A simple argument refuting Faith Alone

[GreggAlvarez]

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.

Rote fashion is not sincere if all you are trying to do is obey the law instead of loving. There is no way around that fact. Anyway, Paul does mention the “letter of the law”. That is what we are talking about here. That is what “works of the law” means.

But, I think we are talking past each other here. The focus has changed. We are not talking about good works as keeping with the law. We are talking about good works that sincere intentions, which includes the law, but is not limited to the letter of the law. If we have faith but have no love, we are nothing. “All you need is love.” (To quote a popular song.) How could we be justified if that very faith is without love? If it is with love, then works of love/charity are surely a requisite of that faith that justifies us. Faith is the body and the works are the soul. If it is NOT with love, then that is no different that “keeping of the law” because the mind is telling you “Do this to obey the law. Do that so I do not get in trouble.” That is the same thing as saying “I believe in Christ. Now what?”

Nowhere are we saying that we do not need faith in Christ as the assumption seems to be heading that way. In any case, what is your definition of faith? Is it just an intellectual assent? If so, how is that any different than mere “keeping of the law”?

My definition of faith is a combination of Hebrews 11:1, Galatians 5:5-6 and James 2:17:
“Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and the evidence of things unseen.”
“For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness… but only faith working through love.”
“So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.”

This is what I believe Faith is. Faith is the body and the works are the soul. Remember in Matthew 6 where Jesus tells us to do almsgiving, fasting and prayer without anybody knowing? Well, the soul is what is not seen. But, that is what makes me and you alive. In the same way, good works is what makes our faith alive and this is why we believe salvation comes from faith and works. I do not think that a single Christian can disagree with this. Perhaps, they will disagree with the letters of the doctrine, but certainly not with the doctrine itself.

 

[ignatius777]

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.

CORRECT my friend. However Paul goes to great lengths to note works of the LAW. No work of any type is useful nore is faith without works of any type. You wouldnt argue that sincere works of the LAW done in faith arent necessary since faith with no works is dead, correct? Paul cant be denouncing sincere works of the law done in faith right?

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

CORRECT my friend. However Paul goes to great lengths to note works of the LAW. No work of any type is useful nore is faith without works of any type. You wouldnt argue that sincere works of the LAW done in faith arent necessary since faith with no works is dead, correct? Paul cant be denouncing sincere works of the law done in faith right?

Paul never “denounces” the works of the law. He simply denies that they are the basis for our justification. In fact, he calls the law “good” and “holy” in several places. As for the rest of what you said, I’m really not following you. What do you mean by “sincere works of the Law done in faith?” I don’t get it.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Miguel,

I’m trying to catch up on the 4-post response you gave. As I was responding, I noticed much of it was addressed later on, thus I/we were repeating ourselves at times. Given that, I’ve edited out any parts I think are redundant and others that are not directly pertinent (to keep my response a reasonable length).

I see hope alongside faith. There’s no mention of love. Nor is there any mention here of a “living faith.”

I see hope (and love) as giving faith “life,” hence why Rom 4:18 says “in hope he believed”. I do not see hope (or love) “alongside” faith, as if faith could be living on it’s own or can amount to anything on it’s own (the popular notion faith is a ‘empty hand’ has no basis in Scripture and pure eisegesis). At the very least, this discredits any reading of “faith apart from works” as equivalent to “faith apart from hope (or love)”. The idea that love is implied is easily warranted by considering other texts.

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.

But where is Paul’s logic in Rom 4:9-14 if he’s merely going back to “before circumcision”? In other words, if “works” here is universal ‘good works’, then going back to the institution of circumcision is arbitrary and nonsense. But if Paul has something other than ‘good works in general’ in mind, then going back to circumcision can have meaning. And certainly circumcision cannot be the epitome of good works.

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.”

Correct. Some Jews have even attempted to count the number of individual commandments in the Torah and the ‘golden number’ they’ve traditionally set upon is 613.

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.”

You don’t need to look to Fitzmyer, this same thing is understood and taught traditionally in Catholicism in major figures like Augustine and Aquinas. You wont see even Trent limit works of the Law to “ceremonial works”. The only clarification is that “works of the Law” is not a synonym for “good works,” only the 613 commandments of the Torah. The problem with making “works of the Law” synonymous with “good works” is that circumcision must be considered a “good work” (which is my original argument).

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.”

That’s not how the Law works, since it’s an all or nothing package. You are not “under the Law” if you don’t subscribe to all of it; you cannot go through the 613 commandments and pick and choose which to keep. If you are not “under the Law” (a member of the Mosaic Covenant) then you are not legally bound to keep any of the 613.

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 + (fill in with church requirement of choice).

If it is not Paul’s language, then to me that already makes the Sola Fide thesis dubious. The burden is on the Reformer to say “works of the Law” includes like agape (Christian love) and Baptism (which wasn’t even commanded in the Law) in order to logically jump to “Faith alone”.

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.

The Catholic objection here is twofold: First, the Protestant mistakenly assumes “final salvation” is what is meant by “saved” and “justified” in Paul, when in fact Paul doesn’t tie “eternal life” to those moments (most Protestants never realize this), and Scripture only says works are the ground for the Final Judgment (not faith or Christ’s righteousness). Second, the Protestant notion of “good works will automatically flow from a truly saved person” is not only not Biblical, it’s purely subjective, and thus ultimately fails to provide the very thing Luther so desperately chased: (infallible) assurance.

(cont 1 of 4)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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)

Agreed. This, I believe, sets up one to realize Paul wasn’t and couldn’t have been contrasting faith to ‘good works in general’. This is further buttressed by the fact none of the 613 commands of the Torah said anything about Baptism or Lord’s Supper.

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.

You are right that we keep Christ’s Commandments out of love for Christ, but you are wrong to say “we keep the law,” since only Jews were bound to keep the (now abolished) Law. And yet keeping Christ’s Commandments out of love for Him does not in any way indicate our salvation is not tied to keeping them (quite the opposite).

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 am not saying “works of the Law” excludes “good works,” I’m only saying the two terms are not synonymous.

A simply look at Salvation History demonstrates my point: Long before God delivered the 613 Commandments (Mosaic Law) to the Jews as part of entering into a covenant with them, people were doing good and evil acts that were good or evil independent of the Mosaic Law. Cain killed Abel hundreds of years before the Law was given which included the command “thou shall not kill.” Killing is still a sin even though the (Mosaic) Law was abolished at the Cross. When a Gentile commits sin, nobody can point and say “he broke the Mosaic Law” because the Mosaic Law doesn’t apply to him, and this is even more true if the Gentile (e.g. Abraham) lived long before the Law was even given.

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.

You can’t be doing a ‘work of the Law’ properly speaking unless you are under the Law (and thus bound to observe all of it). The Law does not have a monopoly on any ‘good work’. Consider my previous example: if you steal in America, saying that you’re breaking British law doesn’t have relevance, even if British law also forbids theft.

Thus, when Paul says “justified by faith apart from works of the Law,” this in no way necessitates

“faith apart from loving neighbor.” Right. And no one, Protestant or Catholic, has ever said otherwise.

I disagree. This is how the formula for “faith alone” came about: all works are excluded, leaving faith ‘alone’.
The biggest proof of this is that when Luther translated Romans 3:28, he added the word “alone” when he interpolated “faith apart from works of the Law”. **Now, if “works of the Law” meant ‘any and all good works’, then his interpolation and addition of ‘alone’ **was justified (pardon the pun). Here is his logic, plain and honest in his Open Letter on Translating:
I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum [alone] in Romans 3:28]. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. … So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.
The main problem is not that he added the word ‘alone’, but that he conflated “works of the Law” with ‘good works’ in general. Works of the Law includes (but not limited to) things like circumcision, and must be kept as a whole.

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.

It is precisely your categorizing of the Law which I’m objecting to: you cannot personally create “two circles” within the large circle “works of the Law”. You cannot say “ignore this circle of works but focus on and keep this other circle,” the Law doesn’t work like that, and it’s not exegetically justified either, especially when Paul uses circumcision as his prime example.

Since you admit circumcision is not a good work, then for Paul to be opposing faith to circumcision would logically mean Paul was opposing faith to non-good works (like circumcision), meaning, exegetically, good works wasn’t his focus.

(cont 2 of 4)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.”

If you see “WotL” as an umbrella term, then on what exegetical basis do you proceed to single out some commands as ‘good works’ but not others? And as I noted above, circumcision is Paul’s favorite example of a “WotL”, so if it’s really ‘good works’ Paul’s focused on, his logic doesn’t follow (which is obviously a reductio ad absurdum).

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.”

I don’t see this exegetically warranted. It amounts to saying we can cut up the Torah and cherry pick the 613 commandments, keeping only (what you consider) the ‘good works’ and ignoring the rest. The context of Eph 2:10, to me, points strongly away from taking a narrow interpretation of ‘works’ rather than Law as a whole (see esp 2:15).

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.

Amen - this is right along my line of thinking. What I’m trying to get you to see is that it’s a category mistake (and exegetically unwarranted) to limit/equate “WotL” in Paul to ‘good works’.

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.

Jesus was dealing with hypocritical-legalism (for lack of a better term), but I don’t think that was Paul’s primary issue. The Judaizer mistake was thinking the Mosaic System offered eternal life (when it didn’t, even if kept perfectly), when in fact it was actually a tool to expose and condemn sin (Gal 3:15-18). As a crude analogy: traffic laws are made to expose and condemn speeders, but traffic laws don’t reward you for keeping them.

Regardless though, it would be a mistake to think “law of Christ” can be substituted whenever Paul speaks of “WotL,” though ‘legalism’ is condemned in both Covenants.

When the Church creates another extrinsic legal system, in recreates the very error that Jesus and Paul tried to reform in their day.

I disagree because I consider this a leap to conclusions based on a faulty premise. By your logic, when Paul says “apart from Works of the Law” he includes things like Baptism, when the 613 commands never mention Baptism, thus arbitrarily changing the definition of “WotL”. Another good example is Acts 15:1, where in response to the Judaizers demanding circumcision, the Church ruled the Gentiles avoid immorality and three dietary restrictions (15:20). Surely the Church wasn’t exchanging one “extrinsic legal” system for another, with all other things being equal.

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.

I would say your fear is based on misunderstanding. There very much is an “essential difference,” but even if you disagree you’d have to justify your ‘no essential difference’ thesis exegetically, when exegetically the Mosiac Law is the only thing in view. Thus to say the Old mentions circumcision and Sabbath but the New mentions Baptism and Lord’s Day and then equate the two is unwarranted. Further, many of the moral commands of the New way outshine the standards of the Old, just read Matthew 5b.

Mark 10:2-12 is one of my favorite examples since it shows under the Law you can divorce and still be a good Jew where Jesus says you now cannot divorce and be a good Christian. This explicitly refutes the idea the Law’s moral claims are equal or synonymous to the “law of Christ”.

(cont 3 of 4)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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).

What you’re describing is a false dichotomy known as the “law-gospel distinction,” which is a systematic construct and not an exegetically based one. The only “Law” the Apostles ‘opposed’ was the Mosaic Law, not the “law of Christ” or any Church authority to impose disciplinary and moral commands (Acts 15:20).

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.

It’s false to limit fulfillment of the Old Covenant to particular aspects and claim only parts of the Old are obsolete, because what that in effect says is that the Old Covenant is still around and valid in some real sense - which is false and the Judaizer heresy. When Paul says the Cross abolished the Law, that is an absolute and all encompassing, not only certain parts. Your last sentence confirms what I’ve been saying: the Old doesn’t have a monopoly on ‘good works’, nor does it encompass all good works. To build on this, the “faith” Paul mentions wasn’t basic Jewish faith, but a more radical and new faith, Christian Faith, so I see no reasonable grounds to say Paul was opposing Christian virtues when contrasting Christian Faith to “WotL”.

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.

I reject your claim Paul doesn’t use those two terms with precision, since that would entail confusing and conflating issues as well as equivocation. To suggest such is a dubious claim that would take a major case to prove other wise. To say they can be used ‘interchangeably’ is a grand assumption, and precisely the dogmatic assumption I’m trying to expose as false. Paul was a far more competent apologist than to play fast and loose with terminology, especially when he said salvation is on the line.

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.

The only moral principles that “carry over” are those which were already universally moral principles before the Mosaic Law even existed, and which the Mosaic Law happened to codify. The moral precept “do not steal” was binding on all men centuries before Moses came around, it wasn’t invented on Sinai. And as I noted above, if you read texts like Matthew 5b, you’ll see Jesus’ moral demands actually go beyond the demands of Moses, so there was no direct ‘transplanting’ of ‘good works’ from Moses to Jesus.
(4 of 4)

 

[ignatius777]

This seems to be contradictory. If he says we are justified by faith apart from works of the law, how is he not saying by faith alone? He is saying it is not by works we are justified, but by faith, understanding that the faith we are talking about is an active faith, one that obeys the commands of Christ to care for the least of his children.

Jon

Works of the LAW my friend. If the “works” that Paul is talking are the same “works” that James is talking about then we have a contradiction. Paul says faith “alone” (your interpretation) apart from works of the law saves yet James says we are saved by works and not faith alone.

If they arent talking about the same kind of works then some kinds works dont save but some kinds of work do.

 

[FCCopleston]

In the course of talking with a Protestant, I came up with an argument I think refutes Faith Alone by failing to understand what kind of works Paul was condemning. Here is the argument:

1. My first question to the Protestant is: In places like Acts 15:1 we see the Judaizers teach, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Does this mean circumcision a ‘good work’?
2. If circumcision is not a ‘good work’, then why would it make sense to say Paul was condemning all good works in general when he said “faith not works of the law”? (Keep in mind Paul condemned getting circumcised in places like Gal 5:3-4.)
3. If circumcision is a ‘good work’, then why don’t Christians get circumcised and obey other laws (e.g. dietary laws) in the Law of Moses?

At this point, the Protestant is in a bind, for if they say circumcision is a good work, then they have no reason why Christians are avoiding doing such ‘good works’. If they say no, it is not a good work, then they cannot argue Paul was arguing “faith alone” when he said ‘no’ to ‘works of the law’.

Sorry, Catholic Dude, your argument is invalid.

It suffers from the fallacy of false alternatives, seeing that you do not include the alternative that there are some works which are* indifferent*. Acts 15 does not tell us whether circumcision is or is not good work; it does tell us, however, that the commandment to be circumcised as a prerequisite to acceptance into the Christian community is a false and pernicious lie.

In Christ,
FCCopleston

 

[fhansen]

This seems to be contradictory. If he says we are justified by faith apart from works of the law, how is he not saying by faith alone? He is saying it is not by works we are justified, but by faith, understanding that the faith we are talking about is an active faith, one that obeys the commands of Christ to care for the least of his children.

Jon

I think this points to the the crux of the differences here. Faith, active or otherwise, doesn’t care-faith knows. Love cares. Is God really satisfied with faith alone, or is He also trying to get us not only to love-but to love fully-to a love which is the highest goal for mankind-that which truly justifies him, that which he was made for: Sola Amor? What is Paul getting at when he says the Law justifies no one in Gal 3? He’s saying that observance of the letter of the Law does not make us righteous.

**Circumcised on the eighth day, 6 of the race of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrew parentage, in observance of the law a Pharisee,
in zeal I persecuted the church, in righteousness based on the law I was blameless.
(But) whatever gains I had, these I have come to consider a loss 7 because of Christ.
More than that, I even consider everything as a loss because of the supreme good of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have accepted the loss of all things and I consider them so much rubbish, that I may gain Christ
and be found in him, not having any righteousness of my own based on the law but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God, depending on faith
to know him and the power of his resurrection and (the) sharing of his sufferings by being conformed to his death,
if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
It is not that I have already taken hold of it or have already attained perfect maturity, 9 but I continue my pursuit in hope that I may possess it, since I have indeed been taken possession of by Christ (Jesus).
Brothers, I for my part do not consider myself to have taken possession. Just one thing: forgetting what lies behind but straining forward to what lies ahead,
I continue my pursuit toward the goal, the prize of God’s upward calling, in Christ Jesus.
**
Is Paul questioning his own faith here-that it could possibly be insufficient for him to attain eternal life? Or isn’t he telling us that he must mature beyond mere faith?

The phrase “righteousness of my own” harkens back to the fall of man. With the original sin, man stole a prerogative that God alone had a right to-the determination of right and wrong. With this sin man’s righteousness was no longer God-based, it was self-based, the self-righteousness we now possess that allows for all sin which followed from this first one. This effectively eliminated God from their lives-from the life and operation of His Spirit within; God was no longer the god of them; they were their own gods.

This situation didn’t change when the Law was received. IOW, man wasn’t yet reconciled with God, and the Law, no matter how perfect and even spiritual it was, wouldn’t serve to reconcile them either. The Law was a teacher-showing us how we would behave were we not sinful, were we not separated from the God we need in order to be authentically obedient. When Paul speaks of Gods’ righteousness in Phil 3:9, he’s speaking of the righteousness man originally possessed-the righteousness God writes in the hearts of His creatures, the righteousness He promises to restore in Jer 31:33. He’s not speaking of a merely imputed righteousness.

And it’s only when the righteousness of God becomes mans righteousness that man is just. And this righteousness is comprised of love-of mans loving God with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, and his neighbor as himself, where the Law just happens to be fulfilled, as Jesus tells us it must be in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

At the very least, this discredits any reading of “faith apart from works” as equivalent to “faith apart from hope (or love)”. The idea that love is implied is easily warranted by considering other texts.

I agree with part of this. While I don’t see Paul putting faith, hope and love together with justification, it is difficult to imagine him saying, “sure we’re justified by faith that has no hope or love.” That would make no sense given everything else he has said.

But where is Paul’s logic in Rom 4:9-14 if he’s merely going back to “before circumcision”? In other words, if “works” here is universal ‘good works’, then going back to the institution of circumcision is arbitrary and nonsense. But if Paul has something other than ‘good works in general’ in mind, then going back to circumcision can have meaning. And certainly circumcision cannot be the epitome of good works.

I don’t think Paul’s choice to single out circumcision was just pulling a random example out of the hat of commandments prescribed in the Old Testament. Clearly he is responding to the Judaizers who were making circumcision a prerequisite for becoming a Christian. But Paul’s argument isn’t that only circumcision is no longer required, but that all works of the law are no longer required. He even goes so far to say, in the case of the Galatians, that those who would be circumcised have in fact separated themselves from Christ and fallen from grace. Against the background of the Judaizers who wanted to impose circumcision on the Gentiles, Paul’s appeal to the example of Abraham makes eminent sense. After all, Scripture says Abraham was justified by his faith, long before he was circumcised and hundreds of years before the giving of the law. But does this mean that Paul thought Abraham was justified by more than his faith? Absolutely not. You keep trying to sneak in good works (as distinguished from works of the law), but it won’t work. Why? Because of these words from Romans 4:

“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 4:4-5).

As we can see, “the one who works” isn’t quite the language of “works of the law,” but because circumcision is in mind throughout, it seems to me that Paul does have work of the law in mind here. But it is impossible to say that Paul only has “works of the law” in mind “but not other good works,” when, the principle he establishes is so crystal clear. Trust in God rather than trust in one’s own work is the basis for the claim that it is God who justifies the ungodly.

It seems to me the Catholic would have to rewrite this as follows:

“Now to the one who works (i.e., keeps the law), wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. (But to the one who does good works while in the state of grace, God condignly credits with merit.) However, to the one who does not work (that is, the one who does not keep the law for law-keeping’s sake), but trusts (and also hopes and loves) God who justifies (makes righteous) the ungodly, their faith (hope, and love and other good works done in the state of grace) is credited (that is, infused into the person) as righteousness.”

As you can see, your theological position dies the death of a thousand qualifications, provisos, i.e.’s etc. But if we just let Paul speak for himself, the principle he is espousing is quite clear. God justifies the ungodly on the basis of faith and not works. And the “works” in question are any work whatsoever, whether the “works of the law” or the “corporeal works of mercy” or anything that we can claim as our own doing. When we put ourselves back into the equation, justification becomes synergistic when truly it is monergistic, or the work of one.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Catholic Dude:

You don’t need to look to Fitzmyer, this same thing is understood and taught traditionally in Catholicism in major figures like Augustine and Aquinas. You wont see even Trent limit works of the Law to “ceremonial works”.

So you say on the one hand. But….

The only clarification is that “works of the Law” is not a synonym for “good works,” only the 613 commandments of the Torah.

So you take away with the other. You’re position is utterly incoherent on this point. How can you, on the one hand, affirm that “works of the law” include all the prescriptions of the Old Testament, which Jesus nicely summed up in the two Great Commandments, (love God, love neighbor), but on the other hand, draw a distinction between the works of the law and “good works”? How do they differ? What “good work” is there that doesn’t fall under the heading, “love of God or love of neighbor?”

The problem with making “works of the Law” synonymous with “good works” is that circumcision must be considered a “good work” (which is my original argument).

Again, whether or not circumcision is to be considered among the mitzvot, it is still a prescription of the Law. So is loving God and loving neighbor. Everything from turtledoves to justice for the poor—it’s all prescribed in the Old Testament. But none of these things is the basis upon which God justifies the ungodly. To the one “who does not work,” God credits with righteousness. It doesn’t matter if that work is getting circumcised or selling one’s possessions and giving them to the poor. Neither act, according to Paul, is the basis for our justification. Only faith. But now if you were to press Paul and ask him what he meant by faith, I think you and I would be in near agreement on this point. The kind of faith Paul talks about is Abrahamic faith. It doesn’t waver. It trusts. It is, in his words to the Galatians, a faith that “works through love.” It is a faith that “hopes against hope.” Or in the words of James, it is a faith that has deeds. But, as Paul says, it is not the deeds themselves that are the basis of our justification, but rather the faith in the God who is able to keep his promises.

That’s not how the Law works, since it’s an all or nothing package. You are not “under the Law” if you don’t subscribe to all of it; you cannot go through the 613 commandments and pick and choose which to keep.

Yes, you can. Jesus upheld the ten commandments. He said not one “iota” of the Law would pass away. Paul said the law is “good” and “holy.” Paul said he wouldn’t know “thou shalt not covet” were it not for the commandment. But Hebrews reminds us that the old economy of animal sacrifice is obsolete—that there is a New and better covenant that has replaced the Old. Jesus and the biblical authors upheld some prescriptions in the Old Testament, but not others. They “picked” and they “chose” which ones to continue and clarified which ones have been fulfilled. As I said before, you keep the ten commandments because Jesus and Paul taught their enduring validity. The author to the Hebrews says there is a Sabbath obligation for the Church. The Church in turn interprets this as the Lord’s Day (Sunday). But the principle of regular Sunday observance is grounded on the principle we find in Hebrews, which in turn is grounded on “Remember the Sabbath,” from the Decalogue.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

CatholicDude:

If you are not “under the Law” (a member of the Mosaic Covenant) then you are not legally bound to keep any of the 613.

Right. We are not “legally bound” by the terms of the Old Covenant because we are not longer under that covenant; rather we are under the New. But the New retains much of the same content of the Old, so de facto, we do keep the laws, when we keep the New Covenant.

If it is not Paul’s language, then to me that already makes the Sola Fide thesis dubious. The burden is on the Reformer to say “works of the Law” includes like agape (Christian love) and Baptism (which wasn’t even commanded in the Law) in order to logically jump to “Faith alone”.

As I said, the language of “sola fide” belongs to the Reformation era and needs to be understood against the background of the corrupt church it was attempting to reform. It would be anachronistic to read this language back into Paul. Having said that, we can read Paul, and make an inference from what he said that would justify the later use of the terms. But I wouldn’t want to say Paul himself used the language when he did not, which is why I think Luther went too far to translate Romans 3:28 with “allein.” That said, Luther’s logic is impeccable on this point. If Paul rules out the principle of works and only rules in the principle of faith (with respect to justification), then it follows that faith alone is the basis for our justification. That’s a valid inference, but it’s not a justified translation of the Greek and it is a satement that has to put side by side with James’ claim that justification is by works, and not by faith alone. But I won’t get into all that here as it would take us too far off course.

The Catholic objection here is twofold: First, the Protestant mistakenly assumes “final salvation” is what is meant by “saved” and “justified” in Paul, when in fact Paul doesn’t tie “eternal life” to those moments (most Protestants never realize this)

This objection is entirely without merit. Where does Paul ever speak of an initial salvation that doesn’t also anticipate a final one? Or put another way: Where does Paul teach that one can enter into salvation, but then lose it and not finally go to heaven? Can the man who wrote that we are “sealed unto the day of redemption” by the Holy Spirit possibly have thought that salvation was only provisional?

and Scripture only says works are the ground for the Final Judgment (not faith or Christ’s righteousness).

Works are the basis by which we will be judged. But they are not the basis for our righteousness. Paul only condemns works righteousness. The righteousness of the Christian is the righteousness that comes by faith. But if you disagree, go ahead and make an argument as to why.

Second, the Protestant notion of “good works will automatically flow from a truly saved person” is not only not Biblical, it’s purely subjective, and thus ultimately fails to provide the very thing Luther so desperately chased: (infallible) assurance.

Are you saying that a bad tree can produce good fruit? I was under the impression that only good trees can produce good fruits. If that is the case, then it seems to me that saved person will produce good fruit and that if he/she does not, we are in fact justified in questioning whether the person truly is a good tree in the first place. As I said before, works are necessary in the “order of knowledge,” so that we can determine if one is in the faith. But in Catholicism, they are necessary in the “order of being,” since faith alone isn’t enough but also needs works in order to attain final salvation.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I am not saying “works of the Law” excludes “good works,” I’m only saying the two terms are not synonymous.

They may not always be synonymous , but I think they are a times. See below.

I disagree. This is how the formula for “faith alone” came about: all works are excluded, leaving faith ‘alone’.

Then you haven’t read Luther or the other Reformers who spilt a lot of ink on the subject of good works. What they did not do, however, is tie them to our justification because Paul’s language, “to the one who does not work,” absolutely excludes them. Further, since the church at the time seemed to be requiring more than trust in Jesus for salvation, the language of “faith alone,” made eminent sense to the Reformers. Did Luther go too far in reading it back into Paul in his translation? I think so. But since I don’t subscribe to the infallibility of Luther, it’s not something that keeps me up at night.

The main problem is not that he added the word ‘alone’, but that he conflated “works of the Law” with ‘good works’ in general. Works of the Law includes (but not limited to) things like circumcision, and must be kept as a whole.

[Sigh]. Again, but IF the Law prescribes deeds that we can put under the heading of “love of God” and “love of neighbor,” then perforce the works of the law include good works. You’ve already admitted above that “works of the law,” include “good works,” you just reject that they are synonymous. But if works of the law include good works, and if works of the law is not the basis of our justification, then, by inclusion, neither are good works, right?

Since you admit circumcision is not a good work, then for Paul to be opposing faith to circumcision would logically mean Paul was opposing faith to non-good works (like circumcision), meaning, exegetically, good works wasn’t his focus.

No. Good works is a general category that we can populate with all the commandments that involve the love of neighbor. I wouldn’t put circumcision in this category. Nor would I put specific grain offerings, animal sacrifices or the keeping of certain festivals, etc. But all of these, from “you shall not oppress the alien in your land,” to “paint the door frame with blood” are all properly placed within the category, “works of the law.” So if you’re still committed to the idea that “good works,” are included under “works of the law,” then there is no way to argue that Paul ruled out one but included the other in justification. It just can’t be done. The only way you could do it is by claiming that “good works” and “works of the law” are completely separate categories. But if that’s the case, then “works of the law” cannot “include” (your word), “good works.” Unfortunately, when you read the Old Testament, many of the “works of the law, are in fact, “good works.”

If you see “WotL” as an umbrella term, then on what exegetical basis do you proceed to single out some commands as ‘good works’ but not others?

What do you think Paul had in mind when he said to the Ephesians (2:10) that we are to walk in the “good works” that God has prepared for us in advance? Do you think Paul would have included circumcision, animal sacrifice, the keeping of religious days etc, within the category of “good works?” (I’m guessing not). This is why I would argue that circumcision—something Paul worked so hard to keep out of the Gentile church—could not possibly be one of the “good works” God had prepared for us in advance. But now consider Jesus’ statement that love of God and neighbor is “the Law and the prophets.” Would you agree that whatever might be put under that heading could qualify as a “good work?”

I disagree because I consider this a leap to conclusions based on a faulty premise. By your logic, when Paul says “apart from Works of the Law” he includes things like Baptism, when the 613 commands never mention Baptism, thus arbitrarily changing the definition of “WotL”.

I think you’re confusing the principle itself and its original referent with the later application of the principle. “Works of the law” is any thing prescribed by the Old Testament. Obviously baptism isn’t prescribed there, so it is pedantic to argue as if it were. You may have missed my original point, however. Since Catholics and other paedobaptists argue that baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision and thus they stand in typological relationship to one another, then, mutatis mutandis, it follows that IF circumcision, in Paul’s thinking, isn’t what justifies us, THEN, neither is baptism. After all, why would Paul substitute one work of the law, for a Christianized version of it? It just doesn’t seem to fit in with his thinking. That said, Paul isn’t saying, “don’t get baptized” either. But he simply doesn’t speak of baptism as that which justifies us.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

There very much is an “essential difference,”[between works of the law and Christian legalism] but even if you disagree you’d have to justify your ‘no essential difference’ thesis exegetically, when exegetically the Mosiac Law is the only thing in view. Thus to say the Old mentions circumcision and Sabbath but the New mentions Baptism and Lord’s Day and then equate the two is unwarranted.

I think you’re missing the point. If the church re-creates a Christian equivalent to the “works of the law,” then the very same reasoning that would liberate us from the obligation of having to fulfill the works of the law, would, mutatis mutandis, also liberate us from a Christianized version of the same. So when, for example, the church equates baptism with circumcision and the Lord’s Day with the Sabbath, then it is possible that both baptism and Sunday observance can become “laws” that one is required to fulfill in order to be “righteous.” Now don’t hear me as saying that baptism and Sunday worship are “optional.” They’re not. Rather I am saying that Paul (and especially Jesus) understood only all too well how any law could be obeyed externally, giving the outward appearance of religion, while simultaneously we could fail to live in right relationship with God. The danger of legalism wasn’t only a Jewish problem. It continues to be a very Christian one too.

What you’re describing is a false dichotomy known as the “law-gospel distinction,” which is a systematic construct and not an exegetically based one.

No, what I am describing is what Paul said: We are not under law; we are under grace (Romans 6:14). That’s not a false dichotomy. That’s a real, biblical, exegetical one. And while true it is a systematic construct, let he who is without them cast the first stone. Try forcing Paul into the categories of initial justification, ongoing justification, habitual grace, actual grace, sanctifying grace, etc and you’ll see what I mean.

The only “Law” the Apostles ‘opposed’ was the Mosaic Law, not the “law of Christ” or any Church authority to impose disciplinary and moral commands (Acts 15:20).

The “law of Christ” was uttered by Paul as a succinct way of refocusing the attention of the Galatians on what Christ might have called, “the weightier matters.” Here is the entire phrase: “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2). The Law of Christ, then, is not the Code of Canon Law or even informal disciplinary regulations issues by the church. The Law of Christ is probably what Jesus meant by loving your neighbor as yourself.

It’s false to limit fulfillment of the Old Covenant to particular aspects and claim only parts of the Old are obsolete, because what that in effect says is that the Old Covenant is still around and valid in some real sense - which is false and the Judaizer heresy.

No, Dude, it’s not. When scripture itself tells us entire aspects of the Old Covenant are “obsolete,” then it’s absolutely true to say so. For example: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear” (Hebrews 8:13). One doesn’t have to read very far to figure out what sorts of things from the Old Covenant no longer apply. For example: The Passover. Why? Because “Christ our Passover has been sacricied” (1 Cor. 5:8). Circumcision. Why? Because, “if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all” (Galatians 5:2).

But some things in the Old Covenant continue to be with us. They have been carried over. The ten commandments, the two great commandments, and anything else that might be, in the words of Paul, “useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). The point is, Dude, we interpret the Old in light of the New. While the Old is “obsolete” (Hebrews), “abolished” (Paul), it nevertheless has enduring validity—every last “iota” of it (Jesus). How exactly all that goes together is truly a matter of discernment, study and prayer. But New Testament writers made copious use of the Old even as they understood that it reached its ultimate fulfillment in Christ and thus, in light of that, were able to discern what was still in force and what was not. They did “pick and choose,” but they did so with the guiding principle of Christ and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Catholic Dude:

I reject your claim Paul doesn’t use those two terms [works of the law and good works] with precision, since that would entail confusing and conflating issues as well as equivocation.

Sometimes Paul uses “works of the law” (ta erga tou nomou ) in it’s full form (Gal 2:16; 3:2,5,10; Rom 2:15; 3:20, 28). Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ, notes, however, the following examples (Rom 3:27; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32; 11:6) as “its abbreviated form, ta erga." (Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ, According to Paul, Studies in the Theology of the Apostle, New York, Paulist, 1993, p. 20). In other words, just as you have resorted to “WotL” throughout your post, it’s hardly surprising that Paul might occasionally do the same. If Fitzmyer is correct, then “works of the law” and “works” are synonymous for Paul, or at least often are. Context, I think, is what is finally determinative. But for the person who says, Justification is “not by the works of the law,” and “for the one who does not do work,” that Salvation is “not of yourselves,” by what stretch of the theological imagination do we then add “works” to grace and faith and put ourselves into “not of yourselves?” I don’t think Paul could be any more clear. Salvation is of God, by his grace, through faith in Him and in not of ourselves in any way, shape or form. Any attempt to sneak ourselves and our works back into the equation runs headlong into all of Paul’s efforts to say the opposite. Your entire argument turns upon you’re being able to argue the following proposition “Justification is by faith apart from the works of the law, but not apart from good works.” It simply won’t fly, not logically not theologically and not exegetically. Nice try though.

The only moral principles that “carry over” are those which were already universally moral principles before the Mosaic Law even existed, and which the Mosaic Law happened to codify.

So when Moses codified, “you shall not oppress the alien in your land because you were once aliens yourselves,” (cf, Exodus 23:9) that we are now free to oppress the aliens in our land simply because the NT didn’t “carry this over?” Or rather is it that precisely because we are to love our neighbor, that our neighbor is anyone in need (Luke 10), and that the Old Testament, as scripture, is useful for “training in righteousness” so that we may be equipped, that we are justified in making the inference that if it wasn’t okay to oppress aliens back then, it certainly isn’t okay to do so now? I ask, because as a Catholic who comes from a church with a strong tradition of social justice, why in the world would you want to argue that this particular command, given after the Decalogue and certainly not as “universal moral principle before the Mosaic Law,” is now “abolished?” But if I’m following your logic, you would have to argue that we are no longer bound by this command because it is part of the Mosaic Law, which was “abolished.” Nor can you claim it as a “universal moral principle,” since nowhere was this mentioned prior to the Exodus.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

“Now to the one who works (i.e., keeps the law), wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. (But to the one who does good works while in the state of grace, God condignly credits with merit.) However, to the one who does not work (that is, the one who does not keep the law for law-keeping’s sake), but trusts (and also hopes and loves) God who justifies (makes righteous) the ungodly, their faith (hope, and love and other good works done in the state of grace) is credited (that is, infused into the person) as righteousness.”

Thank God you said “seems” because that is not the Catholic position.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

…The kind of faith Paul talks about is Abrahamic faith. It doesn’t waver. It trusts. It is, in his words to the Galatians, a faith that “works through love.” It is a faith that “hopes against hope.” Or in the words of James, it is a faith that has deeds. But, as Paul says, it is not the deeds themselves that are the basis of our justification, but rather the faith in the God who is able to keep his promises.

Exactly! We are not saying that our justification is on the deeds themselves. The Catholic Church does not teach “works-based salvation” as many people think. But, you said it yourself. It is the Abrahamic faith that “works through love”, “hopes against hope” and has deeds! This is why we say faith and works because that faith absolutely needs works to be completed. That faith cannot stand alone. It must be with works.

By the way, where is that “hopes against hope” part? I know it is somewhere in the Bible, but I completely forgot where. I would love to read it because I like hope.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Are you saying that a bad tree can produce good fruit? I was under the impression that only good trees can produce good fruits. If that is the case, then it seems to me that saved person will produce good fruit and that if he/she does not, we are in fact justified in questioning whether the person truly is a good tree in the first place. As I said before, works are necessary in the “order of knowledge,” so that we can determine if one is in the faith. But in Catholicism, they are necessary in the “order of being,” since faith alone isn’t enough but also needs works in order to attain final salvation.

What is this “we” business?
“Not as man sees does God see, because man sees the appearance but the LORD looks into the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7

And this is not just in Catholicism. In the Bible, there is a clear need of works besides in James and Paul’s exhortation on Love in chapter 13 of First Corinthians.

*“I send you, to open their eyes that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may obtain forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been consecrated by faith in me.’… I preached the need to repent and turn to God, and to do works giving evidence of repentance.” * Acts 26:17,18,20

Faith cannot stand in and of itself. It needs works. If not, then faith is a mere intellectual assent.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Greg Alvarez:

By the way, where is that “hopes against hope” part? I know it is somewhere in the Bible, but I completely forgot where. I would love to read it because I like hope.

[bibledrb]Romans 4:17-22[/bibledrb]