You are reading a description of rewards being given for works, in which faith is not even being mentioned, so it is not dealing with the theological issue of faith or works, or the type of works or faith, both of which the epistles do, and could easily be used to justify salvation on the basis of works of mercy. Rm. 2:6-10 describes the character of true faith — “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rm. 1:13; cf. 8:4) — and not works gaining justification, the type of faith being one that obeys the law:
Hermeneutically, texts which seem to affirm merit being the basis for justification are to be interpreted in the light of the Paul's express soteriology as to what the basis for justification and its appropriative means is.* In which it is either a system of justification by the merit of works, which, if possible, would be under the law, or Christ and His blood, and which is appropriated by a faith by resting on Christ, but which faith is of a nature results in works.
The latter two indeed are inseparable as to the expressive nature of saving faith, so as to sometimes allow one to refer to the other, but as regards merit, like as election is strictly “not according our works” (2Tim. 1:9) “not of him that willeth,” (Rm. 9:16) “otherwise grace is no more grace,” (Rm. 11:6) so texts such as “not of works” (Eph. 2:19) “not by works of righteousness,” (Titus 3:5) “to him that worketh not,” (Rm. 4:5) go beyond merely works of the law but logically excludes any system in which works are the basis for justification.
Paul is not disallowing one system of justification by the merit of works so as to begin another, but is establishing that justification is a appropriated by those who have no means of justification, no merit of works, but who, like as with physically impotent Abraham, realize this but place potent faith in the living God, in this case in His mercy in Christ Jesus, and whose faith is counted for righteousness.
Now it might be argued that this only takes place when faith is confessed, but which eliminates baptism by desire. Also, if we reason that souls merit eternal life in the sense of a recompense given them for their works, which God does for works in general, then i see no difference between this and the Judaizers, whose Christology did not seem to be an issue but who added obedience to the law as a prerequisite for salvation. While they included the ceremonial law and we recognize faith obeys the moral law in its full intent, Paul was not simply excluding certain works of the law in Rm. 4, and in Acts 15, while basic obedience was requires of Gentile converts, with growth in sanctification expected, it was recognized that the Gentiles did not receive the Holy Spirit by works, but their heart was purified by faith. (Acts 15:8,9)
Calvinists, in seeking to make justification purely a work of grace as in election (not of him that willeth), hold that man is first regenerated and so believes and is justified, while i see salvific grace granting repentance (Acts 11:18) and giving faith to believe the word preached, with this being the moment of forgiveness, sanctification by the Spirit and justification. (Acts 10:43ff; 2Cor. 6:11) And which may take place within an action, as well as precede it, but not meriting it.
*(Likewise, there are texts which focus on the humanity of Christ, and in which He expressed His Divinity, but which modern-day Arians invoke, as on face value such can seem to support Him being only a created being. But they must be examined in the light of texts which deal more with His nature, showing that He is both fully God and man, as in the hypostatic union, being from eternity His nature is most essentially Divine as the eternal Son of God.
We are not fine with faith alone in such way "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" (DECREE ON JUSTIFICATION , CANON IX).
Well, they actually are fine with it as in baptism of desire, in which people die without even baptism but a “pregnant” faith is counted as salvific, and rightly so. However, What “nothing else” leads to is another issue. Arminian Protestantism (which maybe the majority) holds that God's grace man are drawn toward Christ, granted repentance, and i would say persuaded to do something they would not otherwise have done, and many see man as being given a choice to keep that faith, resting on the Lord Jesus for salvation with thus responding to Him in obedience. But despite similarities with Roman Catholicism, with the latter you have proxy faith (the palsied man's infirmity was physical, not cognitive) and man meriting salvation by works he chose to do, and within a system that treats souls as Christians from essentially birth and effectually fosters confidence in one's works and the church for eventually attaining eternal life by them.
it is Rome who engages in the most “artistry” in having believers merit the gift of eternal life via her sacramental system
But that, too, is plain scripture. The Church was told to baptize and celebrate the Eucharist (Matthew 28:19, Luke 22:19). She was told that the Baptism and the Eucharist are fonts of eternal life (Mark 16:16, John 6:55 or next to it). Where is the "artistry"?
You know that the issue is not with what is commanded believers, but what makes them Christians in the first place. And as i have responded before, the New Testament does not make the Lord's supper the means of regeneration, of having “life in you,” (Jn. 6:53) which believing the word does, (Jn. 3:36) and Jesus lived by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and doing His will was His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And Jeremiah said “Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” (Jer. 15:16) That is plain Scripture, while contriving John (of all writers) into making Jesus body physical food to be eaten is "artistry." One may just as well suppose David believed in transubstantiation as he referred to the water gotten at the peril of his men's lives as that of their blood. (2Sam. 23:15-17) But that's another thread.
Scripture itself affirms men to judging what is taught by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11) and its attestation, as well as to ascertaining their own status as believers by what is written. (1Jn. 5:13)
One should indeed do as the Bereans and "daily search the scriptures".
No, they should not if Rome has spoken, as then they need not, and to do so is contrary to what Rome has spoken.
This advice does not negate advice to seek understanding from an apostolic source (Acts 8:27-31). It is my constant theme that the Protestants at best -- at the historical, now virtually extinct best -- do not have doctrines that can self-evidently be reconciled with the scripture. I see plenty of sophistry that ostensibly reconciles it, but I do not see that simple, boot-in-the-bouilion simplicity of "my flesh is food indeed" or "by works man is justified and not by faith only".
SS affirms the teaching office of the church, so there is no conflict there, and has produced voluminous and popular commentaries. Read some of Matthew Henry. Rome has not the like. And in the light of the immediate and larger context of the Bible if you really think that Jn. 6:63 is speaking about physically consuming Jesus then it is honestly a negative commentary on Roman Catholic exegesis.
those in Rome do not even know the infallible status of multitudes of pronouncements
No, we don't. That might be a blemish of a kind. Certainly a Catholic should do a better job figuring out his own faith, --
The problem is not the avg. Catholic, but with the assuredly infallible magisterium as it must be the one to define which of the hundreds or more of potentially infallible of pronouncements are infallible.
just look at all these Catholics going Pentacostal or something out of pure ignorance of their own Pentacostal birthright.
That is as right and relevant as Judiasm complaining about Jews becoming Christians. If Rome actually manifested that it was the same church as the 1st century most would not be leaving a dead institutional looking for life. And overall find it. And many were Roman Catholic charismatics (over 50% of Latin RC's are).
But tat the same time, this is a legalistic argument. Would you as easily convict an American citizen for not knowing the Uniform Commerce Code, his state's Criminal code and the taxation laws?
The issue was the claims made for Rome's AIM (as part of an autocratic government) which is trumpeted as providing infallible doctrine, versus having so many things they may disagree on as Protestants, while in reality Catholics can and do disagree substantially. The main difference is that they do not leave their church, as their identity is more church-centered, while evangelicals, which overall also hold to common core essentials, find transdenominational fellowship based upon their common conversion and basic relationship-centered faith behind it. And whose degree of unity of the Spirit is harder than that of implicit trust in men, as it requires heart surrender to Christ and His Word.
The American citizen has someone to ask and he has a general intuition of these things...
But not an assuredly infallible one, nor did the Jews.
When in doubt ask the Church.
There is plenty Catholics could ask and still have doubts as what it the truth on an issue.
Biblically speaking, by the way: Mt 18:18ff.
We have been here. Again, this presumes the church referred to there is what Rome is now, and that authenticity is based upon her problematic formal decent mentioned before, and her a magisterium that is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallible declared formula, which makes her declaration that she is the OTC to be infallible.
very little of the Bible has been defined
Good point. I heard it, and don't know the reference, but the Church actually fixed the interpretation of less than a dozen biblical verses. We have doctrines, -- we don't have quotebooks.
Unlike the New Testament. But her fallible apologists do, if not being uniform themselves. And if PI is denigrated then it presumes infallible interpretations of Scripture would be the norm.
her teaching itself requires some interpretation, both of which engage private interpretation (PI), and her members evidence less unity in core truths and moral values than those within evangelicalism.
That is true too, and again speaks to the non-legalistic method employed by the Church, in the spirit of Matthew 5, "But I say to you".
No, Jesus words were “legally” authoritative. (Jn. 12:48)
Again, the avenue of spiritual growth given a Catholic is primarily his priest, who is someone he can ask. That is not infallible, but the model works also to the larger community, till the questioner either finds an assent of faith ot leaves the Church.
Likewise in evangelicalism, but while the Catholics cannot look to Scripture as the supreme authority, the evangelical must.
Whether Evangelicanism possesses a similar or superior degree of unity is not the proper question. The proper question is whether Evangelicanism accords with the Scripture. If it does, surely the Holy Spirit wil provide true unity.
True, and thus the issue become on what basis is truth established. And to reiterate what has been said, the short version is that in the Bible God supernaturally confirmed His reality to men, and likewise He confirmed the faith and morality of those who believed Him, and the testimony and writings of such progressively became the authority by which later persons and further claims would be examined by and established, as a continuing principle. (Is. 8:20; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Heb. 1, etc.) with God giving attestation to them, directly or indirectly, including by believers realizing things which corresponded to the claims of Scripture, which in turn confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures.
Thus when Jesus authority was challenged, or in establishing it and His teaching, He invoked the work of non-ordained (by men) John the Baptist, (Mk. 11:28-30) and the Scriptures and His own works. (Mt. 22:42-45; Jn. 5:33-36,39; Lk. 24:27,44) In like manner the apostles for their authority and preaching . (Acts 10:37-43; 17:2; 28:23; Rm. 1:2; 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12) And upon this basis is all authority manifest, in proportion to its claims, not pedigree or high sounding claims. (cf. 1Cor. 4:18-21) Rome fails in this,
If it doesn't, and it doesn't, then the unity of Evangelicanism is simply the unity of any other group of people sharing a subculture: it does not unite in essence. There are many bikers, they all look alike in their leather, and they all fight bacause they're bikers.
If you require anything near complete doctrinal unity either officially or effectually you indict Rome, while any substance to its claim to doctrinal unity is based upon implicit trust in a supreme ecclesiastical office, which is no greater than than that of cults. But contrary to your claim as per your biker analogy, it is Roman Catholicism which most resembles a “club” unity, as despite widely disagreeing they still drink at the same bar they all identify with, while evangelicals are at least as unified in core truths on the popular level, and its unity that of one of Spirit, based upon effectual faith in common transforming truths.
along with Divine attestation of the faith, including the transformative effects of believing the preaching of what you seem to malign as the “misanthropic self-effacing me, filthy rags” gospel of grace, by which those who thus humble themselves are exalted. (Lk. 18:14)
The gospel of grace is the Catholic teaching. So is transformational rather than forensic justification by grace. However, penance is not a one-time public act.
I know what transformational typically consists of in Roman Catholicism. Nor is repentance a one time occurrence in historic evangelical faith. While the “altar call” can become a form, it was historically a call to repentance after a message on consecration and holiness,self-denial and crucifying the flesh being part of that. A while ago i was reading about how the American Bible society (then) labored to get Bibles out to immigrants at Ellis Island (with Gov. sanction — no ACLU) and across the country, and their labors and faith amid hardships, and much more could be said, and has been said about its high degree of commitment to Christ, not a denomination.
It is rather an recurring act of faith that involves telling of one's sins, sacramental absolution, and taking up the work where it has been left off due to sin "In stripes, in prisons, in seditions, in labours, in watchings, in fastings, In chastity, in knowledge, in longsuferring, in sweetness, in the Holy Ghost, in charity unfeigned, In the word of truth, in the power of God; by the armour of justice on the right hand and on the left; By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report ... be you also enlarged", (2 Cor. 6:5ff).
And this more characterizes Roman Catholicism? We must have missed it. Certainly it has and has had its share of pious souls, but you both characterize Protestantism as having promoted easy believism while inferring that Roman Catholicism holds to a much higher standard, but it has not overall been the case, while today both see decline.
When penance is reduced to a single time getting-saved event, one can surely say thet the spirit of penance has been replaced with a spirit of social recognition of the penitent. That is what I was directing my sarcasm at.
Apart from the idea that actual works of repentance must predicate forgiveness, and teaching which work against true conversion, i agree, and that happens in both, and there are also many RC's who are proud of their piety. And I also reprove the Benny Hinn type gospel.. Yet the historic evangelical gospel is one that doctrinally requires the manner of abasement of men as sinners before an infinitely holy and perfectly just almighty God, and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ for salvation. This is contrary to teaching souls that they are Christians by birth or upbringing, and “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” was directed at such institutionalized Christians, with manifest results. (I he fasted for 3 days before delivering it).
Good night
Yes, it could be thus justified. That is the reason these were written: we are saved by works of mercy, not to the exclusion of faith itself, of course, but by the works of mercy nevertheless.
texts which seem to affirm merit being the basis for justification are to be interpreted in the light of the Paul's express soteriology
I would say, the words of St. Paul have to be interpreted in the light of the "express" words of Christ, not the other way around. Fortunately for St. Paul, his "express" soteriology is Catholic: " [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. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10). We are saved by grace alone, which is not of works, through faith and good works that God gives us to do. We are not saved by faith alone in any sense in which faith can be understood to be alone (James 2:17-26)
it is either a system of justification by the merit of works, which, if possible, would be under the law
There is no "either", justification is both by faith and merit of works. And no, it does not follow that good works would be under the law: if you re-read Matthew 5-7 you see that formality of law cannot possibly apply to good works.
texts such as “not of works” (Eph. 2:19) “not by works of righteousness,” (Titus 3:5) “to him that worketh not,” (Rm. 4:5) go beyond merely works of the law but logically excludes any system in which works are the basis for justification.
Some of the usual Protestant prooftexts refer specifically to works of the law, circumcision and kashrut being the chief contention, others contrast grace and works. Indeed, grace is not of works, as it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:9). All these prooftexts ignore the larger context where good works are urged often immediately after explaining how works of the law do not save.
Further, the casuistry of works being "expressive nature of faith" but at the same time apparently not being a part of faith so to justify the unbiblical slogan of "faith alone" is wholly unnecessary for one who simply reads the Holy Scripture in order to understand it, as Catholics do.
Paul [...] is establishing that justification is a appropriated by those who have no means of justification, no merit of works, but who, like as with physically impotent Abraham, realize this but place potent faith in the living God, in this case in His mercy in Christ Jesus, and whose faith is counted for righteousness
First, Paul is merely quoting the Old Testament as regards the paternity of Abraham. But St. Paul also noticed that the faith of Abraham was unseparable of his works, crossing the desert and offering Isaac up for sacrifice (Hebrews 11). What we conclude from Romans 4:1-5 is the Catholic teaching, that faith counts for righteousness for those unable to do the good work, but it alone does not save those who are able to do them.
if we reason that souls merit eternal life in the sense of a recompense given them for their works, which God does for works in general, then i see no difference between this and the Judaizers
The difference is that one who follows a formal law receives the benefit in this life (stays out of jail, gains respect of his tribesmen, pockets the wage), and one who does the good works of charity receives the eternal benefit by suffers in the temporal life. (Matthew 6:2, 6:5, 16:25)
i see salvific grace granting repentance
Correct. All salvific works that we might do are granted us by grace of God.
despite similarities with Roman Catholicism, with the latter you have proxy faith (the palsied man's infirmity was physical, not cognitive) and man meriting salvation by works he chose to do, and within a system that treats souls as Christians from essentially birth and effectually fosters confidence in one's works and the church for eventually attaining eternal life by them.
We are Christians by virtue of baptism, not birth. That is to say, at least in the case of baptised infants, God chose us before we chose Him. To say that good works eventually produce faith is indeed what Catholics believe, and the faith that results is not "proxy faith" but just regular Christian faith.
more later...
Annalex: Where is the "artistry"?
Daniel: You know that the issue is not with what is commanded believers, but what makes them Christians in the first place. And as i have responded before, the New Testament does not make the Lord's supper the means of regeneration, of having “life in you,” (Jn. 6:53) which believing the word does, (Jn. 3:36) and Jesus lived by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and doing His will was His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And Jeremiah said “Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” (Jer. 15:16) That is plain Scripture, while contriving John (of all writers) into making Jesus body physical food to be eaten is "artistry."
But John 6:53 nevertheless speaks in no uncertain terms of the connection of the Eucharist to the eternal life. It is not a passing reference to faith, but rather a lengthy discourse on whether Jesus is going to give His disiples his actual flesh to eat. That is just plain reading of chapter 6, and of course general calls to faith are not in contradiction to that. This is a part of Christian faith, to believe Christ when he predicates eternal life so categorically on "eating His flesh".
may just as well suppose David believed in transubstantiation
The Old Testament is filled with such prefigurements, so perhaps yes. Surely you would not dispute that the flood and the crossing of the Red Sea are types of the other sacrament of the Church, baptism. Jesus Himself points to the manna being a prefigurement of the Eucharist.
if you really think that Jn. 6:63 is speaking about physically consuming Jesus then it is honestly a negative commentary on Roman Catholic exegesis.
It is a case, like several others, where the Catholic exegesis is simply taking Jesus's words at their direct meaning. Again, it is not an isolated verse but a long discourse that cost Jesus some of His disciples. To explain that away as something Jesus surely could not have meant is not explaining the Scripture, it is explaining it AWAY.
The problem is not the avg. Catholic, but with the assuredly infallible magisterium as it must be the one to define which of the hundreds or more of potentially infallible of pronouncements are infallible.
No, that is to its credit, to the extent that it is true. What kind of teacher says: "A, B, and C is infallible and E, F, and G I am not myself particuarly sure about"? The faithful should take the entirety of the Magisterium as face value, just like we take the Scripture at face value. If there are reasons to wrestle with a particular part, one can wrestle, but he should do so from the presumtion that the magisterial teaching is true as written and he happens to misunderstand it.
If Rome actually manifested that it was the same church as the 1st century most would not be leaving a dead institutional looking for life.
No, everyone would leave. People are weak, they would much rather have some modern feel-good version of Christianity. It is a miracle that over 1 billion Catholics remain. Without God, that would not be possible. and, by the way, anyone who doubts that theCatholic Church is the very same 1 c. AD Church only needs to look at how the Catholics take everything the scripture says as literal truth, and the modern versions of Christianity invent comfortable to them convolutions to explain that food is not really food and "is" is not really "is".
it requires heart surrender to Christ and His Word
If you are speaking of Protestantism, then in any of its multiple variants do I see a surrender to Christ and His word. I can point out to many words of the Scripture Protestant have lengthy evasions about, -- in fact we discussed quite a few of them. Christ's apostle says "you are not saved by faith alone", and the Protestant runs away from that statement like devil runs from holy water. Christ says "this bread is my body", and the Protestant explains the meaning of "is" to me. Some surrender.
in accordance with her infallible declared formula, which makes her declaration that she is the OTC to be infallible.
Well, I do not impress the Catholic truth on you by pointing out that they are infallible, do I? We discuss based on scripture and logic, and that is how one discovers the authenticity of the Church, -- not by papal fiat.
Jesus words were “legally” authoritative. (Jn. 12:48)
46] I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness. [47] And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [48] He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. [50] And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak.
Every Protestant who thinks that John 6 does not talk of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should read this passage, and then read it again. This is why we, Catholics, obey everything Christ taught, as He taught it. However, the earlier point was that the moral judgement is inherently non-legalistic, in line with Matthew 5-7. Do you dispute that?
the Catholics cannot look to Scripture as the supreme authority, the evangelical must.
But the Evangelical doesn't. He looks at the scripture, reads something that sounds too Catholic (like "you are not saved by faith alone") and runs off to check with his pastor.
...confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures.
No argument there.
non-ordained (by men) John the Baptist
That is funny. You realize that it is the Protestant pastors who are ordained by men, -- they do not even claim otherwise? The Holy Orders is something you may or may not have faith with, but that is a divine institution according to the scripture: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21); "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God" (Acts 20:28).
it is Roman Catholicism which most resembles a “club” unity, as despite widely disagreeing they still drink at the same bar they all identify with
We Catholics are free men, we disagree where we can disagree. But that Divine Bar we drink at is called Communion for a reason: it is the true boundary of the Church. That is, preciely, the unity of essence.
you both characterize Protestantism as having promoted easy believism while inferring that Roman Catholicism holds to a much higher standard
Yes, I do. For example, we do not take a teaching that is so astonishingly antiquated as the believe in the Eucharist and seek to explain it away as medieval superstition. That IS a much higher standard.
Yet the historic evangelical gospel is one that doctrinally requires the manner of abasement of men as sinners before an infinitely holy and perfectly just almighty God, and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ for salvation
That is fine, so long as this "abasement" does not lead one to forget of the temple of God that one is, even as a sinner.