[af_vet_1981]

I don't write the lexicons. I just take them seriously.

Then you may like this:

On the above view, a host of Biblical passages immediately become clear. For example, St. Paul teaches in Hebrews 11:6 that “Without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.” This passage plainly explains why faith is necessary for salvation. Significantly, it does not identify faith alone as salvific, nor does it mention or even allude to imputation. Rather, faith is salvific because faith serves as the foundation by which one “pleases God.” St. Paul goes onto list a series of examples from the Old Testament where the Saints “please God.” Each of them “pleases God” through doing a good work “by faith.” Per Hebrews 11:6, then, God rewards those who seek God on the basis of faith. A reward is not a legally obligated payment, nor is it unrelated to works. Rather, it is a gracious gift that is given in response to works. Nor can we understand the reward of Hebrews 11 to be something other than salvation itself. Hebrews 11:39 identifies the reward being discussed as “what was promised” to the Family of Abraham. That is, this is the inheritance of the Kingdom of God. It is salvation itself. Galatians 5:6 and following also becomes easily understandable. The Apostle in this passage teaches that the only thing that matters is “faith working through love.” We find what we discovered in Hebrews 11 confirmed. Faith is salvific if the Christian uses it to produce works of love. Later in the chapter, St. Paul says, in an extended passage worth quoting in full:

(Galatians 5:18-23) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

If we understand faith alone to be salvific in the sense that retaining faith in God is sufficient to produce good works automatically, then this passage seems quite out of place. The Protestant teaching is that good works are the fruit of faith in the sense that they will automatically spring from genuine faith, and if they do not spring from faith, then the faith itself is not faith at all. The Church teaches, by contrast, that the difference lies not in the kind of faith that the person has, but rather in the free decision of the person to use (or not use) faith to produce good deeds. On this understanding, Galatians 5:18-23 makes perfect sense. St. Paul is warning those Christians in Galatia that if they do not use their faith to produce good works, then they will not be saved. If the production of good works is automatic, then such a passage is totally unnecessary. The thrust of St. Paul’s teaching in the Letter to the Romans about law and grace also clears up. He teaches in Romans 4:4 that “to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.” That is, if one performs “works of the law” (for that is what Paul calls them in Romans 3:28), then the inheritance that one receives is not a gracious gift (a reward, as the letter to the Hebrews makes clear) from God, but is rather a legally obligated payment. One can never obligate God to do anything. He owes us nothing. We must relate to Him not as a distant businessowner, but as a father. It is therefore evident that the Apostle Paul is not condemning all works, whether done inside or outside of faith, but particularly those works that do not spring from a familial relationship of genuine faith.

[Springfield Reformer]

Hmmmm, I don’t see the connection between what you’ve posted and the reference to lexicography. What I see is more of the typical avoidance of Pauline soteriology as clearly spelled out in Romans. I was raised with these arguments in my family. I pretty much know how this works. One person I knew genuinely believed Paul shouldn’t have been in the canon. But that’s not the answer. He’s a duly appointed apostle, and he addressed the issue head on in Romans, and his teaching there does not conflict with either Hebrews or James. Whereas your writer is just offering up the standard treatment of Hebrews by those who can’t deal with what Paul is saying in Romans. He’s picking a winner. It doesn’t work. They all have to be right, and they all have to be explained. Still waiting ....

Peace,

SR

[CynicalBear]

Why do Catholics not get the fact that faith appropriates salvation. All the other stuff is simply evidence of that faith.