A simple argument refuting Faith Alone

[fhansen]

The problem with Arius is that he rejected what was explicitly conveyed in Scripture. John tells us that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1) What Arius provides us with is a perfect example of what happens when portions of the Bible are ignored or outright rejected and, hence, the importance of fidelity to God’s word.

And this is why we need the Church. Arius got it wrong and Nicea straightened out that mess. And wherever the Reformed position was wrong Trent corrected those errors.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Yes, Christ did what we could never do. He was perfect and satisfied God’s righteous requirements as we could never do. God’s justice was satisfied by Christ’s work on the cross.

Indeed, my brother. Mystery of life. More so than the mystery of not sneezing when you are SOOO close! I hate that!

If you feel the need to offer up to God your own works of righteousness instead of or together with those of Christ, go ahead.

Did I ever even imply that? Nope. Did I give room for that assumption? Nope. I have no works of righteousness that are my own. I try to live in the good works which God has set forth in front of me so that I can live God’s will. I fall. I sin. I get up. I repent. I can do everything in Him who strengthens me.

And your derision brings no fruit to this conversation. Your own life through prayer, repentance, almsgiving, helping people, intercessing, Scripture reading, etc… All these prove to you that the Christian life is what is important, not the words that you think are written in Scripture, or are not written in Scripture.

But don’t expect God to view them favorably. “Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (Galatians 3:2,3)

Let’s us let Scripture do the talking. Notice in your quote “works of the law”. Notice in my quote “working through love”. But, yes I am foolish. I do not claim non-foolishness. Not foolish in regards to this though. In many life cases, I am miserably foolish. I cannot deny that… unfortunately.

“For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only** faith working through love**.” (Gal 5:5-6) This trumps your misinterpretation.

“…work of faith and labor of love and endurance in hope of our Lord Jesus Christ, before our God and Father” (1 Thes 1:3)

These are the works I try to live in, but it is not to gain any righteousness of my own. I just strive to love God. Is that so bad?

Read Romans and Galatians, friend. All of it. Works validate our faith, not the other way around.

I agree. I never once denied that. I actually affirmed that, although in different words.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Being saved is by grace through faith. But once you have been saved, you must respond with love to go to heaven. That is the part of the Gospel you have ignored.

No Paul. What you’re doing here is adding works to grace. On the one hand you say we’re saved by grace. But what you give with one hand, you take away with the other by adding requirements. That’s the antithesis of the gospel message. And if Paul is correct, it is the sure proof of someone who hasn’t heard it yet.

Okay, now you are taking the Catholic position. This is progress. Are you now willing to admit that once saved, you must live the Christian life to go to heaven?

No, Paul. MIne is not the Catholic position. Works are part of the Christian life, but never the means by which we go to heaven nor the basis upon which we lay claim to heaven. The gospel is God saves you unconditionally by his grace. When you put yourself back into the equation by adding the requirement that we cooperate, then salvation is “of yourselves,” which is the exact opposite of what Paul says in Ephesians.

But there is a difference between being saved and going to heaven.Once saved, you must do the will of the father, loving God and neighbor and avoiding mortal sin, to go to heaven.

Translation: God throws you a rope and you do the rest. That’s not even Semi-Pelagian Paul, that’s completely Pelagian. The gospel, Paul, is that God saves you completely, not partially. That’s what it means to be saved. Salvation is from hell and for heaven. God doesn’t save you from the former without delivering you to the latter. Any interpretation of the gospel that says, “God did his part, now you need to do yours” or “the rest” is simply no gospel at all, I’m afraid.

This is tremendous progress. Are we now in agreement that you are saved by grace through faith but that you will be judged worthy of heaven or hell based on your works of love?

No Paul. We agree that each of us will be judged and God will render to each of us according to our works. For Christians, the judgment is not going to be a determination of whether one had done enough or done well enough to enter heaven; rather it will be to determine whether one was truly a Christian or not. It will be a disclosure of the truth about a person’s life. Apart from the righteousness of Christ whom we are to “put on” or in whom we have been “clothed” with the proper wedding garment, as the parable states, we have no hope of staying at that heavenly banquet.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

No. Love of neighbor is a work of the law. So if you love your neighbor, you are perforce doing a work of the law. You may not be loving your neighbor because it is a work of the law, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is one. But love of neighbor is also the “law of Christ.” So the works that involve the love of neighbor, therefore, overlap in both the Old and New covenants.

The law of Christ is the law of Love. The “works of the law” which St. Paul strictly condemned were those works which were to fulfill the letter of the law. “I will give these people food because the law says I must.” Or something along those lines was what Paul condemned. Love of neighbor is NOT this type of work. Love of neighbor has pure intentions which is why Christ commanded it in the first place. He also said, “Love God.” But I am surprised to see that there is no mention of this in your rebuttal. Although it is a dogma of faith, would minimalize it to a dogma of faith? No dogma of Christianity should be a mere dogma of Christianity. It is much much more than that, infinitely more.

Anyway, my point is that “love of neighbor” with pure intentions as Christ commanded is what “good works” are. “Works of the law”, by definition, cannot be considered in the law Christ gave us, “love your neighbor”. The former considers the doctrine. The latter considers love. Works of the law are NOT pure. Works of love are pure, by the definition of “love”.

All you are doing is reading the words without the meaning. Syntactically, I would probably not be a Christian because indeed what could be more contradictory than Romans 3:28 and James 2:24.

“For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”
“See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

(There is book I read 2 or 3 weeks ago called “The Christian Delusion”. I was amazed at the lack of integrity of these “professional atheists”, or so I call them. This is where I get that from.)

So, your argument that “love of neighbor is a work of the law” (when considering the context that St. Paul meant) is ill-founded.

 

[Solus_Christus]

And this is why we need the Church. Arius got it wrong and Nicea straightened out that mess.

Actually, Arianism had nearly won were it not for the advent of the pagan Emperor Julian, who was indifferent to the debate. It was *God’s providence *that preserved the truth.

 

[ignatius777]

I agreethat God knows a believer’s heart. God knows us through and through and even better than we know ourselves. The validation is, at the very least, for ourselves. There is value in this or else Paul would not have said: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?” (2 Corinthians 13:5)

You cannot validate something that does not exist. Something must first exist before it can be validated.

Your citation of Paul is wonderful yet no where does it say show this to the world through your works. And if the works are validation for ourselves maybe thats why God gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins so we could live the sacrament of reconcilliation and know for ourselves that we have been forgiven. But thats another thread.

Agreed but by itself it means nothing. A faith not validated by works might as well not exist.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Miguel Sastre:

That’s why Paul can say that we have been saved by grace through faith and not by works. The “have been saved” part of Ephesians 2 isn’t a mere entry into the state of grace, but as we go on to read this same letter, it is from the foundation of the world and sealed by the Holy Spirit for heaven. It therefore is a real, unconditional and accomplished salvation, and not a provisional one that can be lost by failure to comply with a Christianized version of the Law.

What you fail to see, is that the Salvation gained for men is indeed eternal and permanent, but that men have first to Believe before that salvation is gained for themselves, and further, that they do not disqualify themselves from that salvation by loss of Faith. So that salvation is NOT unconditional. It is VERY conditional. The FIRST condition is that you must believe. The second condition is you must also keep that Faith alive (not a dead faith.) Whatever happens to YOU (whether you reject the salvation or not), the salvation gained for all men by JC remains permanent and perfect.

 

[Solus_Christus]

And your derision brings no fruit to this conversation.

I did not mean to derride, Greg. I apologize.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

No Paul. What you’re doing here is adding works to grace. On the one hand you say we’re saved by grace. But what you give with one hand, you take away with the other by adding requirements. That’s the antithesis of the gospel message. And if Paul is correct, it is the sure proof of someone who hasn’t heard it yet.

He is not adding. We are saved by grace through the faith completed by works. Ephesians 2:8 plus James 2:22. Context, my friend. We are not adding anything. It is you who take away with your words, yet probably live as if works are just as important. Read John 5:29 and Matthew 16:27. That should shed light on why you live the Christian life instead of just believe it.

No, Paul. MIne is not the Catholic position. Works are part of the Christian life, but never the means by which we go to heaven nor the basis upon which we lay claim to heaven. The gospel is God saves you unconditionally by his grace. When you put yourself back into the equation by adding the requirement that we cooperate, then salvation is “of yourselves,” which is the exact opposite of what Paul says in Ephesians.

Paul c is not saying that. Stop adding words to his statements. There is no requirement. There is only cooperation in Christ’s very words: Take up your cross and follow me. (Or something like that. I forgot the exact words.) What better to love our Savior than to actually love him with all our strength. There is no greater love than for somebody to die for a friend. HE did this. HE loved us like His own. HE loved us to the very end. The very least we could do is love Him back. Love means actually doing something. When a father loves a son, he does things for him. Not just say, “I love you” and leave it at that.

Translation: God throws you a rope and you do the rest. That’s not even Semi-Pelagian Paul, that’s completely Pelagian. The gospel, Paul, is that God saves you completely, not partially. That’s what it means to be saved. Salvation is from hell and for heaven. God doesn’t save you from the former without delivering you to the latter. Any interpretation of the gospel that says, “God did his part, now you need to do yours” or “the rest” is simply no gospel at all, I’m afraid.

Well, that was a bad translation, a mistranslation if I ever saw one. So, this requires no further response other than that fact.

No Paul. We agree that each of us will be judged and God will render to each of us according to our works. For Christians, the judgment is not going to be a determination of whether one had done enough or done well enough to enter heaven; rather it will be to determine whether one was truly a Christian or not. It will be a disclosure of the truth about a person’s life.

“those who have done good deeds to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.” (John 5:29)

Jesus disagrees with your statement.

In any event, it is an odd thing that you say that it is to “determine whether one was truly Christian or not.” A true Christian is one who believes in Christ and loves unconditionally. One cannot believe in Christ and love conditionally; indeed, conditional love is not love at all. Chapter 13 First Corinthians beautifully speaks about the necessity of this love. So, we need faith AND love! Or, more plainly in the context of this conversation, faith AND works of love!

Apart from the righteousness of Christ whom we are to “put on” or in whom we have been “clothed” with the proper wedding garment, as the parable states, we have no hope of staying at that heavenly banquet.

Agreed.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Actually, Arianism had nearly won were it not for the advent of the pagan Emperor Julian, who was indifferent to the debate. It was *God’s providence *that preserved the truth.

Actually Julian persecuted all Christians equally, not favoring the Arians or Catholics. It was Athanasius (in the East) and the whole Roman Catholic contingent (the West) that continued to fight Arianism. And finally, and MOST importantly, it was preserved by the promise of Jesus Christ to never abandon His Church, and that the Gates of Hell would never prevail. So yes, you have made the Catholic point admirably. :clapping:

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I did not mean to derride, Greg. I apologize.

No worries! Apology accepted.

But, To further complicate the “Faith Alone” position, I will add this:

“if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.” ~ 1 Corinthians 13:2-3

Here, we have faith. We have a work of the law “give away and hand over so that I may boast”. We have love.

This proves a few things. “Works of the law” and “works through love” are NOT the same thing as Miguel thinks. We NEED faith as well as love, “Faith working through love” as St. Paul says in Galatians 5. And Faith without works is dead.

I am sure there are other things but these are what I thought up. Contrast this passage with Faith Alone. Compare it with Faith and Works.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

This is a strange way to interpret the Bible. By your reasoning, Paul’s letter to the Corinthians is only applicable to the Corinthians of his day, his letter to the Romans is only applicable to the Romans of this day, etc. In fact, your position would negate any scripture being applicable to you ,since nothing was addressed to you directly.

No Paul. The scriptures were given “for our instruction” (Romans 15:4). The basic supposition of our faith is that inspiration works in such a way that what was written in the past can continue to speak in the present. That, however, does not mean that we can take every proposition of scripture and personalize it. So, to take an example you can relate to, when Scripture says, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church,” we aren’t justified is concluding that Jesus is speaking to all of us. Why? Because the 2nd person singular verbs and the context make it perfectly clear that these words are for Peter. LIkewise, when we read–in the very SAME gospel–only three chapter later that “if you would enter into life keep the commandments,” we can see that Jesus intended these words for the Rich Young Ruler. Just as we would not personalize “thou art Peter,” so too we ought not personalize “keep the commandments.” But what can we do? We can learn these scriptures, interpret them contextually, and discern the teaching that is for us today (as Romans 15:4 asserts). When we follow the discourse to the end, we see in both cases, that Peter (petros the small rock) stands in contrast to Jesus (petra the massive rock), and can rightly conclude that Jesus is the foundation of the church, and not the one whom Jesus calls “Satan.” And in the case of the Rich Young Ruler, we can see that what is generalized by Jesus is the claim that riches are a barrier to the kingdom to heaven and that what is impossible for man is not impossible for God. What we can’t do is conclude that commandment-keeping is the means by which we go to heaven. That not only universalizes the particular, it also sets up an impossible contradiction between Matthew in Paul. It is to side with Law over Grace, when in the New Covenant, it is grace that we are under, not law.

Have you read Luke 16: How do you interpret this passage?
16 "The law and the prophets lasted until John; but from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone who enters does so with violence.
17 It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the smallest part of a letter of the law to become invalid.

I don’t read this as the New Covenant having already been established. Certainly the New Covenant was inaugurated with the preaching of the kingdom. But it wasn’t established until the cross, symbolized in the Lord’s supper. As a Catholic, I thought you new that already. So if the New Covenant isn’t yet established, then how could Jesus have expected the Rich Young Ruler to have been under its terms? So it therefore makes sense that Jesus would give him a “Law” answer since the “Law” was still in effect. Certainly this was a transitional period. Jesus was still in the process of establishing the terms of the New Covenant: “You have heard it said, but I say to you…” Now, if we take your view of things, you would be forced to conclude that IF the “law and prophets lasted until John,” THEN Jesus’ answer to the Rich Young Ruler, “if you would enter into life, keep the commandments,” is NO LONGER in effect because the very laws that he is supposed to keep were in effect only until John. But no one reads these texts this way and neither should you. A better approach: Jesus gave a specific prescription for the Rich Young Man’s problem that cannot be successfully generalized to everyone. (Are you really prepared to defend the claim that we all must sell our possessions and give them to the poor? Do even struggling middle class families need to do this? If not, why not?)

So this would imply that the new covenant was in place from the time of John the Baptist forward, but yet the law still remains. As for Jesus direction to the leper, the leper needed to show the priest that he was clean to re-enter Jewish society. Christians don’t need to do this to re-enter society

But if keeping the commandments is necessary for going to heaven Paul, then why isn’t offering the sacrifice Moses prescribed? How do you require one, but not the other? Explain, please.

Miguel, its not a matter of quantity or quality of works - God is not an accountant. Its a matter of intent.

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Actions do matter and the highway to hell is paved with good intentions. In fact the gospel message is that we are saved not because of the quality of our works, nor the quantity of our works, nor the intention with which we do them (as all motives are at least partly self-serving). We are saved simply because God wills to save us and those to whom he gives is grace are those whom he intends to save. Because you believe that sacraments give grace by their intrinsic efficacy, you’re forced to come up with all kinds of contrived distinctions between predestination to grace versus predestination to glory in order to explain how a baptized infant can grow up to become an Adolph Hitler (a baptized Roman Catholic) rather than a Mother Teresa (also a baptized Roman Catholic).

 

[fhansen]

Actually, Arianism had nearly won were it not for the advent of the pagan Emperor Julian, who was indifferent to the debate. It was *God’s providence *that preserved the truth.

Yes, it’s Gods providence that has preserved the truth in and through the CC, sometimes in spite of herself.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

No Paul. The scriptures were given “for our instruction” (Romans 15:4). The basic supposition of our faith is that inspiration works in such a way that what was written in the past can continue to speak in the present. That, however, does not mean that we can take every proposition of scripture and personalize it.

…LIkewise, when we read–in the very SAME gospel–only three chapter later that “if you would enter into life keep the commandments,” we can see that Jesus intended these words for the Rich Young Ruler. Just as we would not personalize “thou art Peter,” so too we ought not personalize “keep the commandments.” …

And in the case of the Rich Young Ruler, we can see that what is generalized by Jesus is the claim that riches are a barrier to the kingdom to heaven and that what is impossible for man is not impossible for God. What we can’t do is conclude that commandment-keeping is the means by which we go to heaven. That not only universalizes the particular, it also sets up an impossible contradiction between Matthew in Paul. It is to side with Law over Grace, when in the New Covenant, it is grace that we are under, not law.

Why do you have to bring the Truth of the the Pope into a discussion about Faith and Works? The Pope is true. There, you have asserted falsely and I have asserted the Truth. Make another thread for that. Nobody is saying that “commandment-keeping” is all that there is for going to Heaven, but we cannot deny that God wrote it on our hearts for a reason. That reason is so that we may keep them, literally. We like to read Scripture in context.

But if keeping the commandments is necessary for going to heaven Paul, then why isn’t offering the sacrifice Moses prescribed? How do you require one, but not the other? Explain, please.

God wrote them on our hearts for a reason! Deutoronomy 30:11-14: “For this command which I enjoin on you today is not too mysterious and remote for you. It is not up in the sky, that you should say, ‘Who will go up in the sky to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?’ Nor is it across the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?’ No, it is something very near to you, already in your mouths and in your hearts; you have only to carry it out.” Why did He do this if not for actually keeping them? Ez 36:26: I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees.

Anyway, the offering prescribed by Moses was fulfilled once for all in the Sacrifice on the Cross. I thought you knew this as a Christian.

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Actions do matter and the highway to hell is paved with good intentions. In fact the gospel message is that we are saved not because of the quality of our works, nor the quantity of our works, nor the intention with which we do them (as all motives are at least partly self-serving). We are saved simply because God wills to save us and those to whom he gives is grace are those whom he intends to save. Because you believe that sacraments give grace by their intrinsic efficacy, you’re forced to come up with all kinds of contrived distinctions between predestination to grace versus predestination to glory in order to explain how a baptized infant can grow up to become an Adolph Hitler (a baptized Roman Catholic) rather than a Mother Teresa (also a baptized Roman Catholic).

You misunderstand the Sacraments and grace. Although Sacraments do work ex opere operato (something like that), the fact that a person receiving them does horribly evil things gives more proof to John 5:29: those who have done wicked deeds to the resurrection of condemnation.

Grace is much much more than what allows us to go to Heaven. For example, by the grace of God, I am not an atheist anymore and I can now see things much more clearly than ever before. I was led down a long, dark path but has lovingly welcomed me into the light. This is a grace of God. It certainly is not a work of my own. Perhaps, because I opened my mind up a little, God’s grace paved the way to my salvation… But, it is still not something of my own. The Sacraments work grace in us to purify our intentions and to help us live more in Christ (as it is He who instituted them in the first place). But, we still have free will.

So, your argument that we are “forced” with contradictions is ill-founded. There are no contradictions. You are like the atheist who does not believe in God because of what he only perceives as contradictions, but there are none in reality.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

In fact the gospel message is that we are saved not because of the quality of our works, nor the quantity of our works, nor the intention with which we do them (as all motives are at least partly self-serving).

I find this very odd and contradictory to everything Christ taught us. Christ taught us that works do matter in the Christian life. Why would He tell us that if what you say is true? But, indeed going to Heaven is much more than doing good works. He said to Jeremiah:

“When you call me, when you go to pray to me, I will listen to you. When you look for me, you will find me. Yes, when you seek me with all your heart, you will find me with you, says the LORD.” (29:12-14a)

It seems as if you look at similar passages like this: “I am calling. I am praying. I am looking. I am seeking. These are no good for my ultimate destiny though. I just need to believe and that is all that matters.” Again, I am not saying you think this but in strict accordance to your posts, the idea is not too far off.

As a former atheist, this is one of my favorite passages in the Bible because it not only speaks to me from the words, but it is pretty close to home and my struggles. Why would He say to “seek me with all your heart” if this very action was not intended with very pure love? Or that we could not do it selflessly? Surely, He would know our capabilities. Christ even said, “Go and sin no more” in the Gospels. There is absolutely NO “self-serving” in with this intention. If it were self-serving, then you have thrown away everything Christ did for us. He had no “self-serving” in His works. Admittedly, we have trouble being selfless, but it is not impossible. No person who dies for a friend has “self-serving” intentions.

Anyway, I forgot what my point was in response to your post. lol… But, your idea is groundless. Except the “quantity of our works” part. That one I am in complete agreement with. Perhaps, even the “quality of our works” part also. Is the Magnificat prayer of the Pope better than the prayer “God, are you there?” of the atheist who fervently searches for God? Not at all! Is the almsgiving of the poor woman who gives her whole savings to the poor box better than the rich woman who gives only the surplus? Probably, but that is not for me to say.

 

[JonNC]

=shocktrooper;7650617]Jon, I do suggest that our good works are in fact, Christ working through us. This is what we are called to do. We are supposed to reflect Christ in our lives. The best way to do this is to put our trust in Him, build our faith on Him, and let Him, through the divine power of transformation work in our lives. Our will must submit to His will, but we have to play according to His rules.

Agreed! And as I said, I was impressed with your post.

Just as a priest acts in Persona Christi while administering the Sacraments, we too are called, in a lesser way, to be a witness for Christ to each other. We must be a sacrament, a visible sign that points to an invisible reality (Jesus- at least for now, for us). When we receive the Eucharist, we receive the glorious risen body of Christ. When we receive Him in this Sacrament, we receive a grace that is unspeakable, but it has to be received with the eyes of faith. Our part is receiving the grace, receiving and trusting in the faith that God gifts us. We must, as you and I agree, put that faith to work in our lives. If we don’t, we will be treated like the goats we are.

Again, we do agree.

But faith is more than just believing in Christ. It is submitting to His authority and to His Church. Even the demons know and believe in Christ. Starting your own church, while discarding a teaching of the true Church, is not really the fullness of faith that we are called to. If we only adhere to those teachings that tickle our earthly ears, then we are submitting to nothing. Satan chose not to serve. Serving is all about humility, and humility is all about putting others before us. We must choose to serve God, by serving others, and by accepting his gifts of grace and faith in the virtue of humility, an acknowledgement that we are nothing without God and need Him and His power to journey Home.

I appreciate your perspective here.

It all starts with the question of authority. No Protestant can come to believe in any Catholic doctrine that conflicts with their own until the authority issue is dealt with. I know this from personal experience. It boils down to believing one of the following, 1- Christ failed to usher in the new Kingdom, or 2- He was faithful to His promise and gave us His Kingdom in the Church. Now, if you come down on the side of option 2, then you have to submit to His authority which now lies in His Church.

Indeed, it is a question of authority, and how that authority was perceived in the undivided Church, and how it is perceived today in the various communions, east and west.

Today’s Gospel reading is exactly what this is about. Mt 25:31-46. Anyone that reads this Gospel and walks away saying our actions or “works” are meaningless are sadly mistaken.

Again, agreed.

Pax Christi

And also with you,
Jon

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The law of Christ is the law of Love. The “works of the law” which St. Paul strictly condemned were those works which were to fulfill the letter of the law. “I will give these people food because the law says I must.” Or something along those lines was what Paul condemned. Love of neighbor is NOT this type of work.

No Gregg. Not only does about every major Catholic Biblical scholar disagree with you on this, but so do people in this very forum, including Catholicdude, who agrees that the “works of the law” include everything the Old Testament prescribes and not merely the ceremonial and civil laws. So when you read your Old Testament, you’ll find that love of neighbor is all over the place. That too is a “work of the law,” because that is what the law requires. Paul is saying that there is nothing that we can do that can justify us, rather it is God who justifies us. Abraham is his example, par excellence, because Abraham believed that God was able to keep his promise to him. So long before there was circumcision, Abraham was already justified, says Paul. Romans 4 when you get a chance.

Love of neighbor has pure intentions which is why Christ commanded it in the first place. He also said, “Love God.” But I am surprised to see that there is no mention of this in your rebuttal.

We are definitely to attempt to love our neighbor with the purest of intentions. The trouble is that our intentions are seldom if ever pure. That said, I did talk about love of God. Or did you miss my quotation of Micah 6:8 that enjoins us to both love of neighbor (love justice) and love of God (walk humbly with our God)?

Although it is a dogma of faith, would minimalize it to a dogma of faith? No dogma of Christianity should be a mere dogma of Christianity. It is much much more than that, infinitely more.

What is the “it” to which you refer? You’re making no sense here.

fAnyway, my point is that “love of neighbor” with pure intentions as Christ commanded is what “good works” are. “Works of the law”, by definition, cannot be considered in the law Christ gave us, “love your neighbor”. The former considers the doctrine. The latter considers love. Works of the law are NOT pure. Works of love are pure, by the definition of “love”.

You’re free to hold whatever definition you want. But unless you’re going to back up your bare assertions with something like supporting reasons, don’t expect to convince anyone.

All you are doing is reading the words without the meaning. Syntactically, I would probably not be a Christian because indeed what could be more contradictory than Romans 3:28 and James 2:24.

That is why we read contextually and canonically. Most scholars resolve the apparent conflict by showing how James and Paul are talking about two aspects of the same reality, both using the word “justified.” Abraham provides James with the perfect example of a faith that has works, thus emphasizing that intellectual assent is meaningless apart from volition. The demons believe in monotheism and shudder. But they are hardly willing participants in the Divine life of the Trinity. For Paul, in contrast, but not in contradiction, Abraham provides Paul with the example of the person who trusts God, albeit imperfectly, but sufficiently. Paul then notes that he is “credited with righteousness” long before the formal giving of the law. Therefore, Abraham proves Paul’s point that one is justified apart from commandment-keeping.

So, your argument that “love of neighbor is a work of the law” (when considering the context that St. Paul meant) is ill-founded.

You haven’t even begun to interact with my argument. So how can you dismiss it without having engaged it?

You are attempting to distinguish between “works of the law” and “good works.” But how can you do that when the Old Testament, from which Paul defines “works of the law” also prescribes good works? And if “works of the law” excludes good works, what then does it include?

 

[GreggAlvarez]

No Gregg. Not only does about every major Catholic Biblical scholar disagree with you on this, but so do people in this very forum, including Catholicdude, who agrees that the “works of the law” include everything the Old Testament prescribes and not merely the ceremonial and civil laws. So when you read your Old Testament, you’ll find that love of neighbor is all over the place. That too is a “work of the law,” because that is what the law requires. Paul is saying that there is nothing that we can do that can justify us, rather it is God who justifies us. Abraham is his example, par excellence, because Abraham believed that God was able to keep his promise to him. So long before there was circumcision, Abraham was already justified, says Paul. Romans 4 when you get a chance.

You clearly misunderstood my proposition. I never stated there was that love was not part of the law. God would not instill that law if it had nothing to do with love. Think about that statement and read my post without bias. No Catholic disagrees with my position. Trust me. I know Catholic teaching better than you.

I read Romans 4. I actually had a Bible study with many non-Catholic friends. I enjoyed the fact that the fruitful conversation was about the Christian life and not a silly doctrine. I honestly thought it would come to that, but it did not and it proves the Catholic point of view, which is the “life” point of view. We live by Faith and Works and not by Faith Alone.

We are definitely to attempt to love our neighbor with the purest of intentions. The trouble is that our intentions are seldom if ever pure. That said, I did talk about love of God. Or did you miss my quotation of Micah 6:8 that enjoins us to both love of neighbor (love justice) and love of God (walk humbly with our God)?

Yes, I did miss that. It proves the Catholic point.

What is the “it” to which you refer? You’re making no sense here.

I am making perfect sense to the one who cares about context. “Dogma” is what “it” refers to.

You’re free to hold whatever definition you want. But unless you’re going to back up your bare assertions with something like supporting reasons, don’t expect to convince anyone.

I did. You do not like it. There is absolutely nothing I can do if you will not be fair to my post. I gave reasons. Argue with your intellect, not with your bias.

The fact that you do not agree does not mean that I had no supporting reasons.

That is why we read contextually and canonically. Most scholars resolve the apparent conflict by showing how James and Paul are talking about two aspects of the same reality, both using the word “justified.” Abraham provides James with the perfect example of a faith that has works, thus emphasizing that intellectual assent is meaningless apart from volition. The demons believe in monotheism and shudder. But they are hardly willing participants in the Divine life of the Trinity. For Paul, in contrast, but not in contradiction, Abraham provides Paul with the example of the person who trusts God, albeit imperfectly, but sufficiently. Paul then notes that he is “credited with righteousness” long before the formal giving of the law. Therefore, Abraham proves Paul’s point that one is justified apart from commandment-keeping.

You are hardly reading contextually. That requires taking into account the Scripture passages we give, not dismissing them because one passage seem to contradict it and so attempt to explain it away.

But Hmmm. I wonder why He gave the law in the first place. Surely, it was a superfluous act. Apparently, you are under the idea that it was not wrong to kill, steal, etc… before God told us the Commandments. Your argument has no logic in it. Give me something I can work with on this. Paul did not dismiss the Commandments.

In any event, I will attempt at whatever your just gave. The problem with your assertion is that justification, sanctification, salvation and going to Heaven seem to all be one and the same thing. Is that correct or did you say something you did not mean to say in accordance with the conversation?

You haven’t even begun to interact with my argument. So how can you dismiss it without having engaged it?

I did engage it. You just do not like it. Your argument tries to find a way out of faith and works when your own Christian life presupposes that faith and works are like the soul and body. There is nothing I can do against bias.

You are the when basing your entire argument on a doctrine. I am basing it on life. I go with life first (which all Catholic doctrine is) and then make reason. See the difference?

You are attempting to distinguish between “works of the law” and “good works.” But how can you do that when the Old Testament, from which Paul defines “works of the law” also prescribes good works? And if “works of the law” excludes good works, what then does it include?

Again, you misread me. I never made that attempt that “works of love” never included the law. Read my post. There is nothing I posted that remotely resembled that love did not include the law. The problem Paul had was that the Jews were doing works strictly fpr keeping the law and not actually loving people. They did it so people could see their works. In Matthew 6, Jesus condemned that form of “working”. THAT is what Paul meant. Yes, loving one’s neighbor is part of the law, but when we make it that and only that, then that is not love.

My argument still stands based on your noble straw man effort.

 

[ignatius777]

No Gregg. Not only does about every major Catholic Biblical scholar disagree with you on this, but so do people in this very forum, including Catholicdude, who agrees that the “works of the law” include everything the Old Testament prescribes and not merely the ceremonial and civil laws. So when you read your Old Testament, you’ll find that love of neighbor is all over the place. That too is a “work of the law,” because that is what the law requires. Paul is saying that there is nothing that we can do that can justify us, rather it is God who justifies us. Abraham is his example, par excellence, because Abraham believed that God was able to keep his promise to him. So long before there was circumcision, Abraham was already justified, says Paul. Romans 4 when you get a chance.

We are definitely to attempt to love our neighbor with the purest of intentions. The trouble is that our intentions are seldom if ever pure. That said, I did talk about love of God. Or did you miss my quotation of Micah 6:8 that enjoins us to both love of neighbor (love justice) and love of God (walk humbly with our God)?

What is the “it” to which you refer? You’re making no sense here.

You’re free to hold whatever definition you want. But unless you’re going to back up your bare assertions with something like supporting reasons, don’t expect to convince anyone.

That is why we read contextually and canonically. Most scholars resolve the apparent conflict by showing how James and Paul are talking about two aspects of the same reality, both using the word “justified.” Abraham provides James with the perfect example of a faith that has works, thus emphasizing that intellectual assent is meaningless apart from volition. The demons believe in monotheism and shudder. But they are hardly willing participants in the Divine life of the Trinity. For Paul, in contrast, but not in contradiction, Abraham provides Paul with the example of the person who trusts God, albeit imperfectly, but sufficiently. Paul then notes that he is “credited with righteousness” long before the formal giving of the law. Therefore, Abraham proves Paul’s point that one is justified apart from commandment-keeping.

You haven’t even begun to interact with my argument. So how can you dismiss it without having engaged it?

You are attempting to distinguish between “works of the law” and “good works.” But how can you do that when the Old Testament, from which Paul defines “works of the law” also prescribes good works? And if “works of the law” excludes good works, what then does it include?

Just a reminder of what Jesus said Matt 5:17. Also listen to Paul…Romans 13:8. How many times must it be repeated that “the law” refers to the rote practice of the rule of faith with the belief that just “going through the motions” will save you. Paul can not contradict Jesus who claims to have come to fulfill the law by saying the law is useless. Are you suggesting that Jesus came to fulfill the useless?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Just a reminder of what Jesus said Matt 5:17. Also listen to Paul…Romans 13:8. How many times must it be repeated that “the law” refers to the rote practice of the rule of faith with the belief that just “going through the motions” will save you. Paul can not contradict Jesus who claims to have come to fulfill the law by saying the law is useless. Are you suggesting that Jesus came to fulfill the useless?

I have no doubt that you are correct about the “rote practice” of the law. That’s a fairly reasonable assumption. The trouble is, however, no where does the Bible limit the concept of “the law” to “rote practice.” Paul described himself as “blameless” with respect to keeping the law and that many in Judaism were zealous about their faith. Those zealous Jews certainly were devout in their practice of the law. But that doesn’t change the fact that the basis for our justification in faith in Christ and not the keeping of the law, whether done in a “rote” fashion or done with the sincerest devotion and zeal.