All these prooftexts of "Faith Alone" are silly.
Not silly, but serious and substantiating, despite those who wrest them.
All, taken in context, speak of "works of the law" or "works of justice"; if you read around them they all at the same time urge good works.
This aspect has been clearly affirmed, yet here, as before, and what follows, you continue to exhibit your fundamental misapprehension of what “faith alone” teachers, supposing that this is opposed to works being required for obedience, and that the character of this faith is one that is marked by obeying these requirements, and that salvation being restricted to this type of faith does not mean salvation is not by faith alone as its procuring means, which in reality it is, but not by a faith which is alone. And thus when you see texts as “to that worketh not but believeth,” “not according to our works” etc., you reject it out of hand as meaning faith as the instrumental means of justification, and that it is by imputed righteousness, and seeing the works which result from such faith you think they merit salvation, you think you have disproved sola fide which affirms faith and works, but the latter being a fruit of justification imputed righteous, not the basis or means of it.
The difference is, of course, that works done out of legal obligation are thereby containing their own reward, -- Jewishness, when that legally mattered, in the case of the works of circumcising oneself and one's children, or generally social recognition and temporal freedoms that lawful life offers. Good works, on the other hand, are works done for no temporal reward and instead at a temporal cost: continence, constraint of the passions, denial of self. These, the Gospel teaches, are works that save alongside of faith because, like faith they are possible thanks to divine grace. This simple teaching is brilliantly illustrated by Eph 2:4-10:
This text is simply affirming what sola fide itself affirms, as i have affirmed, that salvific faith is not one that is not alone, but obeys, but what such texts do not do is make works meritorious for salvation, which Rome does, and hence you must attempt to insist Paul is only excluding works based upon motive, which he somehow forgot to mention when disallowing “works of the law” or “works of righteousness, etc.”
If a man did truly works according to law, due to legal requirement, it required loving God by obedience so that he could be found just before Him and not be cursed, (Gal. 2:20) which required grace and was by faith that he could be justified that way, and which is akin to hoping to merit eternal life by the merit of works as per Rome, but which is what is disallowed. And while there may also be other motives, it is incongruous that Paul would not have made a distinction as to types of works when disallowing them as the meritorious basis for justification. Thus the Bible according to the Spirit of Rome would read like,
“But to him that worketh not — for any other motive but to please God in faith that he could merit eternal life life by the merit of his works — but believeth on him that justifies the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Or “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works — hoping to impress others, or without a heart to please God and merit eternal life by grace — but according to His mercy He saved us — by sprinkling infants (typically) in recognition of their parents faith and thus regenerating them, so that they are just in His sight due to an actual internal righteousness (every mother's dream) and would go to heaven if they died, not be any merit of their own, (CCC 1282) but after baptism they are to merit eternal life by the grace of God dispensed thru Roman Catholic rituals, usually after an indeterminate time being made ready in purgatory, through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967) the least pain of which may surpass the greatest pain of this life, “(Aquinas T. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Appendix I, Article 1.) but out of which one be delivered through “the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints,” and “can always be applied to the dead by way of suffrage. (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; Norms, n. 1;3; cf. Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, Normae de indulgentiis, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1999, p. 21; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1471) "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. " (2 Corinthians 11:3) |
Salvation is by sovereign grace of God alone; that grace is not of works. We receive His grace for no merit of our own and our response is twofold, faith and good works. God plants in us the former and prepares us for the latter. We are saved by grace alone through faith and good works.
Meaning “salvation by grace through merit,” that by the grace of God one merits eternal life, even though it is an unmerited gift and not by or of works, though these follow, and “not of works” means not of works a regards how one appropriates imputed righteousness, which is justification by declarative righteousness gained by Christ, versus an internal holiness which makes us just in His sight, and then meriting eternal life.
Of course, it is also a historical fact that "Faith Alone" was a slogan that emerged out of the so-called reformation. People prior to Luther were suffiently informed in the Holy Scripture to know that according to it, we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24).
If you want to object to slogans, i might want to list some what Rome has come up with to describe unBiblical teachings, which are allowed as also claiming derivation from the Bible (which word itself is not in the Scriptures) or from it non-codified nebulous tradition, even when falsely claiming unanimous consent. But the same deny sola Scripture when showed that the only objective authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God and thus assuredly infallible are the Scriptures, versus a formulaic AIM. Likewise “faith alone” is disallowed, even when shown that it essentially means one must rest upon the mercy of God in Christ for salvation, not on any merit of his works, but which follow if the faith is true, they misconstrue it and confuse the basis for justification with its effects, and read contrasts into passages that are not supported by it, and which texts are contrary to justification by merit through any system of works-righteousness.
As for “sola fide,” the Reformation was not doing a new thing in teaching that man is justified by imputed righteousness , procured by a faith that results in works but is not merited by it, but articulating what is written. Nor was Luther the first to have “alone” in Rm. 3:28.
And as one researcher finds neither was Rome completely unified in its soteriology before Trent, and between 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.” In reaction to the Reformation,”the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition." — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52.
Also, while church fathers overall did not seem to consider precisely defining justification to be an overall priority, behind my contention is the need for man to see his destitute condition and desperate need for salvation by casting all his faith on the Christ to save him by His blood and righteousness, and thus live that ought continually, which conversion confidence in ones works militates against. And historically evangelical faith has evidenced much more evident forth fruit of repentance and regeneration, in relation to its size, and rather than defending a church which fails in comparison, then manifest Biblical faith with its transformative conversions, not forms and perfunctory professions or trumpeting one church as supreme, should be our priority as we seek to be more ourselves.
Rather than teaching that a faith without works is salvific, it [historical Protestantism?] affirms Jame's teaching ...
No it doesn't. The slogan "by Faith Alone" is diametrical opposite of James 2:24.
No, James, who gave the definitive sentence in Acts 15, confirmed Peter's testimony in which Gentiles were saved by sola fide, being regenerated by faith in Christ, “purifying their hearts by faith,' (Acts 15:7-9), not gaining eternal life on the basis of meritorious works - although obedience (Acts 15:19-21) must follow a lived out living faith. Only by forcing James to make works meritorious for eternal life life can you convert his writings, and by making them to say that works of faith merited justification versus the faith behind them procuring IR, you place him in contradiction with the head theologian of the church.
That all the Protestant leaders, old and new, offer up some incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo of which that paragraph is a sample, is not surprising.
The Roman Catholic incomprehension is caused by the Roman mind meld, and whose plethora of pronouncements published in all their prolixity promotes a populace implicitly placing placating trust in her, and construes salvation by grace through faith with eternal life life being a gift of God into something man merits on an installment plan, through grace dispensed from Rome's treasury, replete with Indulgences and Novenas, “meriting for ourselves and for others the graces needed for...the attainment of eternal life.” (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010) And the “the term
But so long as the slogan stands, "Faith Alone", so do the anathemas of Trent stand.
And whoever promotes works as meriting eternal life, versus imputed righteousness procured by a type of faith which does obey, is under a curse, (Gal. 1:6-9) as are they who promote a faith as salvific which teaches saving faith is not one lives it out, and or promotes confidence in the power of a church to get souls into heaven, basically as long as they die in as members, an thus it is Rome who is under the anathema of almighty God for teaching and fostering confidence in one's works as meriting eternal life, while they overall have little!
You cannot believe "A" and "not A" at the same time.
Your FM once again, while Rome attempts to have a gift merited or owed by works of faith.
You cannot have one Scripture declaring that a soul is counted righteous because of faith, in contrast to merit of his works, (Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9) and another (it is supposed) teaching that works merit eternal life, which Rome teaches. While she and her defenders seek to make eternal life both a gift to and a reward, the two are Scripturally opposed to each other. (Rm. 6:23; 11:6)
All three, Eph 2:8-10, Titus 3:1-8, 2 Timothy 1:6-10 mention the importance of faith and also of good works. You carved out parts that speak of faith and neglected to also look at the immediate context of each of the three major prooftexts that you offer.
Your FM once again.
(You wisely do not offer anything from Romans and Galatians here, because it must be clear to you that these speak narrowly of works of Jewish law).
No, i included Rm. 4 already, and dealt with “of the law,” but focused on these due to your attempt to read into them a contrast that is not there or warranted. Paul could have very easily used Gn. 22 if he was making your distinction, but he did not, and never makes the merit of the works of man the basis for man's justification in Christ.
So, no, the scripture does teach that "soul is counted righteous because of faith", but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of faith ALONE.
So, yes, the Scripture and Protestant sola fide does teach that a "soul is counted righteous because of faith," but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of a faith WHICH IS alone, or by merit of works.
Let us turn our attention to your other scriptural references.
"Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice". Indeed. Annalex believes that one must do good works because that is what God says in Matthew 25:31-46. Abram then believed God and crossed the desert on a near-suicidal mission. He also believed God and was ready to sacrifice his beloved son.
This i affirm, though i did not know Annalex was a rendering for Abraham:).
Catholic saints believed God when God said that that one must do good works and built universities and hospitals, and fought off the Turks. These were all works of faith. Faith without works is dead.
And contrary to the New Testament church, (1Cor. 5:12; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 10:3; Eph. 6:12) Rome used to sword of men to rule over those without, and tortured souls who were reported to have deviated from the Catholic faith, and persecuted those who in conscience toward God dissented from Rome, and even killer her “own” who reproved them. Indeed faith with works is dead, and the wrong faith leaves men dead. And while early Protestants also wrongly used the sword of men to rule over those without, having learned this from Rome, yet evangelical faith was largely responsible for the Christian character of America, it being the “civil religion,” resulting in benefits all enjoy today and adding to the kingdom of God, while nations increasingly suffer as they cast off Christian faith and its ethos, and much of the church itself becomes much like the world.
Abraham was not saved by faith alone, but rather his faith co-operated with his works (James 2:23, Hebrews 11). We are not saved by faith alone.
His faith certainty did, but that is not what is in contention, key verse, while your conclusion compels converting Paul to what you perceive James is saying in order to reconcile it to Rome, but rightly dividing the word of truth (2Tim. 2:15) requires honestly seeking to reconcile Scripture with itself as light is given.
The first distinction which needs to be made again is that of the basis for justification, imputed (declared) righteousness procured by God-given faith (qualified as to its confessional character) in Christ and His blood, (Rm. 3:25-4:1-24) versus making justification to be on the basis of infusion, of an actual righteousness, and eternal life life gained by merit of works. The latter is clearly rejected, as the exclusion of merit is what is behind Paul's contrast, and does not allow for grace enabling merit, as even justification by law-keeping was by God's grace. But “the law is not of faith” in the sense that “The man that doeth them shall live in them," (Galatians 3:12) so that one had to keep it perfectly to be just, versus faith in God mercy as an utterly unworthy sinner, justified by the merits of a Substitute versus merit of one's own works. And Rm. 11:6 , despite your attempt further on to reconcile it to the doctrine of merit by grace, contextually it defines grace as regards salvation as not based upon man's merit.
Next, as basically said before, you cannot have Moses and Paul both stating that Abraham was justified in Gn. 15:6, with many other verses stating justification is by faith, and never saying that justification was procured by any kind of works, but always contrasting faith-procurement to works (though again, such faith surely must be of a character that expresses itself in obedience to its Object), and then have James saying he was lost until Gn. 22 when he did works which merited justification.
However, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” may be reconciled with Moses and Paul as referring to Abraham's initial justifying faith of Gn. 15:6 also being justificatory in its confirmatory or fulfilled status as manifested in works, showing “how” that man is not justified by faith alone in the sense that it is not an inert faith that remains without evidences, which James is opposing, but one that overall enduring responds by works.
But as said before, if that means that making a manifest response such as Gn. 22 evidences is absolutely necessary to be justified then Gn. 15:6 must be rejected as being a present justification, and thus Abraham was not saved until such an expression, and Rome's infants cannot be justified (and insofar as merit is concerned, the sola fide position is like that of Rome concerning infants, except that it is by imputed righteousness, and proxy faith is usually disallowed.) And the souls in Acts 10 were not purified by faith and regenerated until they were baptized, and baptism by desire cannot be allowed, which is consistent with sola fide, and if it is then it is allowed at all then it is contrary to what you have James teaching.
What seems most evident is that Abraham was initially justified in Gn. 15:6 by faith alone, while Gn. 22 shows him being manifestly justified, having a confirmed confessional-type faith, of the character that endures, which is the only type that is salvific. And thus it is that believers must be “followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” "For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. {37} For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. {38} Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. {39} But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." (Hebrews 6:12; 10:36-39) "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; " (Hebrews 3:14) And thus the fundamental Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the saints, that the elect finally perseverance in faith, though Roman Catholic apologists ignore in construing the “sola” of sola fide to mean works have no place as regards faith, rather than it alone, versus works of merit, procures justification by imputed righteousness .
... is supposed to illustrate that eternal life is a gift rather than a reward. It is both, in fact: "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works" (Rev. 22:12, note that the rest of the passage speaks precisely of the reward of eternal life given to holy people).
This is part of Paul's continual discourse that eternal life is not of merit, not a recompense due to merit, And the CCC states that The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment.” While it tries to reconcile it with unmerited grace, the contrast it makes in so doing is duplicitous. “no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. [But] Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (CCC 2006,10)
Yet works are the barometer of faith, and thus Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him. (Heb. 5:9) And while works manifest who true believers are, who are not simply professors, there is a distinction between rewards because one did works by grace, versus eternal life being merited, and Rv. 22:13 conflates to Rev. 11:8, which corresponds to texts such as 1Cor. 3:13-15.
"And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace". Indeed. That is Catholic teaching: grace is not of works and we are saved by grace alone. You take a good and Catholic scripture that speaks of grace, and do a mental substitution of "faith" for "grace". That way, you can "prove" anything.
Thar may sound convincing to yourself, but it is you who are using a specious substitution here, ignoring the actual means by which justification by IR is appropriated by God's grace (“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace” — Rm. 4:16), which is by God-given faith in Christ and His blood, so you can teach salvation by grace through merit, while the very verse you want to hijack to that end is about election NOT being a result of any merit of man! The context is why and how some are elected and others were not, which is answered (albeit not without mystery) as due to God's purely sovereign choice, "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9:11-13) And why were the natural branches rejected and on what basis were the Gentiles accepted? “Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” (Rm. 11:20)
One either has confidence that his own works merit him acceptance before God, or he realizes himself a sinner
Why, there is no either-or here. St. Paul himself considered himself worst of sinners and at the same time understood that his works "fill what is wanting of the sufferings of Christ".
Seriously. While Paul did try to be an approved servant (2Cor. 5:10) he preached acceptance via IR through faith, while using private interpretation you attempt to insert confidence in one's merit for salvation into a verse (Col. 1:24) with an obscure meaning, which Roman commentators surmise may refer to filling up the quota of Messianic sufferings need for His return, or perhaps something else, while Roman Catholic on Catholics answers also speculate (“clear as mud” one says), and some Protestant commentators as well as JP2 and Haydock Bible Commentary see it referring to the union the church has with Christ, and suffering with Him as believers are called to do till He come. I see as thus also, but more specific to Paul, he was foretold what things he himself would have to suffer, for Jesus name, (Act 9:18) and thus His church, and while there is no insufficiency in the expiatory sufferings of Christ in redemption, it is the believers part to endure all things for the elects sake, (2Tim. 2:10) working to keep them in the faith present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (2Cor. 11:2)
What this does not support is a type of bank account or “treasury of the satisfaction” won by Paul which he deposited into for future withdrawals via Rome. However, in a cause and effect sense men do benefit from the labor of others, as in Jn. 4:37,38) or suffer due to the contrary.
The criminal on the cross or the penitent publican hardly can be said to have had confidence in their own works as meriting eternal life. If we do, we are in serious error.
The apostle Paul clearly establishes that it is on the basis of God-given faith that one is justified by, not of works
Where, exactly? The prooftexts I am familiar with speak of works of the law but not good works of faith and love, to which St. Paul never tired of exhorting his reaers.
I have i deal with both “works of the law,” that if there was a way to merit justification it would have been by the law, as well as “work of righteousness,” and just plain “not according to our works,” and “not by works,” showing you that all you attempt to restrict them to motive is untenable. Read on below. Your attempt to do so is honestly like the pro-homosexuals who claim that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships in Rm. 1 are not condemned, only a certain other kind is in view. You make works being the cause of justification, and meriting eternal life, but what Paul teaches is that man's essential justification is by IR procured by faith, and though it is expressed by works, they do not merit it.
Consistent with what Paul himself taught elsewhere, what James is referring to is that the only faith that is salvific is the one that does work obedience, in contrast to one who simply professes but does not possess faith. Before Paul addressed the precise issue of faith versus works, he clearly stated, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rm. 2:13) And elsewhere he and other writers affirm that one can deny the faith by disobedience, (1Tim. 5:8; Gal. 5:1-5) and that it is those who obey Jesus who have eternal life. (Heb. 5:9) The key difference is that works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification.
Your examples are all good and teach the Catholic doctrine which you state well. Except, for no apparent reason, you conclude "works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification". That latter part is a theological fantasy not supported by scripture. If you substitute "grace" in that statement it becomes correct and Catholic, and also it then comes to reflect the scripture accurately. As you stated it, it reflects the Protestant error and nothing else.
The theological fantasy is yours, as Rome has works meriting (recompense owed) eternal life while the Bible plainly states, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. { But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," (Romans 4:4-6) Your issue is with the Holy Spirit's choice of words, not mine. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: {9} Not of works, lest any man should boast. {10} For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. " (Ephesians 2:8-10)
Notice the means by which one is saved, grace through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast. Not grace through works, nor simply works that one does to boast, but “not according to our works” (2Tim. 1:9) but by God-given faith which appropriates IR. Men who could choose themselves to be elect, as well as those who merit eternal life by choosing to cooperate with God both can have a reason to boast over those who did not. But as regards salvation, no one may not.
salvation comes to the repentant who believe, (Lk. 16:9)
I believe you meant some different verse here. In general, yes, that is a true and Catholic statement that one who does penance and believes will be saved, because full and mature faith incorporates good works, including works of penance.
Sorry, two chapters off. (Lk. 18:9) But you are ignoring that this justification by faith out of a poor and contrite heart is contrary to one meriting eternal life, and one needing to do manifest works of faith in order to be justified in the first place, while i have already responded to the penance versus repentance issue.
"But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? {41} And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. {42} And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. {43} And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. " (Luke 23:40-43)
“Question. Dost thou believe that the Lord Jesus died for thee? Answer. I believe it.
Qu. Dost thou thank him for his passion and death? Ans. I do thank him. Qu. Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved except by his death? Ans. I believe it.” And then Anselm addresses the dying man: “Come then, while life remaineth in thee; in his death alone place thy whole trust; in naught else place any trust; to his death commit thyself wholly; with this alone cover thyself wholly; and if the Lord thy God will to judge thee, say, ‘Lord, between thy judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; no otherwise can I contend with thee.’ And if he shall say that thou art a sinner, say thou: ‘Lord, I interpose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and thee.’ If he say that thou hast deserved condemnation, say: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and thee, and his merits I offer for those which I ought to have and have not.’ If he say that he is wroth with thee, say: ‘Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thy wrath and me.’ And when thou hast completed this, say again: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thee and me.’” Anselm, Opera (Migne), 1:686, 687.
eternal life upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, (Jn. 5:24)
Yes, and what that faith really entails is explaned a few verses down, "And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment". Faith must be accompanied by good works. We are not saved by faith alone.
Again, that is true in the sense that a saving faith is not of a character that is alone, but is or will be accompanied by works corresponding to the will of its object, thus baptism is usually concomitant with the conversion event, but one is justified by IR through their faith which is behind its works, versus works being meritorious. Without the precise distinction men will presume their works merit justification, essentially like men presumed works of their law did.
the obedient are given eternal life after consideration of their works. (Mt. 25:39-41)
The judgement in Matthew 25:31-46 is not a judgement of the obedient only, but rather of everyone, even, "every nation". The "goats" are clearly not among the obedient as they violated the commadnment given to all in Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:33.
True, and as said,
Romans 10:9,10 also testified that it to is a faith which is confessional in quality that justifies
That is probably the best prooftext for Faith Alone as the explanation of the good works that go into that saving faith is deferred to the next several chapters. However, even in isolation, consider that the conclusion St Paul drives towards is that any one -- Greek or Jew -- can have the confessional faith. The polemics here is still with the Judaizers and the pruiported need to obey the Jewish law. but anyone who thinks that St. Paul preched salvation by faith alone in Romans 10 should skip over to Romans 12 and read things like "I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service". That supposedly purely confessional faith of Romans 10:9 turns out to be nothing short of a living sacrifice. Faith Alone anyone?
You miss what “therefore” establishes, a justification by faith not merit, while if you read my replies you should have known that Faith Alone is not a faith that is alone, but the straw man is polemically convenient for you, unless you fail to understand this. But having begun with a fundamental misapprehension you should not end with the same, supposing that Paul's “therefore” exhortation to respond to the great truths of justification through faith means that now he is teaching justification is procured on the basis of works of merit, which basis he had destroyed, and that the call to live out faith is in conflict with sola fide, supposing it holds to a type of faith that does not obey Acts 26:20, which it does not.
Extended:
Paul began by showing both the Gentiles and the Jews were guilty before God, (cps 1-3) and rather than meriting eternal life by better kind of obedience, he told them they needed justification by faith being counted for righteousness; That just as Abraham was utterly unable to effect or appropriate the promise of God, as his and Sarah's procreative ability was defunct, yet "He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; {21} And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. {22} And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. {23} Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; {24} But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; {25} Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. " (Romans 4:20-25)
The whole thing is about faith procuring justification; not on the basis of works-merit, nor by a faith that will not work, but faith nonetheless, as the man was helpless to do works to gain the promise, which physical helplessness corresponds to our inability to merit eternal life. Instead, one must believe and be counted as righteousness.
Next they were told, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Rm. 5:1) He then goes on to explain the transaction Christ made by the grace of God, "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) {18} Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. " (Romans 5:17-18)
And therefore, since they were justified by faith, not by merit of works, the necessary question was, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? " (Romans 6:1) If one had received justified by merit of his works of faith, rather than grace saving sinful men by faith, this question would be superfluous. But if saving faith were of a character that was not to show forth fruit unto holiness and continue therein, and that living after the flesh was not a denial of faith that resulted in death, then what follows is also superfluous. And cps 6-8 tell how and exhort thereto. Unlike salvation by works of merit, in which the souls is ever seeking to merit heaven, those justified by faith are accepted in the Beloved, and risen with Christ, and seated in heavenly places, and translated in His kingdom. They therefore can deal with life from a position of strength, practically living out and becoming what they are positionally in Christ, having become “washed, sanctified and justified,” at conversion, and thus living it out. (2Cor. 6:11; Rm. 4:5; Acts 13:39; 26:18; 2Thes. 2:13)
Rm. 9-11 establishes that election is purely by grace, and the Gentles are warned that the because of unbelief they [the Jews as a whole; the natural branches] were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. (Rm. 20-21)
So here again it is faith, with cps 11-15 exhorting living out that faith, as faith that justifies is of a character that will follow Jesus, (Jn. 11:27,28) suffering with Him, putting to death the deeds of the flesh, as those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God, calling upon the Father in Heaven (not Mary, etc.), these being foreordained to glory. (Rm. 8:13-17,30) To His glory. Amen.
I reject prooftexts such as these because they do not say that works have no role in justification; not "out of hand".
[2] For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. [3] For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. [4] Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt. [5] But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.[6] As David also termeth the blessedness of a man, to whom God reputeth justice without works: [7] Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. [8] Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. [9] This blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only, or in the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice. [10] How then was it reputed? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
[11] And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith, which he had, being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised, that unto them also it may be reputed to justice: [12] And might be the father of circumcision; not to them only, that are of the circumcision, but to them also that follow the steps of the faithful, that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham. [13] For not through the law was the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world; but through the justice of faith. [14] For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, the promise is made of no effect. [15] For the law worketh wrath. For where there is no law, neither is there transgression.
We see here that while the short prooftext, "to that worketh not but believeth" seems to support Sola Fide, the large context makes clear that the kind of works St. Paul is talking about are circumcision, works of the law. This distinction escaped Luther and his co-traditionalists.
salvific faith is not one that is not alone, but obeys
True.
but what such texts [Eph 2:8-10] do not do is make works meritorious for salvation, which Rome does
Ephesians 2 says that we are saved by grace and not by our own merit. It also says that both faith and works are responses to grace. Matthew 25:34-35, however, directly links salvation to the good works. So, good works are "meritorious for salvation" in the sense that one who works them receives salvation from Christ according to His purpose and grace, not in the sense that one who works them produces his own salvation by works. The word "merit" is overused by anti-Catohlic to insert a meaning that is not in the Catholic usage.
while there may also be other motives, it is incongruous that Paul would not have made a distinction as to types of works when disallowing them as the meritorious basis for justification.
He surely made such a distinction. In Romans 2:6-10, for example, we see that good works result in salvation yet in Romans 3:28 we read that works of the law do not justify. Most his letters end up with exhortations to good works, including romans and Galatians, even though their central theme is that works of the law are not salvific.
[Eph. 2:8] means not of works a regards how one appropriates imputed righteousness
It simply means that grace is not of works altogether. You know you don't have a scriptural proof for imputed versus infused justification in the New Testament (you have, not surprisingly, in the Old), but that is another topic.
If you want to object to slogans, i might want to list some what Rome has come up with
Slogans are fine if they are accurate. They get in the way when they are not. To say that justification is by faith alone and at the same time say that works are necessary to be justified is doublespeak which should at the very least cause you to drop the slogan.
the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say [in Romans 3:28] "per sola fede." , etc.
Neither the Greek original or Jerome's Bible have the equivalent of "alone". The insertion in itself is a natural one to make, in order to underscore "rather than by works of the law". Luther did more than just use dynamic translation; he built the entire theological fantasy upon it.
as one researcher finds neither was Rome completely unified in its soteriology before Trent
Possibly. This is how faith advances in general: something gets proposed, analyzed adn then the doctrine is refined. No one is blaming Luther for starting the discussion; if it were nto for his questioning, there would be no Trent. And now, thank God, we have Trent and our faith is clearer and stronger.
by forcing James to make works meritorious for eternal life life can you convert his writings
I don't need to convert them; he says clearly, "by works a man is justified; and not by faith only". Justified means meriting eternal life, no?
That the same Apostle James saw the Gentiles justified by faith is not contradicting James 2, since St. James (nor St. Peter, who speaks in Acts 15:7-9) never states that we are justified by faith alone. We are justified by works cooperating with our faith.
... more later.
grace dispensed from Rome's treasury, replete with Indulgences and Novenas
These vehicles of grace, of course, are in no way exclusive. If one makes use of a particular form of spirituality, good. If he makes use of another, that is hs choice also. The necessary sacraments fopr a baptized Christian are the Confession as needed and the Eucharist "as often as you shall eat this" (1 Cor. 11:26).
whoever promotes works as meriting eternal life ... is under a curse
... is merely reading the Holy Scripture as written. I understand that an anathema is an umpleasant thing to be under, but it is there, not unlike canonical scripture, for your benefit. Compare:
The doctrine of Faith Alone, whether in its wooly "classic Protestantism" form or in the crass despiritualization of modern Protestantism is contrary to the direct instruction of the Bible.
James 2 Trent (Session 6) [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? CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
Your FM once again ... i included Rm. 4 already
I don't know what FM is, and your link is not helping. You did include Romans 4 now, and I explained in the first part of the responding post that Romans 4 is wholly in the context of works of the law, so it does not address the issue of the role of good works.
Protestant sola fide does teach that a "soul is counted righteous because of faith," but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of a faith WHICH IS alone, or by merit of works
All this looks like an attempt to verbalize "We are not saved by faith alone" while avoiding a direct contradiction to the Protestant heresy, each flavor of which still says "we are saved by faith alone".
evangelical faith was largely responsible for the Christian character of America
Yes, it is. It is also responsible for the de-Christianization of America underway today. I would agree that Protestantism produced some good fruit, especially in its earlier and less "evangelical" forms. Protestantism was an experiment. Man learned the Protestantism's lessons. It is now falling apart because the experiment is over. The traditional Protestant denominations, Presbyterian, Congregational Anglican and Methodist -- those that built America -- are tapering off; they are being replaced by a collection of self-styled communities that function as social clubs where a boring sermon Sunday morning is a price of admission.
The first distinction which needs to be made again is that of the basis for justification, imputed (declared) righteousness procured by God-given faith (qualified as to its confessional character) in Christ and His blood, (Rm. 3:25-4:1-24) versus making justification to be on the basis of infusion, of an actual righteousness, and eternal life life gained by merit of works.
You derive the imputed character of grace from Romans 4:7, but that is a citation from the Old Testament, and brought in by St. Paul to contrast grace to the works of circumcision (v 10). The infused and transformational grace is taught everywhere else in the New Testament, including in the thematically close to the Romans Galatians: "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal 6:15). Jesus, of course, minced no words on that: "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt. 5:48).
you cannot have Moses and Paul both stating that Abraham was justified in Gn. 15:6, with many other verses stating justification is by faith, and never saying that justification was procured by any kind of works
St. Paul refers to the crossing of the desert described in Gen 12 as well as the birth of Isaac, and St. James-- to the sacrifice of Isaac. As St. James explains, all these are instances where works of faith cooperated with confessional faith and made the faith perfect. So the statement that the Scripture "never says that justification was procured by any kind of works" is simply not so.
if that means that making a manifest response such as Gn. 22 evidences is absolutely necessary to be justified then Gn. 15:6 must be rejected as being a present justification, and thus Abraham was not saved until such an expression
There is a string of manifestatons of faith starting with Gen 12, on to Gen 15 and then Gen 22. You are trying to single out one episode and declare that uniquely salvific for Abraham. That is not an objective reading of the scripture, but prooftexting: proclaiming one passage as supporting some extreme position and ignoring others. The fact is that justification is a process that typically lasts a lifetime. Moments of pure declarative faith are parts of justification,. They are not the whole of justification.
If you pardon a long quote:
One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul's discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham "believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3). 1This passage clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants.Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both.
First, the book of Hebrews tells us that "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8)
Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith—the kind that pleases God and wins his approval (Heb. 11:2, 6)—so we know that Abraham had saving faith according to Hebrews 11.
But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it "when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive." The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4—three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.
But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.
But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us, "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23)
James thus tells us "[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified ... when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Abraham therefore received justification—that is, a fuller fruition of justification—when he offered Isaac.2 The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18—seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.
Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.
man is not justified by faith alone in the sense that it is not an inert faith that remains without evidences, which James is opposing, but one that overall enduring responds by works.
Verbalize all you want -- that statement still confirms that works are a necessary component of faith.
“no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. [But] Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (CCC 2006,10)
So, what is unclear about that?
it is you who are using a specious substitution here, ignoring the actual means by which justification by IR is appropriated by God's grace (“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace” — Rm. 4:16), which is by God-given faith in Christ and His blood, so you can teach salvation by grace through merit, while the very verse you want to hijack to that end is about election NOT being a result of any merit of man!
Of course grace is not by any merit of man. Where did I say any different? But grace is not faith -- obvious in the case of a child you yourself bring up. It is true that faith is our response to grace, -- but so are our works (Eph 2:10).
What this [Col 1:24] does not support is a type of bank account or “treasury of the satisfaction” won by Paul which he deposited into for future withdrawals via Rome
Why doesn't it (I assume you mean "treasure of merit")? St. Paul says that his suffering in some mysterious way builds up the Church and united with the suffering of Christ. But Christ's suffering is our treasure. Christ asked us to "build treasure in heaven" (Luke 12:33). Col 1 makes that request tangible to us. There are plenty other quotes from Paul where he not only describes his own suffering by urges others to "mortify the deeds of the flesh".
The criminal on the cross or the penitent publican hardly can be said to have had confidence in their own works as meriting eternal life
St. Dismas did works of faith and mercy, and Christ promised him eternal life. He defended the innocent Christ, did penance for his sin, and asked Christ to "remember him". Perfect Catholic conversion story, that includes in one whole faith and good works.
You make works being the cause of justification
Grace alone is the cause of justification. I never said any different.
[your] attempt to restrict [salvific works] to motive is untenable
So you say, but I see no reason it must be so. It is rather typical for Paul to contrast works of the law to faith and grace and go on to urge people to do good works. Making that distinction I am in good company.
Rome has works meriting (recompense owed) eternal life
You liek to insert that "merit" everywhere. Works merit salvation in the simple sense that works are the basius on which sovereign Christ grans us salvation (Matthew 25:31-46). No, Christ does not owe us anything. The Church does nto teach that He does. The Church simply takes His words at the face value.
grace through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast
Indeed, grace is not of works and we shouild not boast of our works as if it is them that produced grace. We are certainly saved through faith as it is through faith that we do the works that God had prepared for us (Eth. 2:10). This passage is a perfect expression of Catholicism, and it flatly cotnradicts "Faith Alone"
More later...
you are ignoring that this justification by faith out of a poor and contrite heart is contrary to one meriting eternal life
It is not contrary. One does work pleasing God out of love of God and this merits eternal life because God promised it will. You insert the meaning of "merit" as in "demanding by rights". But the merit of good works rests on the sovereign grace of God,-- at least that is what the Church teaches.
a saving faith is not of a character that is alone, but is or will be accompanied by works
I know you wrote a long syllogism designed to obscure this plain biblical teaching, but that short statement alone is sufficient to say that in order to save anyone, faith must be accompanied by good works, and so we are not saved by faith alone. It is not complicated.
Without the precise distinction men will presume their works merit justification, essentially like men presumed works of their law did.
Why should they not presume that their good works merit justificaton if the Bible tells them they do (Matthew 25:31-46), and the Bible tells them the works done out of a legal obligation do not (Romans 3:28)? All they need to do is to read the scripture once in a while and listen to Protestant sophistry less, and they will know what God wants of them in order to place them to be with Him in heaven.
You miss what “therefore” [in Romans 12:1] establishes, a justification by faith not merit
No it doesn't. The previous discourse is about sovereign grace, not any kind of "faith alone":
[32] For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all. [33] O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! [34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? [35] Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him?[36] For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen.
[1] I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.
(Romans 11-12)
The same pattern as in Ephesians 2:4-10: God in His Mercy and Grace chooses to save us, therefore "walk in the good works that He had prepared for you". This passage, cited above, unlike Ephesians, does not mention faith even in passing.
Extended: [...] Rm. 9-11 establishes that election is purely by grace, and the Gentles are warned that the because of unbelief they [the Jews as a whole; the natural branches] were broken off, and thou standest by faith. That summary of the first ten chapters of Romans is more or less correct, I think. The letter is about Christian unity: St. Paul explains the Romans that they, despite the uncircumcision, may be saved whereas Jews, even though circumcised, may not be. The unifying fact is our faith, wich is, of course, something anyone, Jew or Greek, can have all the same.
here again it is faith, with cps 11-15 exhorting living out that faith, as faith that justifies is of a character that will follow Jesus
But nowhere does St. Paul offer that that faith is unaccompanied by works. The idea that works "live out our faith" is not in itself heretical. It is even common sense: one cannot do works of self-denying love unless one had faith. But you continually make the assumption that because good works require faith as a necessary component, works do not "merit justification" as you favorite expression is. Works and faith form a single package and together they merit justification -- not as a debt to us but as a sovereign will of merciful God.