Do Catholics Believe in Faith Alone?

I am a convert so if I make a mistake in the following article, please do not hesitate to correct me.

A few evangelicals accuse Catholics of having a works based faith. It is assumed that because Catholics put emphasis on obedience to God that we must therefore believe that it is our own efforts that save us. If we Catholics really thought that our own actions could get us to heaven then other Christians would have a right to criticize us.

Catholics take Eph 2:8-10 seriously. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. It is grace alone that justifies us, and that Grace gets applied to us when we have faith.

A search in the Catholic Catechism for the word justification will yield evidence that Catholics do not believe that our own human works can save us. From the Cathecisim 1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ"... and 1996 Our Justification comes from the grace of God, Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God....

Yet, I still occasionally have Protestant friends argue that I, as a Catholic, believe that my works alone save me Why such confusion when every Catholic source I have ever read puts emphasis on the fact that it is Grace which saves us?

It's my opinion that the real problem is how the word, "faith", is defined. Faith is more then simple belief. James 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

Faith is not just belief, it isn't just a strong, emotional reaction. Yes, I realize that some people define the word, faith to mean feeling really positive that God exists and that Jesus is his son. The problem with this definition of faith is that it leaves people confused when they have times of doubt or spiritual dry spells. It also leaves some people feeling as if they should always be at the top of an emotional high in order to have real faith.

When we read the New Testament as a whole, an entire book, instead of taking verses out of context to discover tortured theological truths(How is that for an Alliteration?)we discover that
the Bible speaks a lot about what we have to do as Christians not just how much belief that we should place in Christ. This is because active faith is not just believing, its also a combination of works. Belief and works make up faith.

Once, a man I knew told me in touching detail how much he adored his wife. He informed me that she was the most beautiful woman that he had ever met, she was perfect in every way. I am sure that he felt some intense emotion for his wife, but I also learned later, from several sources, that he was physically abusing her. So, did her love her? Certainly he felt something for his wife but in order for us to call his feelings love he would have had to acted differently toward her. Most people understand that the individual's personal feelings have to be combined with actions in order to be termed love.

The same is true of faith. Can you really say that an individual has faith if he doesn't obey God? Jesus said, He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him.

I am sure that many of us have had the experience of listening to a fellow Christian defend their actions with the words, "But God knows my heart." Whether it be adultery or having sex before marriage, certain Christians will put more emphasis on the importance of their feelings toward God and not the obedience that he expects. And no, I am not judging these people, because I am pretty certain that there have been moments in my life when I assumed that God just wanted me to feel his presence without the bother of following his commandments. But can such a person-and I am including my past self- be said to have real faith if they ignore what they must know God wishes them to do?

So, do Catholics believe in faith alone? Do Catholics believe that their faith saves them?

Actually, I don't think that any Christian should say that their faith saves them because that is not what the Bible says. It is God's Grace that saves us. As I wrote before, Grace gets applied to us when we have faith.

I think that instead of the words 'faith alone', Catholics(and many Protestants, by the way) should say that they believe in Grace Alone.

First Time, Cheerful Obedience Rant

Despite homeschooling and being an exfundamentalists, I was unaware of the concept of either first time obedience or cheerful obedience. It wasn't until some, intrusive older lady tried to 'correct' my parenting that I began to research different "Christian" parenting methods. Apparently some of my former Independent Baptist Church Members were concerned because I counted to three when my younger two girls disobeyed. They wanted my kids to immediately obey with big smiles on their face.

To be honest, their advice creeped me out. I had always got compliments on my kids behavior without expecting them to 'ask how high when I told them to jump". So, I was confused as to why anyone would complain about my parenting methods when they obviously considered my kids polite and well mannered.

What I discovered was that the 'ideal' fundamentalist parent had children who could sit perfectly still and quiet through a hour service, never disturbed talking grownups and obeyed quickly with a big, wide, happy grin. No, my kids are not 'ideal'. Yes, they whine and get grumpy sometimes. We've had issues with them that we have to work on as a family together. But we manage to deal with these problems without breaking our children's spirits down.

Several aspects of my childhood influenced me to strongly disagree with 'cheerful' obedience. (although I think kids and adults should be polite)First, my mother was abusive and she expected quick obedience and for us to hide our emotions. We had to be outwardly happy when we were actually very upset. Startlingly enough, I can understand the motives behind children who kill their parents. At one point, I was very, very angry with my mom, no matter how much I smiled. If my mother had used religion as a basis for her actions, I have no doubt that I would have hated God instead. Emotionally, it is easier for a child to hate an unseen entity then a parent. I wonder how many atheists and pagans were brought up to fear that any expression of anger toward their Christian parents equalled disloyalty to God. What a burden to place on a young child's shoulders.

I've always valued the ability to think for one self and not follow the crowd. My goal as a parent is to teach my kids that rebelling against the societal norm for what one considers morally right is the correct thing to do. Ultimately, I want my children to not just be good but to be noble. Part of being noble is learning to balance respect for authority with the ability to question and perhaps stand against the same authority.

My youngest son went through a period when he felt angry often. We worked with him, discussing the best way to handle anger and how to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate ways to handle his temper. It took some time but I am grateful that I was able to see that he had a problem. What if he had been trained that the only legitimate emotion for a Christian to feel was happiness? Would he have swallowed down his anger only to have it reemerge when he had power over someone else?

I believe that God gives us warnings by allowing us to feel negative emotions. From a human vantage a situation or person can seem wonderful, but our emotions, instinct-God- is nudging us and trying to warn us. How does an adult brought up to believe that they should deny their emotions and only be cheerful handle situations in which they come under the authority of a evil person masquerading as a Christian? They won't know that they can trust their own instincts or that the icky feelings that they are experiencing might actually be God warning them.

My main problem, though, with cheerful, first time obedience is spiritual. I have trouble asking kids to do something that we as Christian adults do not do. I do not always obey God without whining. When it is cold out, I whine about attending church, I whine about saying my prayers, I whine about a lot of my obedience. God wants our hearts so even if I smile outside, he wants my inner smile and I don't always give it to him. Often the changes that have occurred in me as a Christian were accompanied by a lot of inner tantrums on my part. Learning to forgive my mom was something that I complained, whined and moaned about. I am probably one of God's 'difficult' children. LOL

God understands that we are a work in progress. In first time, cheerful obedience, the parent is expecting more perfection on the part of the child toward a fallible human then the parent is likely giving to God. That really bothers me.

Have The Pearl's Changed Some Of Their Advice?

On their website, No Greater Joy, the Pearls have a collection of various readers' questions and the responses from Michael and Debbi. The questions typically revolve around marriage and childcare.


One particular Pearl response has been strongly criticized on many blogs. A mother had written to No Greater Joy about the fact that her husband had molested his children. Michael Pearl had answered that the woman should indeed press charges against the husband. If his response had ended with his call for the man to serve time, few people would have had issue with him. Unfortunately his advice continued. He advised the woman to visit the husband in prison and to bring the victims of his crime, their children, on these visits. After the man had served his term, the wife was advised to welcome him back into her home and presumably her bed. Her children would, Michael reasoned, be adults and need no further protection.


Despite the fact that others had covered this particular subject, I wanted to write about it. To my surprise, I can no longer find the letter on their website! The original letter has been replaced by another one written by a mother of seven children. In this letter the Pearls take a much stronger stance against the evil of sexual abuse.

Michael writes: You husband has committed a crime against humanity. You are legally obligated to report this crime to the law. He will be jailed and stand trial; you and the girls will testify against him; he will be sentenced to about 20 years.


Oh my, I agree with Michael Pearl. On their website, the Pearls state that Michael conducts a prison ministry. Perhaps his years of contact with such men has finally convinced him that his original advice was wrong.

I would add that beyond a legal requirement to report the husband, the mother has a ethical and moral responsibility to do so.

Further, Micheal states: If he truly repents and gets saved, and you should choose to forgive him, the girls should never be forced to be in subjection to him again. He forfeited the right to be their father when he committed a crime worthy of death against them

This is much better then the first letter. The children should never be forced to live in the same household with this man again. It doesn't matter what the mother's personal feelings toward her husband are, she has to protect her daughters.

If they choose to forgive and accept him as their father, that would be a blessed thing for them. They have been hurt enough; they shouldn't have to live with the hate and anger. That would mean that his sin is continuing to follow them.

Disappointingly, the above comment is a bit vague and could be read several different ways. I am uncertain exactly what Michael means by 'accepting him as their father." Hopefully, this doesn't mean that the father would be allowed to return home if his minor children wish him to do so. Abusive people are often very manipulative and are not above using emotion and guilt against their victim. Such people should never be allowed access to vulnerable children.

Many wrongly assume that forgiveness means that the wronged individual welcomes the offender back into their life. This is not true. Forgiveness means letting go of the anger and hate that can destroy the innocent victim's life. But the wronged are not required to allow dangerous indiviuals back into their lives.

I would love to know what led to Michael's change of heart. Did he truely have an epiphany? If so, the Pearls should issue a statement on their site for the mothers who followed Michael's original advice. The skeptic in me wonders if this change in attitude is caused by the fact that the Pearls have been investigated by social service. Perhaps they are afraid that if a repeat of the Sean Paddock case reoccurs, they might be liable for their advice.

Hopefully, though, Michael has really had a change of heart and his perspective has changed. I just wish that he had written another article explaining that the older article should not be followed.

The Pearls Advice For A Child Who Strikes Others

Below is a section taken from the Pearl's book To Train Up A Child, chapter nine. To avoid accusations that I am taking the writer's out of context I have included a link to an online copy of their book. If you have any doubts about what I write, please click on the link.

If you have experience with children, then include how you handled the following situation. Perhaps if an overwhelmed parent comes to this site and finds a variety of approaches to their problems then that parent will be less susceptible to listen The Pearls.

As my wife was counseling with a young mother, I watched a most amazing scene unfold. The first of two children (a two-year-old), upon failing to get attention, picked up a plastic toy wrench and began to pound his mother's arm. Occasionally, he would reach up and poke her in the face.

This isn't amazing. It sounds like normal two year old behavior.

The parent can very briefly model using a wrench correctly and encouraging the child to copy them. When the toddler does so the parent can praise the child and then ask the child for a high five. "Give me a high five for using that toy correctly, son." At least this is what I did when my kids were very young.

If the behavior continued and nothing else worked then I would take the wrench from the child and firmly tell him/her "No, don't hit." Yes, your child will probably cry but be comforted. Once your child understands that his/her parents' no really does mean no then your job as a parent is much easier. You don't have to be overly punitive to teach your child to listen to you. All you have to do is be consistent. By the way, you don't have to take the toy away forever, just for a few hours.

This was not new behavior. We had previously observed these "way of Cain" acts of violence perpetrated on the little brother as well as on the mother.

If this child has a continued problem with striking others then it would seem wise to discover the roots of his behavior. The Pearls give no background about the family. Is the father respectful of the mother? Is the child modeling behavior that he has witnessed in the home? What are his television viewing habits? Some children are more prone then others to copying the violence that they see on tv. Have the parents indicated that certain food, schedule changes etc have a bearing on this child's behavior? Treating only the symptoms without addressing the real problem will only cause the child's negative behavior

Just as an aside, you can prevent some jealousy from an older sibling toward a new baby just by asking the older child to help you. For example, when you change the baby's diaper, have the older child bring you a diaper and praise them for their help. Tell them how lucky the baby is to have such a great and helpful brother/sister.

Considering that Cain killed his brother Abel, I am guessing that the Pearls included the reference as a scare tactic. There is nothing in the bible, after all, about two year old Cain hitting infant Abel.

As the talk continued, little Johnny got tired of assaulting his mother and turned on my wife. After the first blow, almost without diverting her eyes from the mother, and with no change of expression, she picked up a matching plastic toy. This was not to fight back, but to train.

Notice the word "train" in the above section. The Pearls sometimes call physical punishment 'training" instead of spanking, striking or hitting. So, although this story obviously has an adult hitting a child with a plastic wrench, the Pearls can claim that this isn't happening because they are 'training' the child.

The mother is the one who would most benefit from what was about to occur. As little Johnny drove home the next blow, swiftly and with more than matching force, my wife struck

Although spanking might not be the best response to the child's misbehavior, it would be much better for the mom to swat her toddler's bottom then to allow a non relative to strike her son. To prevent sexual abuse, children should know that they can tell an adult who is not their parent that they don't want to be touched.

Also, by picking up the wrench and striking the child, Debbi Pearl has lowered herself to his age. She hasn't taught the child that he shouldn't strike someone with the wrench, just that you shouldn't strike someone who can fight back.

Such surprise! What is this little Johnny feels coming from his arm? Pain! And somehow it is associated with the striking of this toy. Again, Johnny strikes. Again, swift, retribution (training really). Johnny is very tough; so, though he didn't cry, he pulled back his pained arm and examined it carefully. You could see the little mental computer working. As if to test his new theory, again, but with less force, he struck. The immediately returned blow was not diminished in strength. This time, I thought he would cry. No, after looking at his mother, as if to say, "What is this new thing?" he again, and with even less force, struck my wife on the arm. I was thinking, "She will lighten up this time and match his diminished intensity." Again, my wife struck, seemingly, with all the force she could possibly muster without standing for a wind-up.

Even those parents who spank do not strike their child with their full force. To do so would leave bruises. According to Michael Pearl, Debbi is hitting the child with all her strength. I have counted four times that the child was struck in the above section, the last time was with all Debbi's strength.

Johnny, tough enough for special forces, did one of those pained, crying faces covered by a forced smile.

I don't believe this. I think that Michael Pearl's memory is fuzzy. There is no way that a woman could use her full strength to strike a child's arm with a plastic toy without causing the child to scream.

To my amazement, with one-fourth the original force, he again smack my wife. This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside. I was hoping that Johnny was getting close to learning his lesson. The conversation had about died in anticipation of the outcome. Johnny must have had a Viking lineage, for he continued to trade blows about ten times. On Johnny's part, the blows got lighter and lighter until, after a short contemplative delay, he gave a little tap that was returned with a swift, forceful blow

Again, common sense would tell us that this is false. Debbi Pearl has hit this child so hard that her butt has lifted off the seat. This boy would be bruised. If you don't believe me then please find an adult who is as much larger then you as Debbi must be compared to a two year old. Hand the adult a plastic, toy wrench and have them repeatedly hit you full force on the arm. Remember the blows have to be powerful enough to lift your friend off the couch.

By the way, it sounds like there were 11 blows applied to the child's arm in this section alone. Add these 11 hits to the above four and that makes 15 hard strikes on a two year old by an adult woman. So, your friend has to strike you at least 15 times and many of those blows must be at his full strength.

What is the boy's mother, his supposed protector, doing during the abuse of her child? Sitting quietly, not interfering. After Debbi finishes she hands the wrench to the mother who hits the child two or three more times!

Michael Pearl assures us that,This was not discipline, but training.

Again, notice the word, training.

The child was cheerfully striking with the toy. Though frustrated, he was not angry or mean. Had that been the case, his medicine would have been the rod.

So, worse could have happened to a two year old child?

The returned blows were teaching him that what he was doing was painful and undesirable. He was also being taught that there were others who could give it out better than he. Most little bullies are cured by meeting a bigger bully.

I don't even know how to comment to the above statement. I want to write further on this group but I will have to take a break from them. Reading their material makes me sad.