A simple argument refuting Faith Alone

[Miguel_Sastre]

Did you go back to the faith that you professed prior to becoming catholic? I certainly understand making changes as the evidence presents itself but we dont usually go backwards. If something makes you change your mind in the first place and you move to the next seemingly obvious conclusion somethign else comes along and suggest that you were right from the beginning? Is that it?

I’m not sure I’m following you, but I’d offer this as an analogy. In the “orthodox” Catholic movement there are plenty of stories of ex-Evangelicals becoming Catholic. In some cases these Evangelicals were former Catholics. Many here call themselves “re-verts.” That’s me. Only I’m a re-vert in reverse since I started Evangelical, became Catholic and then went back to my Evangelical roots. Same process, different direction.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
NewsFlash, Miguel, The Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in 49 AD. They even discuss this point in Acts 18:2.

You are ignoring the part in chapter 1 where he introduces himself as the apostle to the Gentiles and is addressing the Gentiles in Rome. And I showed you how chapters 1-6 are cohesive.

.

Quote:
These reason that reading Romans in its entirety creates conflicts for you is that you are reading it through the faulty lense of the Reformers.

I never, ever said I was coming at this from a neutral vantage point. As you would expect on the Catholic Answers website, I am giving you the Catholic view. Do you have any comments on the content of what I said?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

You are ignoring the part in chapter 1 where he introduces himself as the apostle to the Gentiles and is addressing the Gentiles in Rome

Not at all. I’m not arguing for a Jewish only audience. But you do seem to be arguing for the untenable view that only Gentiles are in view. In fact I’d grant that it’s mostly a Gentile audience, even though between 54 (Death of Claudius) and 57 (probable writing of Romans) there was plenty of time for Jews like Prisca and Aquila to get back to Rome (a fact you seem to have skipped over in deafening silence).

But all of this is besides the original point. Paul, in chapters 2 and 3, is addressing views that would be common to Jewish Christians. He may be doing so primarily for the benefit of the Gentiles, especially if they had originally been “grated into” the Jewish Christian Church as Romans 11 asserts.

If that’s the case, then Romans 2 should not be read as Paul’s doctrine of how Christians are justified, but rather a statement of what a good Jew would have believed about how one stands before God. But when we continue to follow the flow of Paul’s argument, this view of “justification by perseverance in doing good” gives way to “justification by faith apart from works,” since, according to Paul, there is “no one” who fits the description of what a good, law-abiding Jew would recognize as a righteous person before God. What’s more, it turns out that the Jew himself is under God’s judgment every bit as much as the Gentile he looks down upon. But I’ve said all this already. No need to rehash that here.

 

[paul_c]

Not at all. I’m not arguing for a Jewish only audience. But you do seem to be arguing for the untenable view that only Gentiles are in view. In fact I’d grant that it’s mostly a Gentile audience, even though between 54 (Death of Claudius) and 57 (probable writing of Romans) there was plenty of time for Jews like Prisca and Aquila to get back to Rome (a fact you seem to have skipped over in deafening silence).

But all of this is besides the original point. Paul, in chapters 2 and 3, is addressing views that would be common to Jewish Christians. He may be doing so primarily for the benefit of the Gentiles, especially if they had originally been “grated into” the Jewish Christian Church as Romans 11 asserts.

If that’s the case, then Romans 2 should not be read as Paul’s doctrine of how Christians are justified, but rather a statement of what a good Jew would have believed about how one stands before God. But when we continue to follow the flow of Paul’s argument, this view of “justification by perseverance in doing good” gives way to “justification by faith apart from works,” since, according to Paul, there is “no one” who fits the description of what a good, law-abiding Jew would recognize as a righteous person before God. What’s more, it turns out that the Jew himself is under God’s judgment every bit as much as the Gentile he looks down upon. But I’ve said all this already. No need to rehash that here.

come on Miguel. Read the text. In chapter 2 he’s talking about what it takes to get to heaven. In chapter 3, he is talking about what it takes to be justified, They are not the same thing as you suppose. because that would make the two chapters in conflict and force you into all kinds of wierd theories to explain them. Like “its a diatribe” or like" Paul lost his train of thought". And yes, God shows no partiality between Jew and Gentile, both are justified through faith (chapters 3-) and judged based on their works (chapter 2).
Justified,by the way, means entering into a covenant relationship with God. But you need to fulfill your covenant obligations to enter heaven.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Why yes. Question: Where in scripture does it say we are “justified” by faith, hope and love? If you can find me a passage that says this, I’ll drop “faith alone” as an unreasonable inference.

I guess I don’t understand your objection if you admit hope and love are also present. As I pointed out, Rom 4:18 says “In Hope Abraham Believed,” so this very reasonable (even explicit) grounds to say hope is present with faith for justification. As for love being present, I’d say one powerful text is Galatians 5:6 (clearly focused on justification), and this combined with many the times Paul speaks of faith and love side by side (for example here) suggests it is not unwarranted exegetically or theologically.

What, in addition to faith, does Abraham need? It appears that his faith is “sufficient” for God to count him as righteous. In fact, if Paul thought that in addition to faith, he also needed “good works,” it is most strange that Paul would add, “to the one who does not work.”

But you’re begging the question that the ‘works’ here in 4:1-5 are ‘good works’. This is not only in disregard to the context, but in total isolation to the rest of Paul’s teaching. It’s essentially taking a single verse and building your entire theology around it, which is dangerous.

Have you considered the fact that when Paul says Abraham was justified by faith and not by works, that he could not possibly have had “works of the law” in mind at this point. The reason is simple. The law had not been given yet. That means there was no circumcision, no Passover, no sacrificial offerings, nothing of the civil and ceremonial laws that so many equate with “works of the law.” It follows, therefore, that the only “works” that could have possibly justified Abraham would have been what we would call “good works.”

Your logic is on the right track, but the conclusion is erroneous. Simply examining Paul’s words in 4:9-15 he is focused squarely on the Mosaic Law and circumcision. If Paul were talking about good works in general, this ‘obsession’ with circumcision and the Mosaic Law would be non-sequitor and superfluous.He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well (4:11)Think about Paul’s argument: if good works were the real focus, then we should be able to substitute any good work where is says ‘circumcision’, but the problems with this are plain.

Therefore, according to Paul, if the works that Abraham had done were part of the justification equation, they could only have been good works.

Why is circumcision Paul’s main example of ‘works’ in Rom 4:9-12? If you are going to say “according to Paul,” then you cannot be making assumptions and instead exegeting Paul’s actual words.

So when Paul insists that “the one who does not work but believes” is justified, what in the world does he have in mind when he says “work?”

That question must be determined exegetically. Your question is like saying: “What ‘Law’ did Paul have in mind?” Obviously, we cannot just go around assuming Paul is speaking of Newton’s Law, Constitutional Law, etc. We must determine this exegetically. The “Law” he is focused on is clearly the Mosaic Law, which establishes the context to understand other things.

How could it have been “works of the law” for Abraham when the Law had not been given yet? So it must have been some other kind of “work” that he had in mind.

The first sentence is correct; the second sentence is incorrect since it doesn’t follow. The Judaizers were saying circumcision and Mosaic Law is necessary for salvation, Paul refutes this by saying Abraham was justified prior to circumcision and the Law. Period. See, Paul didn’t have to have another work in mind for his argument to stand. What you are doing is mentally substituting “Pelagian” where it says “Judaizer,” thinking they are synonymous, when they are not.

The difference is simple. I say that only faith is what justifies because Paul only says that by faith we are counted righteous. (Remember, we’re reading Romans 4 here.) Paul could have explicitly mentioned hope and love or “good works,” which you seem to be using synonymously with “Hope and Love.” But he doesn’t.

Two problems: (1) you mistakenly think Romans 4 is the epitome and exhaustive picture of the justification process; (2) Paul explicitly mentions hope when Paul exegets Gen 15:6 in Romans 4:18-22.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

While it is true that Paul says that the one who works is owed a wage; it reads far too much into the text to argue that the only reason one would work is to get a wage. In other words, on your interpretation, we would have to choose between the following:

A. Either Abraham was justified by faith and his “sincere” deeds of love done in humility of spirit, and in hope of reward.
B. Or Abraham only did works to have leverage over God so that God would be in his debt.

Personally, I like option C: Romans 4:2-6

The MAIN problem here is not with the reasonability of your claim, but rather the fact you’re essentially infallibly interpreting the text such that you rule out my interpretation is reasonable at all. If the GOAL is to harmonize Scripture, I believe my interpretation both harmonizes Scripture and is plausible.
As other Catholics here have already pointed out:Gen 26: 4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.My interpretation harmonizes these this with Gen 15:6 without ever suggesting any and all works were ruled out. On the other hand, your interpretation causes Paul to sound silly in light of Gen 26:4f.

What question am I begging? I’ve given plenty of reasons for why “works” does refer to “any work whatsoever.” That’s the conclusion of my argument, not a premise in my argument. Consider just some of my reasons:

1. Paul doesn’t add “Hope and Love” to faith in this context.
2. Paul is clearly talking about “work” prior to the giving of the Law.
3. The only “work” prior to the giving of the Law would seem to consist of the kind of deeds that we call “good works.”
4. Paul says we are justified, “apart from works.”
5. The “work” in question would seem the kind of work that could be rewarded
6. Even when we consider “works of the law,” or its abbreviated form “works,” it seems quite clear that these include all the prescriptions of the Law.
7. You’ve already conceded point 6 when you earlier called it “the whole package.” In fact, you even made my point stronger by pointing out the 613 commands that the Jews have enumerated from the Law and the Prophets.

Here are my thoughts according to your numbered list:
#1 is flat out wrong, or at least ambiguous, since hope is explicitly mentioned in 4:18; #2 is inaccurate, or at least misleading, since circumcision is his prime example; #3 is plainly false, again since circumcision fits and is the prime example; #4 this is misleading, since the only place “apart from works” appears is “apart from works of the Law” in 3:28, right in the context of a Jew-Gentile distinction; #5 this is problematic, since the works of the Law were explicitly said to have rewards attached to keeping them; #6 is true but actually goes against your case, since if you say (rightly) that ‘works of the Mosaic Law’ is abbreviated as ‘works’ and includes all 613 prescriptions, then Paul couldn’t have been talking about some other kind of ‘works’ with regards to Abraham;

Looking at all these, your case that ‘works’ must mean ‘good works’ prior to the Law has no coherent basis what so ever unless you utterly isolate Rom 4:4f from the rest of the chapter and book. In almost every one of your points, I could respond with one word, “circumcision,” and it would meet all the criteria you mentioned. The fallacy of special pleading is refusing to consider unfavorable evidence and/or plausible alternate interpretations.

Where is ‘monergism’ an issue for Paul in this context?

Here: “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (Romans 4:5).

In other words, it is “God” who justifies and saves on the basis of faith. Notice that Paul rules out our “part” in the equation when he says “does not work” and “not your own doing.” We are the passive recipients of his grace, even while we are actively believing in him lest there be any tiny part of us that says, “I did it,” thereby claiming our due wages or boasting that we had a hand in the matter of our own salvation. I simply don’t know how Paul could have been any more clear on this point.

It is inconceivable that you can say Paul rules out “our part” when he explicitly says our part is “believing in him,” an action you even call “actively believing” . Paul infallibly exegets Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:18-22 and what he describes is entirely about Abraham doing his part.

Yes, I’ve given it quite a bit of thought. Somehow Jesus’ words about the Law not passing away must fit in with Paul’s claim that it has been “abolished” and Hebrew’s claim that the Old Covenant is “obsolete.”

I don’t see the need to press this further; you simply keep cutting off Christ’s words mid sentence. He says “not pass away until all is fulfilled” indicating it will pass away after all is fulfilled. For an important less on the concept of what it means to “fulfill” something, see this article: “Did Christ Fulfill the Law in our Place?”

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Sure they did. Here’s what Paul said about the ten commandments: “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12).

The Law is good, but it was also temporary and imperfect and it’s spiritual job was to expose sin until the Messiah came. Rom 7:6, “now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” This is why I pointed out Paul says the 10 Commandments are the “ministry of death,” while life in the Holy Spirit is the ministry of Life (2 Cor 3).

For then “thou shalt not commit adultery” would mean “go ahead and cheat on your spouse.” But in fact, Jesus says if we even look with “lust” we’ve committed adultery in our hearts. So the idea of fulfillment is not only to affirm the enduring validity of the moral content of the law, it’s actually an elevation of it to an even higher standard.

But it is not to affirm their enduring validity if Jesus is calling us to a higher standard. The very structure of Jesus’ words indicate Christ’s commands supercede Moses: You have heard Moses say X, but I say Y (not ~X). When Jesus says “Moses permitted divorce, But I do not,” that is another prime example of setting aside the Old for the New perfected standard.

Actually it’s both. Eternal life begins at justification, which for Paul, is entirely eschatological.

Where in Scripture are you getting this? Paul doesn’t use the term “eternal life” in the examples you gave.

It is judgment moved up to the present wherein we hear the pronunciation of a “not-guilty” verdict with the concomitant expectation that he who is in Christ is not only not condemned (Romans 8:1), but will also “walk in the Spirit” rather than the flesh (Romans 8:4) and wait hopefully and patiently for a future glory.

Where in these texts are you getting the notion of “not guilty verdict” if the only time God is portrayed as Judge is at the final judgment according to works? The notion of no longer condemned is only so far as you are not a slave to sin as long as you walk by the Spirit, otherwise you will end up being condemned (e.g. Rom 14:23).

Salvation is past, present and future for Paul in Romans 8. When, however, Paul talks specifically about justification of the believer, he seems to have the beginning point of salvation primarily in mind.

Ok, but this seems to concede the point Paul doesn’t have “eternal life” as what is bestowed upon the individual at justification.

You’re on far safer grounds when you speak for your own position. Where can you find any major Protestant thinker who ever said we’re “entitled” to Heaven?

I said “legally entitled” meaning (in Protestantism) the individual has had their legal requirements met (by Christ) to enter Heaven. The individual is not ‘entitled’ in any sense that they deserve salvation, only in the technical sense that the conditions have been (graciously) met by Christ. This is the classical definition of Justification.

Whenever you sin, do you first assume you were never really saved in the first place, or that you produced “bad fruit” despite considering yourself a ‘good tree’? How much ‘bad fruit’ do you have to see before you have grounds to make such judgments? See how this quickly slides into pure subjectivity?

No one escapes that problem.

If that’s your response, then say Good-Bye to the Reformation. The central tenet of the Reformation was that Luther was so agonized by the idea he couldn’t do enough good to enter heaven that he came up with the idea he could be sure he could go to heaven by his novel doctrine of Faith Alone. But if you admit there is no such “Assurance” (which the Reformers championed against Catholicism), then you merely traded one “flawed” system for another.

How do you know someone is among the elect by your own church standards?

One can only be sure they are among the “elect” if they persevere to the end, not before, since there are many examples in reality and Scripture of folks starting off on fire for Christ and going apostate later.

But no Calvinist claims to know the identity of the elect either.

That is untrue. The Calvinist claim is that the individual can know whether they are elect or not, but as I and others point out, it’s nothing short of subjectivity and utterly ruinous to the core dogma of Infallible Assurance (cf Westminster Confession Ch18). This is why folks like James White trumpet left and right how Catholics are in a state of fear while in Protestantism you can rest assured.

You are quite correct that when we fall into sin for long stretches of time we are quite justified in wondering whether or not the person was a Christian to begin with.

Yes, but this only serves to undermine the whole Protestant Dogma of Assurance. If you believe you’re Eternally Secure, then you should never call that into question if you or another happens to turn to sin for a time. Yet the inescapable mental contradiction there is that one of the marks of regenerate versus unregenerate is the presence of good/bad fruit, which Christians can still fail to produce at times. The reality is, there is no such Assurance, refuting the Protestant doctrines suggesting such Assurance.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Don’t peg me as one of those Christians who think they can have an absolute certitude about their identify among God’s elect. I’m certainly not one of them and neither is the Reformed tradition as a whole.

Then not only are you rejecting the historic Confessions which explicitly teach infallible assurance, you’re living a “lie” (for lack of a better term). For example, do you believe Jesus died for you? If no, then you’re obviously not a Christian and have no reason to follow Christianity. If yes, then you must accept you are elect and thus Eternally Secure and thus Assurance. It all stands or falls together. If you cannot answer the question of whether Jesus died for you or not, then you’re in a far far worse position the Catholic Gospel (allegedly) ever put man in. That’s like saying “I don’t know if I really know about surgery, but I’ll continue practicing surgery.”

So if “good works” in Ephesians 10 doesn’t refer to the civil and ceremonial prescriptions of the Old Covenant, what does it refer to? I think it refers to the kinds of concrete deeds of love and Christian service to be done by Christians in the body and for the world around us.

The point I’m trying to get across is that if you’re living by the Spirit, you are not under the Law and thus not engaging in works of the Law. Thus in God’s sight, the only ‘good works’ that amount to anything are those done at the prompting and enabling of the Spirit (Gal 6:7-9). This is why it’s wrong to say the Law contains “good works” as opposed to merely ‘civil’ and ‘ceremonial’, since it implies the civil and ceremonial are somehow not good works.

I therefore have trouble disassociating this kind of Old Testament prescription from what Paul means by “good works” even as I have trouble believing circumcision is what Paul had in mind, given how hard he worked to keep it out of the church. What do you think?

Your argument is fine up until it gets to the point that it neglects to recognize the very real abolition of the Mosaic Law as a legal code and covenant we are to live by. Those who lived by the Mosaic Law (Jews) were bound to follow all of it, and the covenantal promises only extended to ‘health and wealth’ in the Promised Land. With the Gospel, the whole reading of the OT is transformed and read in a whole new light. Good works for Paul is none other than fulfilling the Mosaic Law as per Rom 13:8ff, which is not that same as strictly following the letter of the Mosaic Law. The “letter” of the Law says do not harvest every last square inch of the wheat field, while the spirit of the Law (i.e. Fulfilled understanding) is that with the outpouring of the Spirit’s gifts you learn you don’t do anything greedy on any level. While the “enemy” in the Mosaic Law are neighboring pagans, the real enemy in life is sin and satan and demons.

Let’s just summarize a few things thus far:

1. You agree that we are not justified by “works of the law.”
2. But you would argue that we are justified by “good works.”
3. But you also admit that “works of the law” include good works.
4. [Scratches head to how you hold 2 and 3 together]

Item #3 is incorrect, a work, any work, is ‘good’ in so far as it is done in the spirit of Christ. When the Levites were genuinely offering sacrifices, that was a ‘good work’ in so far as it was sincere Godly obedience. Works of the Law is NOT a synonym in any way for “good works” (which is actually your thesis).

1. “Works of the law” only refers to the Old Testament.

Not exactly, they only refer to the 613 legal requirements laid out in the Mosaic Law, which is essentially the second half of Exodus through Deuteronomy. The Old Testament is much larger than the Mosaic Law proper, and the Old Testament as a whole contains things outside the Mosaic Law and outside the 613 commandments.

1. You reject any “mutatis mutandis” application of the principle Paul is teaching. (Why, I’m not sure.)

Because it implies continuity/equality in Covenants. The Old Covenant never promised eternal life and never could forgive sins, while the New Covenant does both.

1. Yet while you believe that circumcision is a “work of the law” that cannot justify, you would argue that baptism is a “good work” that can.

The former does not impart grace and was merely a shadow of the latter that can. The Jewish partaking in the Passover Lamb was a memorial of God delivering out of Egypt, this forshadows a more real and profound Sacrifice of Christ that delivers from sin. See how the two cannot be equated? In circumcision, you remove physical flesh, in Baptism you wash away sin. Big difference.

1. Question: Where does anyone in the New Testament talk about baptism, love or hope in the context of “justification”?

Romans 6 is speaking of dying to sin through Baptism, and verse 6 uses the Greek word for “justify”. In 1 Cor 6:11, it speaks of Baptism justifying, as does Titus 3:5. Baptism is always mentioned in the context of justification, since Baptism is what is done at conversion.

1. Do you really believe that Paul thought baptism justified us, while circumcision did not?

Yes, for the SAME reason the NT teaches the Old Sacrifices could not save but the New Sacrifice could - i.e. why the Old Testament didn’t include forgiveness of sins but the New did. When you get circumcised, you become a Jew and enter a covenant that wasn’t about eternal life; when you get Baptized you become a Christian and enter a Covenant that does promise eternal life. This is the essence of why your “equating” and “mutatis” doesn’t work. The Judaizers failed to realize the Old Covenant didn’t do for our soul what the New Covenant could do for our soul.