1) they rarely, especially colloquially, subscribe to the actual theology of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.
2) the ones who hold to Once Saved Always Saved run into a problem when this passage, and their typical defense, creep into actual application in the lives and conduct of a person who, heretofore, is considered by anyone in their milieu to be saved.
Since the OSAS model is much more prevalent, at least in America, they have a contextual answer as given but it falls apart in the systemic sense, and they basically no longer have that argument. The "doctrine" of eternal security simply doesn't mesh with the contextual exegesis when applied to anyone who, as it were, "backslides".
For example, they have a pastor who is "obviously" saved. He has good works which show forth his faith in line with their understanding. But then, somehow, after 20+ years of being saved and having these works, he decides to have an affair with the church secretary. Is he saved or not? Does the appearance of his continued good works mesh with the reality of his sin and the possibility of salvation?
If he is saved, as he apparently was, then they have to answer yes. But this is problematic because it reveals that salvation, via faith alone, requires no good works. In other words, good works must effectively be an unnecessary cherry on top of the salvation sundae.
They will try to get around this by saying that he was in fact never saved (if they want to be consistent), but this throws a flash-bang grenade into the room of eternal security after busting its door off the hinges.
So while they indeed will contextually say such a thing, systemically they not only ignore the exegesis but also reject it.
Further, one must ask what they mean by "works", how they differentiate those from other "works", and how all of it fits together in a coherent manner.
And that, friend, is where is falls apart like a house of cards
when applied in the real world.
How do they even differentiate between real saving faith that results in works and that which doesn't? Since everyone sins and they don't even differentiate between mortal and venial sin, how does this even work? Severity of sins? Number of sins? Faith alone isn't enough if it's not the "right" faith, and if some undefined system of works becomes the external criterion of faith, that pretty much throws a spanner in Luther's work of trying to obtain assurance of one's own salvation. It's a logical crapshoot.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on March 31, 2019, 10:18:44 AM
How do they even differentiate between real saving faith that results in works and that which doesn't? Since everyone sins and they don't even differentiate between mortal and venial sin, how does this even work? Severity of sins? Number of sins? Faith alone isn't enough if it's not the "right" faith, and if some undefined system of works becomes the external criterion of faith, that pretty much throws a spanner in Luther's work of trying to obtain assurance of one's own salvation. It's a logical crapshoot.
Exactly. Which is why when pressed on this issue, they'll try to pull the baby out of the bath, but in general and in practice, they splash its little brains all over the street when they throw out the water.
Misc. Catholic observations (corrections or comments welcome)
We are justified by Baptism and again (and again..., as needed) by the Sacrament of Penance, and remain justified so long as we remain in the State of Sanctifying Grace. We are forgiven, and our sins are not just painted over; rather, we are made truly holy (in our small way) and we WOULD be saved if we died in this state. Simultaneously (by implication) we are given the three theological virtues, Faith, Hope and Charity.
Charity is a work, if you speak of the all-inclusive work of the love of God and your neighbor. But for this love to be suitable to an infinitely good God it must be supernatural; such love comes only via justification. It leads to external works: obeying God's commandments and doing His will for us. Those not meant to do (many) external bodily works still must do (as all must do) works of love in their minds and hearts. Other works must follow, following from the other commandments, according to each man's duties and calling.
Charity is not something we can maintain or increase all by ourselves (as protestants may claim Catholics believe); it is above all from God. External works without true love of God and man are worthless (unless and until that love is restored). But we must cooperate with God; doing God's will as we know it, with humility and prayer.
With a mortal sin against Charity (the works it requires) we are no longer holy or ready to be saved; we lose our justification. We lose Sanctifying Grace and Charity, and our Faith is dead. As Catholics we can go to confession to regain all that we have lost: then WE have true confidence that we "would be saved just then". But we have the humility and sense to know that we will fall again and must run to Christ again and again. Protestants seem to think a one-time "confidence of living faith NOW" = justification and security of salvation for all time. What happened to "with fear and trembling work out your salvation"? "Once saved always saved" is so untrue to Scripture and so tragic for those who miss the Church's helps (God's helps) in the struggle we must continue to make.
(K. Working to our final justification is a process; living in order to die a just man. But when we are in the State of Grace at that moment we are Just)
Yes, justification begins in Baptismal regeneration. It is in holy Baptism that, by the merits of the Passion of Christ, we become new creatures in Him, entirely pure and without stain, washed from every sin, truly born again, and ready to go to heaven if we remain like that. But since we sin daily, and as the Scripture says the just (justified) man falls seven times a day, then rises, God's Mercy instituted the perpetual remedy of the Sacraments, especially of Confession and of Holy Communion, in addition to the aids of prayer and our faith in Christ. If Protestants only understood that justification is lost by grave sin (and almost all Biblical examples amply confirm this - just take the first 3 kings of Israel for e.g. Saul, who was once annointed, and of whom it is written later, that the Spirit of the Lord departed from him; King David, righteous man through and through, except in that one matter of Uriah the Hittite, as God Himself says; and after which he prayed, take not Your Holy Spirit from me, showing the effect of mortal sin; King Solomon, who again explicitly confirms this by falling into a thousand sins after being truly justified - Trent therefore justly pronounces this anathema "If any one shall say, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified ... let him be anathema.), then at last would they be able to understand what great gifts the Sacraments are.
The doctrine of rewards and merits is also so clearly taught in Scripture from the very beginning to the very end, and especially by Our Lord Jesus when He says over and over again that He the Son of Man will judge every one by his works, that it seems almost incredible Protestants deny or are unaware of it. Each and every work, as St. Paul says, will be tried in fire, when evil works are found, they must be purged. Only those works that are good and endure will merit, by the grace of God (Gracious Merit, as some Catholic Theologians call it), an eternal reward from the Lord on that day. When Protestants see the Blessed Mother Body and Soul as Queen Crowned in Heaven (Rev 12:1), they fail to understand that this is a Biblical Revelation of the Reward given by God to a perfectly Immaculate Life. And while the other Saints in heaven are not entitled to the same reward, nevertheless they always in the same book are always shown clothed in white, praying to the Lord, and rejoicing in heaven with the holy Angels, each having the reward proper to their own good works.
Rev 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven, saying to me: Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord. From henceforth now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours. For their works follow them.
And therefore Trent again rejects the false opinion that good works are only signs of justification but not also reasons for its increase. The Lord explains this in the parable of the Vine and the Branches. Those who fail to do good works will be cut off, because they resist the grace of God given to them for that end. Those who correspond to that grace and allow God to do as He wishes will receive more grace. "If any one shall say, that the justice received is not preserved, and also increased in the sight of God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification received, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."
"CHAPTER XVI:On the Fruit of Justification, that is, on the Merit of Good Works and on the Manner of that same Merit.
Unto men, therefore, who have been justified after this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received, or have recovered it when lost, are to be set the words of the Apostle: Abound in every good work, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord;[89] for God is not unrighteous to forget your work, and the love which ye have showed in his name;[90] and, cast not away your confidence, which hath a great recompense.[91] And, for this cause, unto them who work well unto the end,[92] and hoping in God, life eternal is to be proposed, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a recompense which is to be faithfully rendered to their good works and merits according to the promise of God Himself. For this is that crown of righteousness which the Apostle asserted was, after his fight and course, laid up for him, to be given to him by the righteous judge, and not only to him, but unto all that love his coming.[93]" https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Session_VI/Justification