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.
Rather than being much redundant, i will address the main points which could benefit from clarification and or expansion, with some organization.
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.
Grace and works are of different origin. God sends grace; we do works. They are often contrasted in the scripture: [Rm. 11:5-7; 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8,9] No similar contrast is drawn in the scripture between faith and works, because they both are something originating in the heart of man: [Ja. 2:2; Heb. 11:8,9; Gal. 5:9]
I have affirmed the separate place each have, but in context, you fail to grasp the manner in which they go together, in relation to how faith and works go together. Nor is it that good works eventually produce faith and that faith originates in the heart of man, as faith is a supernatural gift from God, enabling one to effectually believe revealed truth beyond the ability of man.
God, in His grace, gives faith, which results in works.
You also appeal to Rm. 2:7-10 as teaching salvation by works, but which describe what saved persons do, which is works of faith, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) and which i fully affirm. One is justified “by faith alone” in that God-given supernatural faith is what is counted for righteousness, though it is expressed in works. Man comes to God, being drawn to Him but destitute and damned, and out of a poor and contrite heart believes in Him who justifies the unGodly, not the Godly, and their faith is counted for righteousness, an dare given the gift of eternal life. Those who continue in the faith, trusting in the Lord Christ to save them, not their works or goodness or that if their church, do works of faith, led by the Spirit, which only believers can do, and will finally fully realize “eternal life” and recompense for their suffering and works, in the mercy and grace of God.
Let me examine your treatment of Romans 3-4.
A point by point rebuttal of your rendering of this is not necessary as it is a continuance of your insistence on reading into the text what you want to see.
While Rm. 3 excludes both Jews and Gentiles from having any moral fitness whereby they could merit acceptance with God, and instead renders them are all under sin and need of justification by grace, and even though Rm. 4 plainly teaches that if Abraham had done works that merited justification then he could boast, (Romans 4:1-3) you state that he did do justifying works he could boast of, that “Yes, -- we could boast. But it doesn’t mean we always do.” And rather than what Paul is teaching, that if works could merit justification than man could boast, you attempt to make the exclusion of works to be that of boasting of such works, or ones done for temporal gain, while sanctioning doing works to gain eternal life. Supposing that the Catholic system only supports doing works of love for not other reason than love for God is a fantasy, while one must be justified to do works of such love.
The works of the law also provided spiritual benefits, but which system is excluded because it is based upon moral merit by obedience (Gal. 2:20) rather than faith in the mercy of God in Christ, which again, Paul has been laboring to show both Jew and Gentiles they are in need of, being unable to be morally worthy by works.
And when Rm. 4 contrasts Abraham being justified by works before he was circumcised or under the law, you insist this only means works of the law being disallowed, such as circumcision and works done for social recognition, when again, in reality it is part of his contrast between works morally meriting justification, as under the law, versus faith procuring it, in which he clearly states the latter is counted for righteousness. Thus it is of faith, that it might be by grace, by which faith is given, resulting in works led by the Spirit. (Rm. 8:14)
And as man cannot do anything that would make him actually worthy in God's sight, Rm. 4 concludes with justification being something which man cannot gain except by faith. For Abraham was unable to gain the promise, but his faith was counted for righteousness, and which resulted in actions which produced a nation. “And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;" (Romans 4:21-24)
In contrast, if you have man doing works meriting justification which he could boast of but does not, and if your criteria (as stated in other responses) for such salvific works are works of love by one who imitates Christ, then you have souls doing Christian works of love in imitation of Christ before they are justified, in order to be justified!
In this and other examples you confuse what faith does with the actual means by which justification is appropriated, though faith and work go together. Thus when you see Titus 3:5 and Eph. 2:8,9 which contrast faith and works in an unqualified manner, you invoke verses which speak of what faith effects in order to assert they are causative of justification.
Moving on, your continuing commitment to either argue against a straw man or failure to read or comprehend this oft stated definition and its distinction results in your supposing that Rm. 12:1,2 is contrary to sola fide. If any faith has historically taught or fostered works of faith it is those who hold to sola fide.
As regards Rm. 11:11-16, you again misconstrue how grace works in order to force it to conform to salvation by grace through merit, when an unbiased reading of the text would allow you to see that it is teaching that the elect are chosen as such before they did works, and thus it is purely by grace, under which repentance and faith is given, resulting in works which confirm the saved state of the soul.
When you come to the patristic quotes, after giving the necessary qualifier,” that no Church father is himself infallible,” you misconstrue Clement's words to mean that their election was “surely not of faith but of grace (“but through the operation of His will”), just as Rome teaches,” meaning that they were saved by grace through works of merit! That Clement exhorts them to works, just as those who hold to sola fide do, cannot be used to make his words, “we 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 mean justification is by works out of merit. Again, sola fide teaches that the faith that the faith that saves is a faith that follows, but it is the God-given faith aspect which procures justification by imputed righteousness.
For Ambrosiaster, you assert that “faith” in “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” is supposed to be “grace” in order to support justification by grace through works which merit it.
Faced with Augustine, “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” you allow that “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.”
I am glad you allow this in a qualified manner, except that inn this context repentance is part of the act of faith, and if one can be justified by faith alone in the case wherein a soul has no ability, then it affirms sola fide, the difference being that in the sola fide i describe, no man has the ability to do works which would morally merit justification, but that God gives faith which procures it, with obedience following.
For me, it is not the sequence that is critical, but the recognition that no man can morally merit justification, being morally destitute, and that instead he is damned due to his works, and must be granted repentance and given faith, albeit a faith that will produce obedience towards its Object, insomuch as the possessor of said faith is able (and which includes repentance when convicted of not doing so), and which faith is counted for righteousness. But yet while eternal life is given as a free gift, one must continue in faith, and works are the gauge by which faith is evidenced, and thus the doers of the law are those who are justified, and works of faith are recompensed beyond the gift of eternal life.