Replies

Warning: Tome ahead!

There is no real contradiction unless they are both speaking about justification in the same way.

If so, then James would be flatly contradicting both Genesis and Paul, as he states,

And the scripture was fulfilled [when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar] which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (James 2:23)

Yet long before Gn. 22, it states in 15:6:

And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15:6)

And the chief theologian and writer of the NT states,

How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: (Romans 4:10-11)

The Catholic recourse here has been to relegate the exclusion of "works" to "works of the Law," but in reality Abraham was not under the Law, thus the exclusion of Abraham being justified by works, and thus have some cause to boast, even for his cooperation with grace, refers to any of his works. Thus writing to a Greek, Paul says more broadly,

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)

The reason "works of the Law" is used is because

"...if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)

The Law represents all systems of justification by merit, even by grace. For in fact even one under the Law is dependent upon grace, as even the ability to breath is grace, as is having a means of knowing how to please God in the law.

And the application of being "under the Law" applies even to those who "do by nature the things contained in the law," (Rm. 2:14) which the previous chapter says the Gentiles went against, as Jews are indicted for doing against the express code in cp. 2, and thus cp. 3 states,

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;" (Romans 3:9)

On her part what Rome teaches is salvation by grace thru works, that by the grace of God one becomes actually good enough to enter Heaven, first thru the actual act of sprinkling water (usually on a innocent infant who cannot fulfill the stated requirements for Biblical baptism of repentant whole- hearted faith: Acts 2:38; 8:36,37), and then (usually) by suffering "purifying torments" in "purgatory" until one becomes actually good enough (and atones for sins) to enter Heaven.

Trent teaches that while election is by pure unmerited grace, justification is gained by one's own holiness by coperating with grace.

"....without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace." - Council of Trent, Cp. V.

..the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified... - Trent, Cp. VII.

Thus the CE:

Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), just as a philosopher by his own inherent learning becomes a scholar.. — Catholic Encyclopedia> Sanctifying Grace

CC 2010: Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification...and for the attainment of eternal life.

However, it is clear that God "justifeth the UnGodly" by faith, that is, a faith that will effect obedience appropriates justification before God. Thus Peter preaches that souls had their hearts purified by faith" even before baptism. (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) And which Rome even allows for:

If the contrition be perfect (contritio caritate perfecta), then active justification results, that is, the soul is immediately placed in the state of grace even before the reception of the sacrament of baptism or penance, though not without the desire for the sacrament (votum sacramenti). If, on the other hand, the contrition be only an imperfect one (attritio), then the sanctifying grace can only be imparted by the actual reception of the sacrament (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cc. iv and xiv). — Catholic Encyclopedia> Sanctifying Grace

And it is safe to say here the "desire for the sacrament" can be understood as being quite implicit, so that even those who were ignorant of baptism can be thus justified, as faith in the Lord Jesus is indicative of a change of allegiance in desiring a new life Christ.

Imperfect contritio n (also known as attrition) in Catholic theology is a desire not to sin for a reason other than love of God. Imperfect contrition is contrasted with perfect contrition.

CCC 1452 When it arises from a love by which God is loved above all else, contrition is called "perfect" (contrition of charity). Such contrition remits venial sins; it also obtains forgiveness of mortal sins if it includes the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible”

Commenting on this, P. DE LETTER, S. J. of St. Mary's college (India) states,

The explicit distinction between contrition and attrition is not found in Catholic theology till well into the twelfth century. Pre- Scholastic and early Scholastic authors treat of only one sorrow for sin in connection with sacramental or ecclesiastical penance, and that is contrition, contritio cordis, the sorrow that is perfect enough to wipe out the sins before God even prior to confession to a priest.8...

Next to this accepted idea that only real contritio cordis is helpful for the remission of sin, we may, with P. de Blic,13 point to another reason why no distinction is made between contrition and attrition, namely, the unsettled and uncertain theology about the proper effi- ciency of absolution. Few theologians before St. Thomas attributed to the priest's sentence more than a declarative or a forensic value.14 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/215347977/Theological-Studies-1950-de-Letter-3-33

And Peter does not present (Acts 15:7-9) the example (Acts 10:43-47) of this prebaptismal regeneration/washing/justification as an exception, but as the basis for concluding that "we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:11)

Thus rather than Acts 10 being an exception, it interprets Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:38, with regeneration being promised if baptized, as baptism requires the kind of faith that Cornelious and company had prior to baptism.

For as Luther even taught, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! -[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt

While it is precisely the kind of faith that is expressed by a true believer in baptism in identification with the Lord Jesus, (Rm. 1-5) that is what appropriates justification on Christ's expense and righteousness, yet what is in the heart, if real, will be expressed, given opportunity. And and thus is can be said that one who submits baptism and exhibits other acts of faith will be saved, as this testifies to faith, a living full faith versus inert.

Thus,

"For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Romans 10:10)

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13)

"But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak." (Hebrews 6:9)

It is obvious that one is not justified on the basis of any merit of their own due to law-keeping, as if this made them actually good enough for glory, but "his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," (Rm. 4:5,6) but since one who believes will also work, thus the one who does works of faith testifies that he has faith, and thus one is validated, justified, by works, meaning the kind of faith that effects works, and which works to fulfill the Law:

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4)

As faith and works are so intertwined, one can tell as soul to be baptized to be saved as easily as he can tell him to be believe:

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word." (Acts 10:43-44)

Similarly,

"Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?" (Mark 2:9)

For in essence the former was the same declaration as the latter.

And thus in Romans 4, Paul is dealing with what actually justifies a person b4 God as regards merit, and in which the answer is that faith is counted for righteousness as Abraham was, and which was not by him becoming born again at that point, nor because he had no works of righteousness before then.

But as one who was utterly unable to produce the mighty nation God promised, just as one is utterly unable to produce the perfect righteousness needed to enter Heaven (which RCs imagine they attain thru purgatory), thus "being as good as dead" he could only trust God to effect this, and which faith was then counted for righteousness. He then acted that faith out by having Issac, which act was not toilsome but obedient, while God would build the nation.

Thus the believer is justified by faith, and which regenerated at that time (versus being a white-washed sinner as per a RC caricature), and then acts it out.

And therefore practical James, who is simply not interested in mere profession but whose focus is purely on the practical manifestation as the criteria for faith ("shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" - v. 18) states in protesting against inert faith being salvific,

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

And which is true in this sense of what manner of faith justifies, as it is not a by a faith that produces not works of faith that a man is justified by, but that which effects obedience. And which Abraham was vindicated as having in being willing to sacrifice his God-given heir by faith, as the one who had been accounted righteous accounted that God was able to raise him up. (Heb. 11:19)

Likewise Rahab the harlot was justified by works (James 2:25) by hiding the brethren (and lying about it) by faith, as her works manifested that she has faith, being as much and more of a confession than by mouth.

To hold otherwise, and that Abraham did not having saving faith until cp. 22 is to hold that Abraham was neither positionally nor practically righteous before God until his faith was tested, but instead this act of faith confirmed, or "fulfilled" that he was a believer, like as a prophet is confirmed to be so by his fulfilled prophecies. And to hold that is the effect of regeneration (via baptism and purgatory) that makes a soul good enough for Heaven (as per Rome) means that Abraham must have been born again when accounted righteous.

And to hold that by grace man is formally justified on the actual foundational basis of the merit he earned by his works and his own righteousness which he attained, would seem to be basically be akin to justification as under the Law, but with the assistance of grace to earn the moral merit that could not be successfully attained under the Law. Thus in contrast to faith being salvific, but requiring it be a faith that effects works, and in the light of which a soul may have assurance that he has eternal life, (1Jn. 5:13) the RC can never know if he/she has attained to the imprecise moral level that they know that will go to be with the Lord at death. Even the sacraments they relied on to make them

Thus while the heart believes unto righteousness, so that even Rome allows that one can be saved by a repentant faith, works of faith are what constitutes evidence of faith, and thus the elect are judged to be so by them, (1Thes. 1) and suffer loss of rewards or the gaining of them on that basis, (Mt. 25:31-40; Rv. 2:7,11, 17,26; 3:5,11,21; 21:7)) even being called "worthy" (Rv. 3:4) as faith "hath great recompence of reward." (Heb. 10:35) These rewards are done in grace, grace upon grace, not because the believers are owed them by God on the basis of their own merit, as no one can actually become good enough to deserve to dwell with God, since even saints have sinned and all come short of His perfection, and thus in reality God what owes man in pure justice is damnation, while eternal life is a gift. (Rm. 6:23)

But in His covenantal grace, God has not only redeemed believers on His/Christ's expense and credit, but promised to reward them for believing/obeying, even though it is God,

"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13) And in conversion, it is God who draws, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; )

RC theologians do make a distinction btwn types of merit (the CCC simply says The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members.. - Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2006), but any distinction that would render souls being damned + destitute sinners in need of a day of salvation thru personal repentant faith in the risen Lord Jesus to saved on His sinless blood and righteousness, and merit as not being that of attaining Heaven on the basis of their own moral worth, is not what is conveyed.

Instead, Trent's reactionary emphasis upon merit has had the effect of fostering the view that man most naturally holds to, that one will gain eternal life because they basically are good enough, with their church will get them there, all of which is under an ambiguous idea of Divine mercy.

While devout RCs may be able to articulate their "salvation by grace thru moral merit" faith, more typically is the response is what RC professor Peter Kreeft states,

Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question: If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer? The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus! http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

In more detail, a Catholic Answers poster states,

I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... — http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2

As this is the most natural assumption of religious man, then this is what must be combated the most, and thus in such as sermon as that of Peter in Acts 2, the work of the evangelist was not to preach to them about a church, or intellectual discourse about sacramental salvation, but of their dire need to be redeemed, convicting them of their sins, of the righteousness of Christ, and of their judgment by Him (to make them His footstool). Thus was desperate cry, "what shall we do?" Only then was the brief instruction given to be baptized/believe on Christ.

In contrast, what is inculcated in RCs is the power of the church to save, along with their own merits, so the typical response to the basic question," "If you were to die, why should God let you into Heaven," is no essentially such as "I placed all my faith in the Lord Jesus to save me by His blood, and so I follow Him" but such as, "I am a pretty good person, and don't really hurt anyone," and or the end all assertion, "I am a good Catholic." For being heretically taught they became children of God as infants thru sprinkling, and are treated as such henceforth, and thus it is never pressed upon these mostly lost souls that they are yet in need of their "day of salvation," and are also deceived into assume a postmortem period will take care of anything that is wanting. =========================================================================================== ► Meanwhile, though some RCs will present James 2 as being the clear definitive teaching on justification, vs Rm. 4 and other texts, and refer to the work of reconciling James with them as obfuscation, the fact is that not only were the hearts of souls in Scripture regenerated/purified/justified by simple faith, albeit the kind of faith that obeys Christ, but serious theologians also wrestle with reconciling them all, though this was a development.

Alister McGrath: “For the first three hundred and fifty years of the history of the church, her teaching on justification was inchoate and ill-defined. There had never been a serious controversy over the matter, such as those which had so stimulated the development of Christology over the period...The medieval period was characterized by its attempts to accumulate biblical and patristic material considered to be relevant to particular issues of theological interpretation, and by its attempt to develop hermeneutical methods to resolve the apparent contradictions encountered in this process.” –Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 2nd edition (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, reprinted 1998), pp.23, 38.

"Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification." (Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation, p. 52 )

Roman Catholic professor Peter Kreeft believes that, When Luther taught that we are saved by faith alone, he meant by salvation only the initial step, justification, being put right with God. But when Trent said we are saved by good works as well as faith, they meant by salvation the whole process by which God brings us to our eternal destiny and that process includes repentance, faith, hope, and charity, the works of love. — http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0027.html

Until quite recently, it was almost universally accepted that the epistle of St. James was written against the unwarranted conclusions drawn from the writings of St. Paul. Of late, however, Catholic exegetes have become more and more convinced that the Epistle in question, so remarkable for its insisting on the necessity of good works, neither aimed at correcting the false interpretations of St. Paul's doctrine, nor had any relation to the teaching of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

On the contrary, they believe that St. James had no other object than to emphasize the fact — already emphasized by St. Paul — that only such faith as is active in charity and good works (fides formata) possesses any power to justify man (cf. Galatians 5:6; 1 Corinthians 13:2), whilst faith devoid of charity and good works (fides informis) is a dead faith and in the eyes of God insufficient for justification (cf. James 2:17 sqq.). According to this apparently correct opinion, the Epistles of both Apostles treat of different subjects, neither with direct relation to the other. For St. James insists on the necessity of works of Christian charity, while St. Paul intends to show that neither the observance of the Jewish Law nor the merely natural good works of the pagans are of any value for obtaining the grace of justification (cf. Bartmann, "St. Paulus u. St. Jacobus und die Rechtertigung", Freiburg, 1897). — Catholic Encyclopedia>Justification; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

though he [Bellarmine] quotes the words of the Tridentine Fathers, declaratory of the "unica formalis causa" of Justification (de Justif. ii. 2), does not hesitate to say that it is an open question whether grace or charity is the justice which justifies; and, though he holds for his own part that these are different names for one and the same supernatural habit, yet he allows that there are theologians who think otherwise (ibid. i. 2). Though, then, there be but one formal cause (and there never can be more than one proper form of anything), still it is not settled precisely what that form is. We are at liberty to hold that it is, not the renewed state of the soul, but the Divine gift which renews it. - http://www.newmanreader.org/works/justification/Bellarmine