the overall historic evangelical Protestant position has been that faith and works are separate as far as to what actually procures justification
No. Not separate. Grace and works are separate altogether. Faith and works are either separate or one and the same, depending on the nature of the works.
Grace and works are not separate as grace enables works, but in reality grace works through faith producing works.
Works of the law -- in fact any works done for some purpose rewarded in the temporal life --- are naturally not bearing an eternal rewatd of salvation. If there is anything in the prooftexts that you offer (Rm. 4: 5,6; 9:11; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9 or any other) that contradicts what I just said, please, devote a post to just that and explain textually why. Do not forget to examine the immediate context: for example, Tutus 3:5 is incomplete unless the entire passage is apprehended.
I will further.
Paul's argument in Rm. 4 begins earlier, in which he places all under “the law:”
"{19} Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. {20} Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. " (Romans 3:19-20)
As if anyone could be justified on the basis of merit, by a system of works-righteousness, it would be by the law, and yet the law condemns those who presume such, thus both Jews and Gentiles need salvation. Paul thus goes on to establish how:
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: {25} Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; {26} To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. {27} Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. {28} Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. {29} Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: {30} Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. {31} Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
We see then that it is through faith in Jesus (of the Scriptures) blood, in His death and resurrection, that one is justified, this being called “the law of faith” in contrast with the system of works-merit under which man may boast. But if we have done works which save us then we could boast. Yet this does not separate faith from works, as the former births the latter, but it excludes works as a means of meriting justification, or acquiring it by merit of works, which Paul on to explicitly disallow, in contrast to faith.
"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? {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 counted unto him for righteousness. {4} Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. {5} But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. {6} Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, " (Romans 4:1-6)
Here it is plainly stated that faiyh justifies the unGodly, not the Godly who do works in order to be merit justification. And despite attempts to disallow imputed righteousness, of faith being counted for righteousness, that is precisely what it says. It also must be understood that the works he rejects are not works of the law, but works done before the law, as these fall under the system of law in disallowing justification by merit, as opposed to faith:
"How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. " (Romans 4:10)
Next Paul speaks about the result of Abraham's justification and its implication for lost humanity:
"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 4:11)
The texts is not contrasting works of the law versus works of faith, but makes faith the appropitative means of justification, and Abraham having been justified, is then circumcised, which is allegorical to baptism.
But what of the texts which follow:
"{12} And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. " (Romans 4:12)
One can assert that this means one do the works of Abraham to be saved, but we have just seen that he was justified by faith, not works, and then was circumcised, and in the next 2 chapters justification is not something they are seeking by being sanctified, but a present reality. However, as we also recognized, salvation means we are saved, and are being saved as in practically becoming what we positionally are, citizens of heaven, and will be saved, this being the full realization when faith becomes sight, if such faith is salvific.
Paul proceeds to reinforced his thesis that under the law and thus any such system which justifies one on the basis of merit and damns one for falling short, one cannot be justified, but that by recognizing his destitute, helpless condition, being unable to gain justification — just as Abraham was to birth multitudes of descendants — and placing his faith in the power and willingness of God, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rather than promising man that by God's grace he could do works which would justify him in God's sight, in which case God would be justifying the Godly, he states that "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, " (Romans 4:16)
"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: {20} 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. " (Romans 4:19-22)
"{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 4:23-25) “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” (Rm. 5:1)
Here again it is Abraham's faith which is counted for righteousness, not his works, though the two are so intertwined that one presumes the other, yet it is believing that is set forth as the means of being justified. Thus it was not by works of a reformed life that one appropriated justification by, but by faith in Christ to justify one who could not justify himself.
Paul goes on to show that “the gift of righteousness” which is by faith is how “grace did much more abound:” (Romans 5:17-20)
In chapter 6, rather than such being persons who had done works of faith such as Abraham in Gn., 22 in procuring justified, Paul appeals to them as souls that believed in the Lord Jesus with all their heart, this being a contrite heart of faith wrought by God, manifested in baptism, and positionally were crucified and risen with Christ to “walk in newness of life.
"{1} What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? {2} God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? {3} Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? {4} Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. " (Romans 6:1-4)
Paul will go one to qualify salvation by grace as concerns election being strictly not because of anything man did, as "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;.." (Romans 9:11) "{16} So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. " (Romans 9:16) "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. {6} And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. " (Romans 11:5-6)
|
To be sure, justifying faith is one that is expressed in works, as by the Spirit the justified work to fulfill the righteousness of the law, (Rm. 8:4) but one is saved through God-gifted faith, “not of works” as if eternal life was gained by them, though God does bless obedience. Upholding that justification is by faith, not of works, while also stressing that is not a faith that would not work, is not unique to the Reformation, as writings from some some early church leaders show them doing so, while other quotes stressing works more may be found from the same class. Clement of Rome: And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. — ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32. Clement of Rome: “We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith." Epistle to the Corinthians. Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24: “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.” — Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 101 Augustine (354-430): Now the apostle could not mean to contradict himself in saying, "the doers of the law shall be justified," as if their justification came through the law, and not through grace, when he declares that a man is justified freely by his grace without the works of the law, intending by the term "freely" nothing more than that works do not precede justification. For in another passage, he expressly says "if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace." But the statement that "the doers of the law shall be justified" must be so understood, that we may know how unable men are to become doers of the law unless they be justified, so that justification does not subsequently accrue to them as doers of the law, but precedes them in that character. For what else does the phrase "being justified" signify than "being made righteous, " - by Him, of course, who justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly man instead? "On the Spirit and the letter," Page 201,02 The works of Aurelius Augustine: A new translation, Volume 4 By Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.) Augustine: “But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith. But when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.” — John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, ¡±7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 370. Andreas (c. 7th century), engaging in the difficult task of reconciling Rm. 4 and with Ja. 2, states, “Now someone might object to this and say: “Did Paul not use Abraham as an example of someone who was justified by faith, without works. And here James is using the very same Abraham as an example of someone who was justified not by faith alone, but also by works which confirm that faith?” How can we answer this? And how can Abraham be an example of faith without works, as well as of faith with works, at the same time? But the solution is ready to hand from the Scriptures. For the same Abraham is at different times an example of both kinds of faith. The first is prebaptismal faith, which does not require works but only confession and the word of salvation, by which those who believe in Christ are justified. The second is postbaptismal faith, which is combined with works. Understood in this way, the two apostles do not contradict one another, but one and the same Spirit is speaking through both of them.” Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 32. See J. A. Cramer, ed., Catena in Epistolas Catholicas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1840), 16, where he is commenting on James 2:21. More The well know Reformed theologian A. A. Hodge responds to the question of whether good works are necessary to salvation by saying, Good works] are necessary to the attainment of salvation, not in any sense as a prerequisite to justification, nor in any stage of the believer’s progress meriting the divine favor, but as essential elements of that salvation, the consubstantial fruits and means of sanctification and glorification. A saved soul is a holy soul, and a holy soul is one whose faculties are all engaged in works of loving obedience. Grace in the heart cannot exist without good works as their consequent. Good works cannot exist without the increase of the graces which are exercised in them. Heaven could not exist except as a society of holy souls mutually obeying the law of love in all the good works that law requires. Eph. v. 25 — 27; 1 Thess. iv. 6, 7; Rev. xxi. 27. [from his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 16, "of good works" Scottish Presbyterian (1795 – 1863) and Westminster commentator Robert Shaw states, Good works are essentially prerequisite to an admission into heaven. Though they do not merit everlasting life, yet they are indispensably necessary in all who are “heirs of the grace of life.” Believers, “being made free from sin, have their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”-Rom. vi. 22 [from his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 16, "of good works"]
While such exclude works “as a prerequisite to justification,” as seen before historic Protestant recognized that arriving at the place of faith required conviction of one's deep need for salvation, with fear and love of God, which conviction preaching works to produce, directly or indirectly, and without this work of grace there will be no real conversion. And this conviction can result in formal evidences of repentance before conversion, while conversion itself signifies a basic turning in heart from darkness to light. (Jn. 3:19-21) Present day evangelical Calvinist Oxford theologian Alister McGrath points out, “It can be shown that a distinction came to be drawn between the concepts of merit and congruity; while man cannot be said to merit justification by any of his actions, his preparation for justification could be said to make his subsequent justification 'congruous' or 'appropriate.'” Speaking of such preparation, the English Presbyterian clergyman John Flavel (1627–1691) stated, “The foolish child would pluck the apple while it is green; but when it is ripe it drops of its own accord and is more pleasant and wholesome” (The Mystery of Providence p. 139). The famous Anglican preacher George Whitefield recounted, "I did then preach much upon original sin, repentance, the nature and necessity of conversion, in a close, examinatory and distinguished way; laboring in the meantime to sound the trumpet of God's judgments, and alarm the secure by the terrors of the Lord, as well as to affect them by other topics of persuasion: which method was sealed by the Holy Spirit in the conviction and conversion of a considerable number of persons, at various times and in different places in that part of the county." - George Whitefield by Arnold Dallimore, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Banner of Truth), Volume L 417. Noted Protestant Reformed preacher J.I. Packer states that “God converts no adult without preparing him; but “God breaketh not all men’s hearts alike” (Baxter). Some conversions, as Goodwin said, are sudden; the preparation is done in a moment. Some are long-drawn-out affairs; years may pass before the seeker finds Christ and peace, as in Bunyan’s case. Sometimes great sinners experience “great meltings” (Giles Firmin) at the outset of the work of grace, while upright persons spend long periods in agonies of guilt and terror. No rule can be given as to how long, or how intensely, God will flay each sinner with the lash of conviction. Thus the work of effectual calling proceeds as fast, or as slow, as God wills; and the minister’s part is that of the midwife, whose task it is to see what is happening and give appropriate help at each stage, but who cannot foretell, let alone fix, how rapid the process of birth will be.” However, the emphasis upon the Sovereignty of God did and has led some Calvinists to marginalize the work of preaching designed to awaken the sinner of his plight, which the famous sermon mentioned before by Edwards did. And rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account of Purtians during the early American period that notes, “as soon as one attempts to present in any detail a normative sequence of experience or even a normative set of ingredients to true conversion there is a strong temptation to go beyond the scriptural data and prescribe rules by which the grace of God is bound.” “My own impression, however, is that differences have been rather exaggerated and that the essential unanimity of the New England preachers about the experience of true conversion is much more impressive than their disagreement over related issues. They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’” Rome also recognizes preparatory priority but largely promotes perfunctory professions which it misrepresents historic Protestantism as believing in. In Rome's soteriology justifying faith is made alive by works of charity, so that rather than living faith justifying one and producing works, “faith receives life only from and through [works of] charity,” so that “over and above faith other acts are necessary for justification,” such as formal acts of penance as alms giving. But it also allows that “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) By such statements she judges all those who were born again before baptism as having perfect contrition, while others who did not are regenerated in baptism. This actually somewhat similar to what i have expressed, that one is justified by the kind of faith which baptism both expresses and demands, which faith can be alive and justifying before any formal expression of faith, but for others an act of obedience is a catalyst to bring forth faith, in which the heart is opened and saving faith is realized in obedience. How Rome differs from this will be seen further on, but i wish to consider physical healing as being somewhat analogous to spiritual salvation. In the gospels many were healed by simply believing, with one being a seeker who was made whole by asking and believing, and who then followed Jesus in the way. (Mk. 10:51,52) Some other seekers of mercy were healed as they went on their way to fulfill the Masters command, and the full healing of one who returned in praise and worship was confirmed by Jesus, saying, “Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.” (Lk. 17:11-19) In another case, Jesus encountered a blind man whose eyes he anointed with mud, without identifying Himself or necessarily requiring faith in His power, and who then required the man to wash, and who thus came back seeing. (Jn. 9:5-7) In response the man later defended Jesus and reproved the Jews, and then Jesus revealed who He was and the man believed, being saved without a further work being then required of Him. (Jn. 9:15,24-39) A somewhat similar case is that of a man who was looking for healing — not necessary by Jesus — and Jesus healed him, but again, without identifying Himself or necessarily requiring faith in His power. Jesus later found him and revealed that He was Jesus, and told him to “sin no more lest a worse things come upon” him. The works-response of this man was to report Jesus to the Jewish authorities. (Jn. 5:1-15) Thus in one case a seeking soul was made whole the moment he believed and so followed Christ, while another seeker was healed as he went to fulfill a command and came back and worshiped, his full healing then being confirmed, while one not actively seeking required more ministering and a response in order to see, and another was simply healed but not converted. Since regeneration always is revealed as requiring personal repentant faith, and healing could be had simply by looking for mercy and believing, or not even seeking the Lord by simply by a non-costly act obedience, healing does not fully correspond to regeneration. But they illustrate that a seeker could be made whole by believing, but that such saved sheep follow the Shepherd, (Mk. 10:46-52; Jn. 10:27,28) and that those of whole faith are those who respond to grace, worshiping Jesus, (Lk. 17:11-19) while simply being healed does not necessarily mean salvation, but that one who is touched by God's mercy and obeys light that he has will find revelation of Christ and be saved just by placing faith in Him, (Jn. 9:5-7; 15,24-39; cf. Acts 10) while the ad-hoc recipient of manifest grace from God who hears the call to obey basic moral truth, but who chooses the culture, even that of religion, is more damnable than if he had never received grace. (Jn. 5:1-15; cf. Heb. 6:1-8) So far it is evident that Historic Protestant largely agrees in a preparatory work preceding justification, and in which a soul may have to do formal works of repentance, and that no soul comes to Christ without an honest repentance heart, but that it is not such works that makes a faith living, but that the God-given faith of the elect is alive on arrival, and pregnant with good works which God has foreordained them to do. And so such a faith is one that justifies, even before baptism (though that ought to be the norm at the time of conversion, and can take place any place), and thus it shows forth works. God can call a person to do things which bring forth real faith, and baptism as the demand of a good conscience requires such, as may an altar call. I have no doubt that on the day of Pentecost forward, the occasion of coming to faith and being born again was in their baptism, while for others it was on the way, but the preaching which convicts souls of their destitute condition and desperate need for salvation is what is critical, and increasingly missing today. But i oppose infant baptism (versus dedication) as there is no need, and find calling and treating souls as believers in lieu of it to be most damnable, who have not had a definite day of salvation (they need not precisely which day) as a result of being convicted So both Rome and sola fide churches understand the need for preparatory work, as well as the inseparable union of faith and works as regards the former expressing the latter. And in allowing for baptism of desire, Rome comes close to sola fide. But what divides them is not simply that sola fide holds that it is precisely the faith part that procures justification, and that it is by imputed versus infused righteousness, but that of Rome making baptism something which works ex opere operato, so that that “the sacramental grace is not conferred by reason of the subjective activity of the recipient,” but that “the sacramental grace is caused by the validly operated sacramental sign.” (Ott) And is effectual to regeneration in infants in recognition on the faith of another. And what follows is a highly systematized process of doing works meritorious for salvation, with a strong focus being on ritual and the power and primacy of the church to make one a Christian and gain one eternal life through them. In contrast, in Protestantism personal repentant faith in the gospel is a prerequisite to baptism, with the focus being on an transformative conversion encounter with Christ, and the resultant direct relationship with Christ through a faith which transcends churches, and Scripture-based obedience living out practically what they are positionally. Ritual has its place, more on baptism and the Lord's supper, but preaching emphasizes blessing as a result of day-to-day Scripture-centered obedience to God more in general, with conveyance of grace via ritual being more seen in Pentecostalism which came later. It is not that i completely differ with Rome's soteriology, but most fully with its result. On one hand it states that that “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification, For 'if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise,' as the apostle says, 'grace is no more grace." (Trent, Decree on Justification 8). ” though this is not in the sense that Rom. 11:6 refers, while she turns salvation by God-given faith into a bureaucratic system which promotes confidence in one's works for salvation, rather than the destitute sinner resting upon the finished work of Christ and thus responding to Him as Lord, striving to be practically pleasing to Him, to be practically the citizen of heaven that he positionally already is. (Phil. 3:21) Even if it were possible to reconcile all the bare bones of Romes soteriology with the Bible, and i can do so more now, its application becomes the major issue, and the effectual result of which is a system which promotes a mere form of Biblical faith profession, with confidence in ritual and the power of the church and ones own merits for eternal life, versus the very type of preparatory conviction and repentant faith which characterizes Biblical conversions. To a lesser degree this is seen in Protestantism, usually where infant baptism is practiced and strong evangelistic preaching is absent, and or where faith in the promise of the Lord Jesus for eternal life to them that believe is illogically disassociated with who and what the promise giver fully represents. |
The salient points I need addressed:
1. "Works" in general are a badly defined term. Most anything we do other than cogitate are works. It is not enough to see the word "works" somewhere in the Bible and jump to conclusions. One has to determine the context in which that particular type of activity is pronounced upon, and the kind of activity being spoken about.
It is you who jump to conclusions when you see “works” after a distinction is made between faith and works as basis for justification, and reading into them works of faith gaining eternal life versus a faith that works. And it is not activity that is being targeted, but the basis for justification, any system merit by works-righteousness versus faith. Abraham's works were not of the law, yet they did not save them, but a type of faith that would follow the Lord found was counted for righteousness.
2. Liturgical "works" are works that God works. Man is merely asking His presence and His will. You did not mention that specifically, but I would like to know if the Eucharist, for example, is something you consider non-salvific works.
No, God can work through them as He can with any act of obedience, and in such things as laying on of hands the instruments of conveyance must be right with God and gifted, while as for the Lord's supper, that does not make one born again and a recipient of the gift of eternal life, but obedience to it as prescribed works “life” and blessing, as does other acts of obedience.
3. Certain works, under the general category of works of love (or of charity, or of faith) are singled out in the Gospel as at least conducive or perhaps concurrent to our salvation. So I need a comment specially on Matthew 25:31-46 (it is not the only place where such are commented upon, but that is the clearest, spoken by Christ Himself, and with direct consequence of eternal life in Christ or eternal life of damnation, -- i.e. salvation).
You are ignoring what i have said as regards hermeneutics. You either have such texts as “not by works of righteousness which we have done” — written to an originally uncircumcised Greek — referring only to works of a certain motive, or works in general, while Mt. 25 either refers to eternal life because of such evidential faith, with works attesting to saving faith, or good works gaining eternal life by their merit. It cannot be the latter, but which system is what Rome promotes.
4. James 2 spends several paragraphs to debunking Faith Alone. It places the need for works to cooperate with faith in the context of justification. It does not pass the scriptural test to dismiss that as reference ot what the justified by faith do after they are justified: it says literally that they are justified because -- not by a prior faith but because, -- their works cooperated with their faith and not justified by faith alone.
Either we have a contradiction with Moses and Paul versus James, or the latter is referring to how a man is justified by a type of faith that works, in contrast to mere intellectual faith which has none, not as regards what component actually appropriates justification. “Thru faith,...not by works” and “To him that worketh not but believeth” — referring to both works apart from the law as well as them by it — is saying it is the component of faith that is counted for righteousness, but such faith is not separate from works in nature, and so the doers of the law are those who have such a faith.
Further, I am far more lenient toward Luther (if that is your reference to historical Protestantism), and generally to some thought put into the role of works as opposed to latter-day Protestant mindless sloganeering on the subject. Keep that in mind. I think that historical Protestantism really missed an opportunity with the Joint Declaration on Justification. I would like some comment on why, do you think, if "historical" Protestantism really held to some form of Catholicity as regards the "works", did that not result in a movement for the Lutherans to re-unite with the Church in the manner analogous to the Anglicans?
Rome was not lenient toward Luther, and today would not have dealt with him as it did, yet he would not had the same exact protest. He might have been on FR though. But i am speaking about the period from the 1600's through the early 1900's. As for Lutheranism (i am not), if the East finds the papacy an insurmountable barrier, Lutheranism certainly would, as well as with tradition being equal with Scripture and things like praying to the departed, etc.. while Anglicanism is far looser in its doctrines and has much departed from historic Protestantism.
SS can result in a transdenominational unity that is manifestly effectual to the salvation of souls
I see how Sola Scriptura furnishes some basis of interdenominational Protestant unity. That is what slogans generally do: they unite diverse factions under some sufficiently vague banner. But that is not the unity Christ prays for in John 17, where the unity of the Christendom is seen as hypostatic unity of the Holy Trinity. Would you imagine Jesus arguing with the Father whether Man is totally depraved or perhaps just falling to sin in absence of grace; or whether the Cup Jesus drunk was for all or for the Elect? These divisions would be intolerable in any community of faith claiming biblical unity.
It is not simply SS that works its interdenominational communion, but as said, the unity of the Spirit resulting from a shared common conversion by repentance and faith in Christ. As for Jn. 17, we cannot see the Son being in discussion about ascertaining any truth, and if this is referring to comprehensive doctrinal unity than Rome is also left out, and is no better than any one Protestant church could be, while on the lay level she comes short of cults who share the same basis as Rome for official unity. But the basis of the unity in Jn. 17 is a supernatural one due to shared nature with the indwelling Spirit, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. " (John 17:21; Eph. 4:3)
The Roman Catholic may argue that cults such as the LDS do not have the historical evidence for their claim, but the efficacy of this argument depends upon the interpretation that formal historical descent is a basis for authenticity, which it is not (and never was totally).
I never mentioned LDS, so I don't see how does that fit in our conversation.
It was relevant as to the basis for claiming to be the OTC. You both have a AIM, by which Scripture and history are infallibly interpreted.
I also agree that formal historical descent is not a basis for authenticity even when undisputed. I beleive I gave that example already: the Anglicans and some Lutherans DO have a historical descent from the Apostolic Church. That helped for a while, but in order to be an authentic Church one has to hold to the authentic, that is Catholic, doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox do, and so their Church, hostile as it is sometime to the West, is an authentic Church. The Anglicans and the continuing Lutherans do not, and so their apostolic succession is formal yet not efficatious.
And by what means is it established who is the OTC is? Formal ecclesiastical descent is no surety either, while as much as the EO is considered valid, the elephant in the room has not been moving. It also differs in aspects of soteriology with both sides.
The distinction you make is that the believer goes in faith in order to glorify God, assuming this is in conflict with making his calling and election sure, which it is not.
Well, if it is not, then how do you say that justification is by faith alone? If I want to get to point B from A, and if X is something that makes sure my arrival then I would say, X is necessary for my arrival.
The P in Calvinism's TULIP stands for Perseverance of the saints, in which those who are elected have faith that follows Christ, and will finally preserver, dying in such faith. Yet even in a probationary soteriology, the souls is drawn by God and granted repentance (and i would say persuaded) and given faith and justified thereby, with again, it being a type of faith that works, but man is given choice so that he may choose to recant, and he realizes his need for grace and faith to continue. But in both camps the believer is still saved by trusting in the mercy of God in Christ, not supposing that by God's grace he has done works of faith which merit or make him worthy of eternal life, though they testify of his faith. .
yet Rome disallows being confident you are saved
For that very reason. The scripture says that one has to walk a certain way to "make sure his calling and election". So how can we condone one who has not completed the walk to be confident?
So why does Scripture provide for assurance that one is saved? (1Jn. 5:13) Appealing to PI no less. But the issue then would be that this does not assure one will continue the faith, and for that Calvinists see texts such as Rm. 8:28-39 and life verses.
Rome is the one who is unScriptural here, as it has the convert being made actually righteous in heart by “infused righteousness” via baptism [...] so he is formally justified by his own personal righteousness and holiness (causa formalis). This is in contrast to righteousness being imputed to him
There is no "so". A baptised child (or a man of any age) is not instantaneously becoming righteous. The difference that the sacraments furnishes is that Christ is asked by another believer to protect the child. Yet, it is not imputed righteousness because the child is for the time being actually infused with grace. It would be in fact ridiculous to ask God to "cover up" the sin of a eight days old baby. The baptismal prayer asks God to protect the child from future sin and accept him if he dies before commiting any sin. Truly, now that he is baptised, he "shall be saved" (Mark 16:16), as his belief is his naturally sinless, believing state.
This is a yes. They are made instantaneously righteousness according to Rome, though as i said, it is not by IR. And of course such must grow in grace, if they ever were saved. “The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). 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)”
The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. vii) defined that the inherent justice is not only the formal cause of justification, but as well the only formal cause (unica formalis causa);
“..grace imparted to children in baptism does not differ essentially from the sanctifying grace imparted to adults,..”
The sanctity of the soul, as its first formal operation, is contained in the idea itself of sanctifying grace, inasmuch as the infusion of it makes the subject holy and inaugurates the state or condition of sanctity. So far it is, as to its nature, a physical adornment of the soul; it is also a moral form of sanctification, which of itself makes baptized children just and holy in the sight of God.
The two moments of actual justification, namely the remission of sin and the sanctification, are at the same time moments of habitual justification, and become the formal operations of grace. The mere infusion of the grace effects at once the remission of original and mortal sin, and inaugurates the condition or state of holiness.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm
And Protestants do hold that imputed righteousness and regeneration are all part of one event, being washed, sanctified and justified, so that the convert is given power to live out his new identity.
The manner of baptism would only matter in two cases. First, it would matter if actual washing were taking place. In that case not really immersion would make a difference, but use of soap. However, we are told by St Peter that washing of dirt is not the purpose (1 Peter 3:21).
I am sure you could have thought of the real reason it is used, which is that it corresponds to the term “baptismo” and description. (Acts 8:38,39)
Second, that would matter if it were directly commanded in the gospel, such as the certain interpretation of the Eucharist is fixed in John 6 and 1 Cor 11.
Pure delusion. The Lord's supper is not being referred to in Jn. 6 and i have dealt with it much, as well as the “not discerning the body” in 1Cor. 11 which contextually refers to hypocritically not recognizing the hungry members as being part of the body of Christ - the interdependence of which he further elaborates in the next chapter – contrary to the import of their commemoration, not transubstantiation.
But there is no such scriptural fix. St. John baptized in a river but St. Peter once asked is water for baptism could be denied (Acts 10:47), suggesting a water held around a house in a bucket. Palestine is an arid place, -- surely a river or pool nearby was a rare occurence. This all being said, the Church does recommend that a full immersion be made wherever practicable.
No, availability of water was not an issue in Act 10, as Simon's house was by the seaside. (For good reason as he was a tanner.)
It is sure strange to see an insistence on full immersion made by people who ordinarily do not believe in any sacraments or, as they call them, rituals, to be ordained by Christ.
That idea again is much a straw man. Reformed type churches do call them sacraments, and most all Protestant churches recognize at least baptism and the Lord's supper as mandated regularly practiced ordinances, while also validating ordination and anointing of the sick and marriage, if not more, but not calling them all sacraments or ordinances (over reaction i think). Nor is emphasis upon mode surprising, as it is a result of emphasis upon Scripture, but what is surprising is some SS churches hold to paedo baptism and sprinkling. Yet mode is not a salvific issue.
Grace and works are of different origin. God sends grace; we do works. They are often contrasted in the scripture:
[5]…there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. [6] And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace. [7] What then? That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained: but the election hath obtained it (Romans 11, similar 2 Timothy 1:9)[8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. (Eph 2)
No similar contrast is drawn in the scripture between faith and works, because they both are something originating in the heart of man:
by works faith was made perfect (James 2:22)[8] By faith he that is called Abraham, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. [9] By faith he abode in the land, dwelling in cottages (Hebrews 11)
in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity (Galatians 5:6)
Let me examine your treatment of Romans 3-4. Regarding Romans 3:19-20, 24-31 you have this to say:
As if anyone could be justified on the basis of merit, by a system of works-righteousness, it would be by the law, and yet the law condemns those who presume such, thus both Jews and Gentiles need salvation.
And
We see then that it is through faith in Jesus (of the Scriptures) blood, in His death and resurrection, that one is justified, this being called “the law of faith” in contrast with the system of works-merit under which man may boast. But if we have done works which save us then we could boast. Yet this does not separate faith from works, as the former births the latter, but it excludes works as a means of meriting justification, or acquiring it by merit of works, which Paul on to explicitly disallow, in contrast to faith.
The problem here is “But if we have done works which save us then we could boast”, and the earlier reference to “by a system of works-righteousness”. These two references make Paul say what he did not say, that works of love (“faith working through love”, -- his expression) also are opposed to faith, no different than works of the law mentioned in verses 19-20 and works of “boast” in v.27. The reality is that the kind of works that oppose faith in Romans 3 are these two kinds of works precisely: works done under the law (Romans 3:19-20, 28) and works done for boasting (Romans 3:27, Eph. 2:9). It is, of course perfectly reasonable: both works done under the law and works done for social recognition are the kind of works done for a temporal reward. That is the reason they do not merit an eternal reward:
when thou dost an almsdeed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward (Matthew 6:2)You attempt to improperly tie the works of temporal reward together with works of faith by stating “But if we have done works which save us then we could boast”. Yes, -- we could boast. But it doesn’t mean we always do. It is true that one who does some charitable work and then boasts of it has invalidated the salvific merit of his work (Matthew 6:2). It is not true that every time a good work is done it is thus invalidated. The righteous “sheep” in Matthew 25, for example, do not seem to be aware that they are righteous (“Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee?”). The Good Thief on the cross does not seem to be boasting of his good work defending Jesus (Luke 23:40-43). What you needed to say in order to make the clean sweep of all works as not salvific is to say “there are none saved because if anyone were saved that one would boast of it”. But you cannot say it, -- there is nothing in St. Paul to justify such a sweeping statement, but there is plenty in the writings of St. Paul alone to indicate that good works exist and remain good (Gal 5:6, Titus 3:8, 2 Timothy 4:7, 1 Corinthians 13:13). So lumping together works of charity with works for a temporal reward is a mere speculation on your part – it is not in the text you are commenting upon.
You then introduce Romans 4:1-6, skip verses 7-9 and then cite verse 10, and comment:
Here it is plainly stated that faiyh justifies the unGodly, not the Godly There is nothing about the godly in that passage, and therefore we cannot conclude from it that faith justified only the ungodly, if that were what you are saying. But probably not, so moving on: faith being counted for righteousness, that is precisely what it says. It also must be understood that the works he rejects are not works of the law, but works done before the law
The works he rejects are circumcision. It is repeated 6 times between verses 6 and 10. Circumcision is works of the Jewish law. So Abraham was not justified by the work of circumcision. True, -- the Catholic Church teaches that also. But the lumping up of all possible works together with circumcision fails in application to this passage also.
The texts is not contrasting works of the law versus works of faith, but makes faith the appropitative means of justification, and Abraham having been justified, is then circumcised, which is allegorical to baptism. This is in reference to the verse 11 that you added to the scope. None of that passage, verses 1 through 11 is contrasting of the law versus works of faith, just as you say; it is contrasting justification with circumcision and concludes that faith of Abraham contributed to his justification and circumcision did not. Here you are attempting to make two analogies: between works of the Jewish law and good works of faith and love, and between circumcision and baptism. But neither works of love or baptism are in the text. Yet good works St. Paul himself declared salvific in the same letter, Romans 2:7-10 and baptism was said to save us both by Christ Himself (Mark 16:16) and by St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21). So you are building analogies without scriptural support. One can assert that this [Abraham might be the father … to them also that follow the steps of the faithful] means one do the works of Abraham to be saved, but we have just seen that he was justified by faith, not works
Yes, of course one can assert that. St. Paul himself asserted that in Hebrews 11, as the entire chapter lists glorious works by Abraham and other Old Testament saints. At the same time, no we have not seen that “he was justified by faith not by works”; we only have seen that he was justified by faith not circumcision.
in the next 2 chapters justification is not something they are seeking by being sanctified, but a present reality
Justification is a reality for the Romans as it is a reality for Jew or Greek, because Christ dies for them also. There is nothing in the next 2 chapters to support your lumping up circumcision with every possible kind of work.
Here [Romans 4:19-51] again it is Abraham's faith which is counted for righteousness, not his works, though the two are so intertwined that one presumes the other
Intertwined they are, but where is “not his works” in that passage? Remember, you do not need to prove me that people are justified by faith intertwined with works; you need to prove to me that we are justified by faith alone without the good works intertwining.
Paul will go one to qualify salvation by grace as concerns election being strictly not because of anything man did
Not “strictly”. St. Paul writes this:
[11] For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) [12] Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. [13] As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. [14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy. [16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
What it says is that election is strictly by grace. That is Catholic teaching. It does not say that it is “strictly not because of anything man did”, it says rather the opposite, namely that if one did not do “any good or evil” then the purpose of election “might stand”. It teaches Grace Alone, not Faith Alone. The verses that you also cite, “if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace” (Romans 11:5-6) reinforce that Catholic point.
No treatment of Romans can be complete without the passages that bracket chapters 4-11. The explanation of salvation being primarily by works is in Rm 2:7-10; this is a concise restatement of Christ’s sermon on salvation in Matthew 25:31-46; it is given without any qualifications that the Protestant mind likes to attach to any biblical statement on the salvific nature of good works. That fits the theme of the early chapters of the letter that strive to show universality of the plan of salvation as well as the universality of the hold that sin has over the mankind, and insufficiency of legal remedy devised by men. Salvation is not by the law but “by the law of faith”, -- a formulation that again points to an active, doing character of Christian faith. To see chapters 4-11 as some statement on “faith alone” is to accuse St. Paul of stating the opposite in Chapter 2 and then changing his mind.
The rest of the letter likewise would be impossible to comprehend in the Protestant jaundiced light. If chapters 4-11 were supposed to be about faith alone, why does chapter 12 begin “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”. Faith alone “therefore” is not alone but demands a “living sacrifice” and a “reasonable service”. St. Paul, in short is as much a good Catholic in Romans as he is in any other letter.
|
In the inset, you give me numerous quotes. I will comment on some and treat the rest summarily. I will firstly deal with the patristic quotes, while reminding the reader that no Church father is himself infallible in the same sense in which the Holy Scripture is infallible, the councils are infallible, or the solemn papal declarations on faith and morals are infallible. Especially, the Western Fathers, often separated from the core patristic tradition by their use of Latin translations and simply the passage of time, should not alone be taken as gospel with all their views. St. Augustine, for example, while man of soaring intellect and style, should not be taken as a representative of the rest of the Church in his often off-center writings on justufucation. St. Clement of Rome writes: Chapter 32. We are Justified Not by Our Own Works, But by Faith. Note that the context is of the Old Testament righteous, whose election was surely not of faith but of grace (“but through the operation of His will”), just as Rome teaches. While St. Clement does say “not by ourselves … or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith”, one needs to examion what, to Clement, that faith meant. We only need to peek into the next chapter, one immediately following the concluding Amen of Chapter 32: Chapter 33. But Let Us Not Give Up the Practice of Good Works and Love. God Himself is an Example to Us of Good Works It is also worth noting that the sequence in St. Clement’s letter follows Titus 3:5-8, where the idea of salvation being not of works of love does not even arise since St. Paul speaks only of “works of justice”. Ambrosiaster indeed concludes “sola fide justificati sun” commenting on Romans 3:24 (“Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus”). So the Scripture says “grace”, he thinks “faith”. The rest of the commentary is though on grace and is Catholic: “Gratiam Dei in Christo esse testator; quia voluntate Dei a Christo redempti sumus, ut manu missi justificaremur” (I quote from In Epistolam Beati Pauli AdRomanos). Ambrosiaster is not an important father of the Church and alongside St. Augistine relied on pre-Jerome Latin translations. The first quote of St. Augustine does not say anything about works of love; it is plain and quite Catholic discourse on works of the law being opposite of grace. The second quote from St. Augustine is much better for your purpose. Here it is again:
But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith. But when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence So one CAN be justified by faith alone and following repentance. We can certainly see that in people unable to work due to some disability or circumstance. However, the general principle is not following here: it is true that exceptionally one can be justified without good works, but it is still not true that anyone as a general proposition is thus justified. Who is Andreas? His comment is a speculation that Abraham had “pre-baptismal faith” and “post-baptismal faith”, and the pre-baptismal one was unaccompanied by works. This is silly: there is nothing in the scripture about either Abraham’s two faiths or his baptism. Quite simply, Abraham’s justification, just like yours or mine, was a process. One stage of it was unaccompanied by works; other stages are very much inseparable from works. The rest of the inset are quotes from diverse Protestant thinkers that advocate for the idea that faith precedes and is a precondition for justification while good works follow. That, in itself, is an acceptable thought for a Catholic Christian, provided that justification is understood correctly as a lifelong process and not necessarily, nor usually, a single event. They quote various scriptures in support of this Catholic doctrine. If you think there is something in their output that need special addressing as regards the meaning of the scripture or the Catholic teaching in general, let me know and I will. |
This is long enough. I will address the portion of your post 7010 following the inset later.
Annalex: It is not enough to see the word "works" somewhere in the Bible and jump to conclusions. One has to determine the context in which that particular type of activity is pronounced upon, and the kind of activity being spoken about.
Daniel: It is you who jump to conclusions when you see “works” after a distinction is made between faith and works as basis for justification[ …] Abraham's works were not of the law, yet they did not save them
Nor did his faith alone save him; the faith of Abraham is mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 4 in order to contrast it to the legal work of circumcision, not to his other and numerous good works. Beside the taking of the promise of progeny on faith, there were also the crossing of the desert, the act of hospitality to the Angels, and the sacrifice of Isaac, all works that cooperated with his faith to make it perfect (James 2:22) and continue the process of Abraham’s justification.
Annalex: I would like to know if the Eucharist, for example, is something you consider non-salvific works.
Daniel: as for the Lord's supper, that does not make one born again and a recipient of the gift of eternal life, but obedience to it as prescribed works “life” and blessing, as does other acts of obedience
Well, that is contrary to John 6 where Christ says nothing about obedience but a whole lot about the Eucharist granting eternal life to whom who “eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood”.
”Born again”, by the way, is what happens at baptism (John 3:3-8, Titus 3:5) and not at the Eucharist, so in the narrow technical sense you are,. I suppose, correct when you say that the Eucharist does not make one born again.
Annalex: works of love (or of charity, or of faith) are singled out in the Gospel as at least conducive or perhaps concurrent to our salvation. So I need a comment specially on Matthew 25:31-46
Daniel: Mt. 25 either refers to eternal life because of such evidential faith, with works attesting to saving faith, or good works gaining eternal life by their merit. It cannot be the latter, but which system is what Rome promotes.
Matthews 25:31-46 simply says that the first group is saved because they did good works and the second group is condemned because they did not do such works. So I don’t know what “hermeneutics” are needed to conclude that good works contribute to our salvation and their absence contributes to our condemnation, and therefore we cannot be saved by faith alone. Also note that the works mentioned in Matthew 25 are not at all like works of the law and therefore your ideas about all works playing the same non-decisive role in justification does not match the scripture.
Annalex: James 2 spends several paragraphs to debunking Faith Alone
Daniel: [James 2] is referring to how a man is justified by a type of faith that works, in contrast to mere intellectual faith which has none, not as regards what component actually appropriates justification
Yes. A man is justified by faith that works. Faith that doesn’t work doesn’t “appropriates justification” and faith that works does. Surely you are not trying to say that a mere intellectual faith “appropriates justification”, -- if you do, you are contradicting St. James who called that faith dead and not appropriating anything.
There is, of course, zero contradiction of what St. Paul and Moses had to say on the matter, as hopefully you can see from my previous post.
Annalex: why, do you think, if "historical" Protestantism really held to some form of Catholicity as regards the "works", did that not result in a movement for the Lutherans to re-unite with the Church in the manner analogous to the Anglicans?
Daniel: if the East finds the papacy an insurmountable barrier, Lutheranism certainly would, as well as with tradition being equal with Scripture and things like praying to the departed, etc.. while Anglicanism is far looser in its doctrines and has much departed from historic Protestantism.
OK, I agree. In short, there is a whole complex of protestant “protests” and not any kind of technical issue such as justification. It is also cultural: the modern evangelicalism for example is just too modern in its psychological makeup to stomach Catholicism in any measure.
Annalex: Would you imagine Jesus arguing with the Father whether Man is totally depraved or perhaps just falling to sin in absence of grace; or whether the Cup Jesus drunk was for all or for the Elect? These divisions would be intolerable in any community of faith claiming biblical unity.
Daniel: if this is referring to comprehensive doctrinal unity than Rome is also left out
How so? There is a single Catechism that contains the doctrines all Catholics hold together; when a doctrine allows for debate that fact is itself a matter of unified doctrine.
But the basis of the unity in Jn. 17 is a supernatural one
Ah, yes. Good point. So is the Communion of Catholics, -- of supernatural nature (Romans 6:3, Luke 22:32)
Annalex: in order to be an authentic Church one has to hold to the authentic, that is Catholic, doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox do, and so their Church, hostile as it is sometime to the West, is an authentic Church. The Anglicans and the continuing Lutherans do not, and so their apostolic succession is formal yet not efficatious
Daniel by what means is it established who is the OTC is?
By the way, not that it matters greatly, I would not use the term “Old Testament Church”. The Catholic Church was established at the Pentecost; Christ refers to her in the future tense in Matthew 16:16. There sure were types of Church in the Ark of Noah, the Ark of the covenant and Blessed Virgin Mary, but for the birth of the actual Church we look at the New Testament and specifically the Acts.
Which is the true Church is established by continuity of doctrine to the Apostles as well as the continuity of clergy to the apostles. That criterion leaves the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. The disputes that we have with the east do not rise to the level of doctrinal dissonance, at least from our perspective. I think, often the Orthodox provide a necessary corrective to the Western Church that at times is caught in its disputes with the Protestants and becomes infected with Protestant legalisms.
in both camps the believer is still saved by trusting in the mercy of God in Christ, not supposing that by God's grace he has done works of faith which merit or make him worthy of eternal life, though they testify of his faith.
What is he “supposing” does not really matter. If his good works are not in evidence, he did not persevere and so no saint – he is not saved. So therefore, works are necessary for salvation, you cannot get from A to Z bypassing them.
why does Scripture provide for assurance that one is saved? (1Jn. 5:13) Appealing to PI no less. But the issue then would be that this does not assure one will continue the faith, and for that Calvinists see texts such as Rm. 8:28-39
You got it, none of these guarantee that the faithful will continue in the faith.
Protestants do hold that imputed righteousness and regeneration are all part of one event, being washed, sanctified and justified, so that the convert is given power to live out his new identity<./I>
This is great, but why then I continue to hear from some Protestants that imputed justification is purely forensic, where God merely overlooks the imperfections without removing them? Also, what you wrote before makes justification a process rather than a single event. Baptism is an event, but “living out this new identity” is itself a part of justification, is it not?
you could have thought of the real reason [full immersion] is used, which is that it corresponds to the term “baptismo” and description. (Acts 8:38,39)
That is a reason to practice full immersion when practical, but there is no reason to hold to any particular form of baptism because of that instance with the Eunuch. As two people are traveling, it is natural to seek water for baptism in an existing reservoir. When people are in a home, already stored water can be brought in for the occasion: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized”(Acts 10:47). It is hard to imagine that in arid Palestine all baptisms were with full immersion. The words itself has to do with lowering down, but it is not exclusively used for complete immersion, consider “divers washings” – “διαφοροις βαπτισμοις” (Heb. 9:10), a reference to ritual washings, for example, before meals.
There is a greater reason to criticize this incongruent case of ritualistic formalism on the part of the Protestants. In general, while the operation of a Sacrament is subject to the will of God alone, its form is within the capacity of the Church to determine (“whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” , Mt 18:18). It is entirely within the purview of a local bishop to define the exact manner of baptism as he sees fit for the economic and climatological condition of his diocese. Now, the Protestant system does not recognize sacraments altogether and instead sees in baptism an external sign of an internal change that already occurred. So what am I to make of this insistence on a particular sign? You yourself admit that “mode is not a salvific issue” later in your post. It seems to me, a modern designation, for example a framed diploma or a wearable badge would be much better suited in a Protestant setting.
The Lord's supper is not being referred to in Jn. 6
To argue that, you offer a link to The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood? , which says about John 6 this: […] If John 6 is what Rome says it means, then according to v. 53, in order to have "life in you", which comes by receiving the holy Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Eph. 2:1, 5), and to receive the gift of eternal life, then we would see the apostles preaching to take part in the Lord supper in order to be born again, and be saved In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.
I wonder what would it have been that Christ could say so that you could believe Him. In John 6 He says: I will give you bread that is my flesh, and food indeed. At the Last Supper He actually gives people bread – not words – and says that this is His body, and tells them to eat it. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11 Speaks of the bread being eaten in which the body is to be discerned on the pain of damnation. Not faith or word, but the body of the Lord. Yet all that is metaphorical because to read the scripture for what it says destroys the Protestant narrative.
If the “food indeed” of John 6 was somehow “food metaphorical” why did the disciples have to leave? Jesus wanted to fool them?
The Eucharist is something for one who is already born again. The rebirth is baptism. The unbaptized do not take the Holy Communion. That is the simple answer to your question why the Apostles call for baptism and not for the reception of the Eucharist.
Your theory of the “body of the Lord” in 1 Cor 11:29 being the mystical body of Christ which is the Church is ridiculous as well, because the body in v.29 is a reference (by quote, v.24) to the body Christ gave out at the Last Supper where He says “this is my body”. Not “this is the Faith” or “this is the Word”, but this is the body given up for you. Next you will be telling me that it was a metaphor hanging on the Cross.
availability of water was not an issue in Act 10, as Simon's house was by the seaside.
So St. Peter was wondering if Simon would forbid the seaside?
Nor is emphasis upon mode surprising, as it is a result of emphasis upon Scripture
So, “not by faith alone are ye saved” and “take, eat, this is my body” is not something we want an emphasis on, but an inference that because the Eunuch and Deacon Philip went to a natural source of water they must have immersed themselves fully is giving the scripture emphasis?