S
Solus_Christus
Guest
Pick just about any on of his epistles, but Romans and Galatians are the most explicit. A couple of specific passages include Romans 4:16, Romans 5:2, Ephesians 2:8.
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Note the absence of any reference to the epistle of St. James.
Gotta read around those passages that so plainly teach Catholicism’s position.
And God forbid that we should refer to Our Lord’s own teaching in the Gospels, like in Matthew 25:31-46, (which was yesterday’s Gospel reading at Mass)
I
ignatius777
Guest
Romans 4:16 “16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham” PLEASE NOTICE not oonly to those of the law… Paul is NOT saying faith alone
Romans 5…yes saved by faith but it does not say works “alone” and James tells us faith without works is useless( James 2:20) and works complete faith (James 2:22)
Eph 2:8 Again it says by grace not faith alone.
Now please check out Romans 13:8, 13:10; Gal 5:14, 6:2
Jesus himself says Matt 5:17
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
Let me begin by saying that I see nothing wrong with Christians confessing their sins to one another. In fact, I see good biblical reasons to do so. What I do not see in the Bible, and would argue is contained exlcusively within Catholic tradition, is the notion that sins (mortal or otherwise) must be confessed to a priest for absolution. This stands in stark contrast to passages such as Hebrews 4:15-16 where we are told that our High Priest, Jesus Himself, is able and will extend to us mercy and grace. The requirement that our confessor be an earthly priest contradicts this passage.
This passage absolutely describes the priesthood in the New Testament, and it speaks entirely of Christ as our High Priest. If you want to understand the priesthood in the New Testament then you need to understand Christ’s role and position.
The meaning of the term “presbuteros” in Greek was simply “senior.” Paul instructs Timothy to treat elders (same Greek word) as fathers and younger men as brothers (1 Timothy 5:1). Therefore, it is NOT safe to assume the term had the same connotations back then as you suggest. Moreover, since the term “priest” was clearly established in the Greek (hiereus) we should have expected its use here in the passage in James 5 were that role in-view.
You assume Jesus disagreed with the scribes. He does not challenge their statement that only God can forgive sins, but rather their insinuation that He is a mere man. His response to the scribes: “‘But that you may know that the **Son of Man has authority **on earth to forgive sins’–he said to the paralytic-- ‘I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.’” He identifies Himself explicitly as having the authority. Since there is no visible way to prove that His forgiveness was efficacious, He healed the paralytic which, obviously, was yet another thing only God could do. Does God use human agents in the dispensation of His grace? Yes. But is going directly to Him precluded? No!
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
Note the absence of any reference to the epistle of St. James.
Gotta read around those passages that so plainly teach Catholicism’s position.
The reformer John Calvin said “We maintain that one is saved through faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.” (my paraphrase) No one who understands the Bible can preach a dead faith. Yes, it must be a living faith! Nevertheless, it is not the works that are efficacious in our salvation but rather the grace working through faith. First comes the faith, then comes the evidence of that faith (works). The works are a natural product of that faith (which is precisely what James is saying in his epistle).
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
Then why is it a requirement by the RCC that mortal sins be confessed to an earthly priest, and that Catholics are in danger of Hell until they do so? Why not require either confession to an earthly priest or confession to our High Priest?
I think this claim is dubious for reasons provided in my previous post.
Christ made a broad statement. The details for how confessions must be performed, when they are required, and any notion of penance or indulgences come entirely from Catholic tradition.
F
fhansen
Guest
We do acknowledge both if the sacrament is unavailable. The desire of confession is the critical factor. But by making confession a sacrament, the dynamic relationship between sin’s separating effect and graces reconciling effect is made physical-with an onus upon us to get the job done in the concrete-here and now. This humble act is an expression of our love for God-and of our sorrow for offending Him. We believe God saves us in community.
Lots of statements in Scripture are broad. Trinitarian doctrines are not so obvious, and this is the main reason the whole Christian world was on the verge of Arianism quite early on.
I
ignatius777
Guest
So faith must include works because as James says works completes faith and faith with no works is useless so works saves and not faith alone. Excellent. Its nice when we agree.
If works cant be seperated from faith then its not accurate to say we aresaved by faith alone
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Major faux pas…
Your position is what is completely unbiblical. As a matter of fact, your position takes away from Scripture. Your position is that if you believe in Christ’s work, you will be saved (or at least that is what your post implied). Christ’s own life is the refutation of that statement. And James 2:14: Can that faith save him?
I will grant you this though. Indeed, our works are not what save us, nor is it our faith. It is by grace; on this, we are in complete agreement. Ephesians 2:8 could be our starting point.
John 5:29 - “[T]hose who have done good deeds [will come] to the resurrection of life, but those who have done wicked deeds [will go] to the resurrection of condemnation.”
Matthew 16:27 - “For the Son of Man… will repay everyone according to his conduct.”
See also:
1 Sm 16:7
2 Sm 3:39
Eccl 11:9; 12:12
Ps 28:4; 62:12-3
Pr 24:12
Jer 17:10; 32:19
Mt 16:27
Jn 5:29
Romans 2:6-10
2 Cor 5:10
2 Tim 4:14
Rev 22:12; 2-3
I threw in Revelations 2-3 because it talks about works almost the entire time (especially 3). So, our works are clearly important. Remember, Christianity is a way of life, not a set doctrine. How we are to live is the Truth.
All Christians live by Faith and Works even though some brains tells them Faith Alone.
Nor is it faith. Can that faith save him? Remember that we are in agreement that we are saved by God’s grace.
In any case, it is quite peculiar that you mention that. You say faith without works is dead. I imagine that you also agree with James that works complete our faith (2:22) and that we are justified by works and not by faith alone (2:24). You might say that this is to justify in front of man but hear the word of the Lord:
But the Lord said to Samuel, “…Not as man sees does God see, because man sees the appearance but the Lord looks into the heart.” (1 Samuel 16:7)
So, you imply that works have nothing to do with Scripture and salvation. Yet, I imagine you live by faith AND works.
Our position is that faith and works are part of the same “entrance ticket” for lack of better words. You seem to think that we take Faith and Works as two “entrance tickets”, yet Christ’s life is the epitome of Faith and Works. No one can deny this. Without the Redemption (Works) nobody is saved. Without the desire to fulfill the will of His Father (Faith) perfectly, there is no Redemption. Faith may “come first” chronologically but BOTH are of utmost signifiance in our salvation.
Hypothetical situations: 1. If Christ did not have this desire through complete faith to fulfill the will of God, then the Crucifixion would not have been perfect because He would not be perfectly unblemished as was required. 2. If Christ did not go through with the Crucifixion, then His faith was dead and no salvation for anybody.
Neither are more significant than the other because both are indispensable to the Christain life. It is you who is stripping the Gospel of its Truth, not us adding to it.
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
I’m not quite sure how to answer this. I mean, are you suggesting that everyone is both a tare and wheat? Are all people (or any for that matter) both goats and sheep? Of course the Bible makes distinctions between people! It requires no one to throw out any portion of Scripture to recognize this simple fact.
Actually, the “natural branches” refer to Israel. The passage you quote is pointing out that those who were by birth part of God’s chosen people were cut off due to unbelief. Obviously, not all Jews were cut off because we are told in verse 5 of that chapter that a remnant remain. I think the point of the chapter is that no one should assume they are safe due to heritage or association. If, for example, I was raised in a good Christian home and was taught the Bible and catechism and attended church every Sunday, I am not thereby safe. If I reject God then neither my heritage nor my associations count for anything.
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
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.
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
I think it is more accurate to say that faith must be validated by works. These works proceed faith, not preceed. “What does Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3-5) Abraham never would have ascended Mount Moriah if he did not have faith. But since he had faith, works followed in the form of obedience to God by taking his son up the mountain and even to the point where he was prepared to plunge the dagger into the heart of his own son.
Yes, as many have pointed out here that is an incorrect statement because it really is by grace alone. Nevertheless, it is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
I see hope alongside faith. There’s no mention of love. Nor is there any mention here of a “living faith.” Perhaps you have James in mind who talks about a “dead faith.” I would agree that what Paul describes here is a living faith. But in context his point seems to be that long before there was circumcision, Abraham was already justified and this because he believed in God, not because he worked. “Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness”(Rom. 4:4-6). How exactly this squares with James who uses the same example to prove that authentic faith is active precisely because it does good works is definitely a discussion unto itself. But there can be no doubt that Paul’s understanding of faith is in contrast to those who would argue that our justification is based on legal observance. Speaking of hope, “hopefully,” we can both agree on that much.
Perhaps he does some place, but not in this passage: I’ll quote it for you: “But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” This passage seems to be more about God’s election than the basis for our justification, whether initial or ongoing. Notice also that there is no mention of “hope” here.
I agree. Conceptually they can be separated, but together they are all part of the “golden chain” of redemption.
So you say on the one hand. But later, I think you’re going to contradict yourself. See below. But just so we’re clear: Under the rubric “works of the law,” Paul includes all the commandments of the Old Covenant. These include, but are not limited to, the Ten Commandments, the ceremonial laws such as those that prescribe what to sacrifice, circumcision and even “love your neighbor.” Many understand “works of the law” as a technical term for specific, no-longer valid, aspects of the Jewish law (such as sacrificing bulls). But others, including very renowned Catholic scholars (See Fitzmyer’s fine commentary on Romans), argue that “works of the law” simply means all the “good works” that are prescribed by the law. IF that’s the case, THEN, Paul in fact is saying that we are not justified by doing good works in general since “good works” are subsumed under the category “works of the law.”
continued…
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Continued form previous post
Catholicdude:
Now for the yes part: Paul did reject the law “as one big package.” That’s how he was able to use language such as the following: “by abolishing the law in his flesh with its legal requirements” (Ephesians 2:15); “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). And yet Paul calls the law “good” and “holy” in other places. So what is going on here? I think that Paul does not see the keeping of every prescription of the law as the means by which we are justified; rather he sees the commandments as that which teaches us what is sinful and what is holy. We keep the law, not out of a sense of legal obligation, but because our love for Christ. It’s the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Instead of an external code motivating to do good and avoid evil with force of punishment behind it, we are instead asked to behave in the same way, doing the same good deeds and avoiding the same evils, albeit for completely different reasons: When we love Jesus, we keep the demands of the law, precisely because people who are love with Jesus are also in love with their neighbors. As John writes: “How can you love God whom you can’t see if you don’t love your neighbor whom you can see?”
Perhaps you are only saying what I was saying above: Content-wise, many of the commands of the Torah (such as love of neighbor, social justice, etc) are all demanded of the Christian as well. But the difference is that the Christian does these things because he/she has been regenerated and therefore has the love of Christ poured out into his/her heart, whereas in the Judaism of Paul’ day, many were giving an external compliance with the letter of the law, while disobeying the spiritual intent behind the laws both inwardly and outwardly. They may have had the formal show of religion, but inside they were “whitewashed sepulchers,” as Jesus once described the Pharisees.
continued…
Catholicdude:
No and yes. First the no part: “Faith alone” isn’t Paul’s language. It’s the language of the Reformers and therefore needs to be understood within the context of Reformation history. Sola fide is the claim that we are justified by faith alone, as opposed to faith + sacraments or faith + the corporeal works of mercy or faith + meritorious deeds or faith + __________(fill in with church requirement of choice). The Material Principle of the Reformation was not uttered in an historical vacuum; rather it was clearly a reaction to the perceived abuses that can largely be attributed to both a misunderstanding and misapplication of the prevailing theology of the day. Luther’s “troubled conscience” is far removed from Paul’s claim to be “blameless.” Luther questioned the opere operatum of the sacraments since after having confessed the same sins for the umpteenth time, performed the penance and done everything else the church required of him, he still felt himself to be a loathsome sinner. (This may say more about Luther than Rome, in my view). That said, I think he was still right to question the theology that said the sacraments are efficacious in and of themselves. Ironically, however, when you read Luther on the subject of works, he probably ties more importance to doing them as anyone else. The key I think is this: In Rome, good works are necessary in the “order of being” with respect to final salvation—that is, without them, one’s faith simply isn’t enough. In Protestantism, however, good works are necessary in the “order of knowledge” with respect to final salvation, since without them, one can never know whether or not one is in the faith or not. Either way you look at it, works are necessary for the Christian life. But are they “absolutely” necessary? I suspect most of use would agree that there are exceptions to the norm. Infants who die before they can do the good works that would be the evidence of their faith would—in most theologies—simply be presumed to be saved. Likewise, the good old thief on the cross didn’t have the opportunity to do any good works. And yet clearly his actions demonstrated his faith.
Now for the yes part: Paul did reject the law “as one big package.” That’s how he was able to use language such as the following: “by abolishing the law in his flesh with its legal requirements” (Ephesians 2:15); “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Colossians 2:14). And yet Paul calls the law “good” and “holy” in other places. So what is going on here? I think that Paul does not see the keeping of every prescription of the law as the means by which we are justified; rather he sees the commandments as that which teaches us what is sinful and what is holy. We keep the law, not out of a sense of legal obligation, but because our love for Christ. It’s the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Instead of an external code motivating to do good and avoid evil with force of punishment behind it, we are instead asked to behave in the same way, doing the same good deeds and avoiding the same evils, albeit for completely different reasons: When we love Jesus, we keep the demands of the law, precisely because people who are love with Jesus are also in love with their neighbors. As John writes: “How can you love God whom you can’t see if you don’t love your neighbor whom you can see?”
So, what was a “package deal” above is now sharply distinguished. I think this is where you’re contradicting yourself. Help me understand how, on the one hand, works of the law include everything prescribed by the law from turtledove sacrifices to love of neighbor, yet, on a completely different hand, exclude “good works.” I thought we were in agreement that “works of the law” subsumes “good works” since the Old Testament clearly prescribes that we do good works as part of loving one’s neighbor. “You have been shown, O man what the Lord requires of thee: to love justice, and mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).You are right. But you cannot then turn around and say after Justification Christians are called to do “works of the Law” as part of their Sanctification. Christians can be called to do “good works” after Justification, but that is not synonymous with “works of the Law”!
Perhaps you are only saying what I was saying above: Content-wise, many of the commands of the Torah (such as love of neighbor, social justice, etc) are all demanded of the Christian as well. But the difference is that the Christian does these things because he/she has been regenerated and therefore has the love of Christ poured out into his/her heart, whereas in the Judaism of Paul’ day, many were giving an external compliance with the letter of the law, while disobeying the spiritual intent behind the laws both inwardly and outwardly. They may have had the formal show of religion, but inside they were “whitewashed sepulchers,” as Jesus once described the Pharisees.
continued…
I
ignatius777
Guest
To whom must faith be validated? You? God? God knows a believers heart so it would appear as though He wouldnt need validation? How can works validate faith but not be necessary for faith to exist?
Ok lets assume for a moment that works do proceed from faith we would agree wouldnt we that a workless faith cant save anyone, correct? So faith ALONE cant save and just because works comes from faith doesnt mean it isnt necessary for a saving faith. A roof cant be put on a house until the foundation is laid and the walls erected so would you argue a roof isnt necessary for a house? If its true that a roof alone doesnt make a house then faith alone cant bring salvation.
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
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. 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. 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)
Read Romans and Galatians, friend. All of it. Works validate our faith, not the other way around.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Yes, faith precedes works chronologically. That is not to say that faith is more important than works (nor are we saying the vice-versa).
But, you yourself say that faith is “validated by works” and I would agree. This is what you are saying. “We are given grace through faith. That very faith is validated by works, but in the end we need no works, even though those works validate the faith.”
So, you say we are saved by faith alone, yet you say that works validate the faith. And your probably live in those good works like Ephesians 2:10 says. You probably also make a constant conversion towards Christ to further strengthen your faith and relationship with God. Hmmm… What speaks louder? Words or actions?
In addition to my last post, I have sufficiently shown that not only are faith and works necessary for salvation, but I have shown that the Christian life also proves your own statements wrong, not to mention Christ’s own life. Catholic doctrines are a way of life, as all Christians doctrine should be. To say “Faith Alone” is to negate all Christ worked for. To LIVE the Christian life is to have that faith you are talking about.
Faith + Works = Living Faith (“Faith that worketh in Love”)
Faith Alone = Dead Faith
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Continued…
Catholicdude:
Therefore since the content of the “law” of the Old and New are either identical or stand in typological relationship to one another, it is difficult to understand on what basis a Christian church would distinguish between the “Old” law and the “New” law. To me, that is to read to New Testament as if it were the Old and the Old Testament as if it were the new.
Happily there is a real distinction to be made—a distinction with a real difference, namely, Law versus Grace. As Christians we are under grace, not law. As you present it, it seems that Rome is saying, “not under the Old Law but the New Law,” which is to give us more of the same burden that, in the words of the first pope, “neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear” (see Acts 15).
Continued…
Catholicdude:
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.
Right. And no one, Protestant or Catholic, has ever said otherwise.
First, there is a lot of difference between “can” “should” and “must.” So lumping them together like you do, isn’t very helpful. A Christian who says you “should” do good works may have a completely different theology from the one who says you “must” do them. Be that as it may, your claim here is a non-sequitur given your other premises. Circumcision is a “work of the law.” The “works of the law” include “good works.” But it doesn’t follow that circumcision is a good work. Imagine two circles inside a larger one. The larger one is “works of the law.” The other two circles are “circumcision” and “good works.” That’s how I would see it. You, on the other hand, seem to see circumcision as a circle within “good works.” But I’m not sure that’s the case at all.
I think I finally see your point. I think I’ve already responded. I see “works of the law” as the umbrella term that covers everything from “good works” to “circumcision.” But I think it’s a category mistake, from a Pauline perspective, to see circumcision as an instantiation of “good works.” Also, as Paul says else where, Christians are to do “good works” (Ephesians 2:10). But remember that “good works,” as a category, are subsumed under the larger category of “works of the law.” But the content of those “good works,” are still things Christians do. So, as I said earlier, while a Christian may be doing things that would come under “the works of the law,” he or she does not do them because they are works of the law; rather s/he does them because that is what God has prepared for us to do in advance. It’s therefore no the “what” but the “why” that has changed in Paul’s thinking. When still under the law, Paul noticed how the command, “thou shalt not covet,” was used by “Sin”(personified) to produce in him all kinds of covetousness (see Romans 7). But now, as regenerated believer, Paul no longer covets because of the transforming power of God’s grace and so he keeps the demands of the law, not because it’s a legal requirement, but because he loves Jesus. At least that’s how I read it.
I agree with the distinction between legal systems. But in the “new” legal system where the “law of Christ” is operative, there still is no place for legalism. The motivation is intrinsic rather then extrinsic. When the Church creates another extrinsic legal system, in recreates the very error that Jesus and Paul tried to reform in their day. My fear then is when you trade, “faith without works of the law,” for “faith with good works done in the state of grace,” you’re making a distinction with no essential difference. The reason why is this. When you populate the category of “works done in the state of grace” wit actual concrete names, you end up coming up with a list of requirements that is virtually identical in content to what was under “works of the law.” For example: The Old says “love your neighbor.” But so does the New. The Old says “circumcision.” The New says “Baptism.” The Old says “animal sacrifice.” The New says “sacrifice of the mass.” The Old says “Keep the Sabbath,” the New says “Keep holy the Lord’s Day” as a precept of the Church, and on and on it goes.
Therefore since the content of the “law” of the Old and New are either identical or stand in typological relationship to one another, it is difficult to understand on what basis a Christian church would distinguish between the “Old” law and the “New” law. To me, that is to read to New Testament as if it were the Old and the Old Testament as if it were the new.
Happily there is a real distinction to be made—a distinction with a real difference, namely, Law versus Grace. As Christians we are under grace, not law. As you present it, it seems that Rome is saying, “not under the Old Law but the New Law,” which is to give us more of the same burden that, in the words of the first pope, “neither we nor our ancestors were able to bear” (see Acts 15).
Continued…
S
Solus_Christus
Guest
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.
M
Miguel_Sastre
Guest
Continued…
Catholicdude:
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. If salvation is by Grace, then it is God who saves us. If it is “not of yourselves,” then it is not by cooperation, since in order to cooperate, you have to put “yourself” back into the equation. By trying to distinguish between obsolete “works of the law” and new-and-improved “good works done in the state of grace as determined by the Church of Rome,” you make Paul’s letter to the Ephesians virtually null and void. Nice try though.
Catholicdude:
Sure you can. If a particular aspect of the Old Covenant has been fulfilled in and by the New, then that part of the Old Covenant is obsolete. For this reason we do not pour the blood of bulls and goats over our altars and we no longer circumcise our firstborn males. But we do continue to love our neighbor, honor our mother and father, etc because these kinds of commands have been carried over into the New. So while we keep commands that are in the Old, we don’t keep them because they are in the Old, but rather because they are in the New.
Yes and no. “Works of the law” isn’t always used with technical precision by Paul and neither is “good works.” Sometimes they are used interchangeably and when they are, we can use them that way as well. But if we press Paul on the matter, then I think he would say that good works, as well as things like circumcision and sacrifices can all be subsumed under the heading “works with the law” because when we read the books of the Old Testament, those are the prescriptions we find there—everything from loving neighbor and sacrificing turtle doves—all are prescriptions of the Law.
No and yes again. First the “yes” part. Yes, the Mosaic Law is fulfilled. No, that does not mean there aren’t laws within it that are no longer binding. For some reason you probably still believe, “thou shalt not kill” and “honor your mother and father” are still binding upon the Christian. The answer is not because, “Moses said so,” (even though he did); rather it’s because Christ said so. In other words, while fulfilling the Law and abolishing it’s legal force upon us, Jesus still upholds the moral content of that law and expects us to behave accordingly. That’s why not one “iota” will pass away from it. So when I say “still in effect,” I mean that there some of the content of the Old law is carried over into the New. What has changed is the reason why we are to obey those laws now that we are under Grace and no longer under Law.
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. If salvation is by Grace, then it is God who saves us. If it is “not of yourselves,” then it is not by cooperation, since in order to cooperate, you have to put “yourself” back into the equation. By trying to distinguish between obsolete “works of the law” and new-and-improved “good works done in the state of grace as determined by the Church of Rome,” you make Paul’s letter to the Ephesians virtually null and void. Nice try though.
- Status