A simple argument refuting Faith Alone

[GreggAlvarez]

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.

There is a roller coaster of contradictions. The Church never did more that trust Jesus. But what does that entail? Just sitting around twiddling thumbs and believing in Jesus? Faith by itself will fall and crumble. It needs works. Prayer, repentance, penance, confession, Scripture-reading, almsgiving, etc… Surely, you will not disagree with this unless you liken faith to something that happens in the mind which I am positive is not your position. Faith needs works as James and Paul have stated.

And if Paul “absolutely excludes” any and all works from justification or from completing the faith, then there is a clear contradiction in his own words and James’ words. “If I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.” Hardly seems Paul is excluding charity in “to the one who does not work”.

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead." If Paul is excluding any and all works as you seem to imply, then there is a clear contradiction here. How do you reconcile this?

Faith is the body and works are the soul. With this said, how does a faith without works justify us if we are nothing, as Paul says?

 

[meltzerboy]

Not a lie, but the gospel truth. And when you call what the Holy Spirit has inspired a “lie,” you’re in some dangerous theological waters. Be that at as it may, Paul, I think you’re a bit too hasty in your assumption that trusting Jesus is a simple, non repeatable, one-time act. The verbs are in the present tense and therefore believing in Jesus is on-going, life-long and implies not only belief “that” Jesus is Lord but also belief “in” him as Lord, which therefore necessitates the obedience of faith. Anything less would not be faith at all. But don’t read this as “faith + something else.” For by doing this you actually pile on requirements that aren’t in fact scriptural. We were just discussing Acts 15. I’ll ask you the same question you asked me. Did you read it? If so, then surely you read these words from Peter: “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are” (Acts 15:10-11). If you add to the gospel of grace, then you have a “different gospel” than the one the apostle preached. That’s what you end up with Paul when you add ethical requirements, sacraments, religious observance of any kind. No one can keep the law, “neither we nor our ancestors.”

Paul, you’re making several basic errors in your interpretation here.

1. You’re assuming that Jesus is teaching that the keeping of the ten commandments is a condition for salvation. But Jesus nowhere says that.
2. You’re assuming that what Jesus says to the rich/young ruler is applicable in the New Covenant when that had not yet been established. Jesus also tells people to offer what Moses prescribed and show themselves to the Jewish priests as a testimony to them—but not even Rome believes that we’re to do that today.
3. You’re not reading biblically; rather you’re subordinating Paul to Matthew thereby creating a canon within the canon. In point of fact, if you struggle a bit and do your exegetical homework, you’ll find that there is no conflict between Paul and Matthew on the point of keeping the commandments. While they sometimes seem to be in contradiction (e.g., Matthew’s “not one iota of the law will pass away” versus Paul’s “the law is abolished”), a careful reading of both yields the conclusion that there is no final conflict between the two. Most scholars, Catholic and Protestant, agree on this point. Matthew insists that the ethical demands of the ten commandments are constitutive of Christian faith. Paul agrees with this when he calls the law “good” and “holy.” Paul says he would not have known “thou shalt not covet” apart from what is revealed in scripture. But he also knows that the commandment, finding an opportunity in the flesh, produces in him all kinds of covetousness (see Romans 7:11). Matthew, for his part, is a firm believer in the grace of God and nowhere teaches that salvation is earned or maintained by doing good works, but rather from start to finish it is God’s work who bestows upon the New Israel, all His covenant promises (see the Beatitudes). Paul, for his part, insists on radical obedience to Christ, including the ethical demands represented by the law. But these should not be read as requirements for salvation.
4. You cannot possibly explain the thief on the cross. Jesus did not require this man to keep the commandments as a condition for salvation. He was surely guilty of “thou shalt not steal.” He could not say, “all these I have kept from my youth.” And yet Jesus promises him paradise solely on the basis of his contrition, which implies the presence of saving faith.
5. You cannot reconcile your view with the official position of your church which in deed does hold out the possibility for salvation for those who, “through no fault of their own,” have never heard the gospel. While scripture clearly denies that there is anyone who “seeks” God and that the very heavens declare God’s glory and his ethical requirements, Rome nevertheless makes it possible for even the sincere Buddhist to go to heaven, despite the fact that they did not comply with Jesus’ “list of requirements” (your words).

That’s not my view. That’s just your caricature. Check yourself to make sure you’re not in the very trap you think has been laid for me.

continued…

Just one point regarding your mention of the thief and Jesus’ promise that he will be in “paradise.” My understanding is that paradise refers to Catholic purgatory and NOT heaven. The Catholic concept of purgatory is derived from Torah Judaism (“gehenna”), which is a “place” of atonement and cleansing for everyone and particularly for those who may really need it in order to be “ready” for Heaven. I realize Protestants reject this idea, probably because the cleansing involves bad works as much as lack of faith; however, given that meaning within Catholic (and Judaic) context, it would suggest that the thief is NOT guaranteed entrance into Heaven, for–at least according to Jewish teaching–certain souls are too wicked to be cleansed and thus become separated from G-d.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

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.

This is called question-begging. As a person of logic, I am sure you noticed that already. "Since works of the law are same as good works, then works of the law are the same as good works.

How about this? "f I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.

You have yet to argue this. And stop trying to interpret our doctrines. You are no good at it. Yes, we are justified by faith because faith is the body our Christian being. But, when it is stripped of love/charity, it is dead and useless. “Even the demons believe and tremble.”

You say we need works as a Christian because otherwise, our faith would be dead. Catholics agree. But, then you contradict your words and say that faith is what justifies apart from ANY works. But, then Paul and James clearly contradict you when they say that faith of itself is useless without love/charity as I have provided from 1 Corinthians and James. Not mention those that say “Lord, Lord…” from Jesus own speech. What else could He be talking about if not faith alone. He knew people would have “faith” and no good works.

So, I turn your assertion on you. You logically contradict yourself and the Bible. Theologically, faith needs works lest it be dead. Exegetically… Ok, I have no clue what that means, nor do I need to. Logic and theologic work just fine in this conversation about Faith and Works.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Miguel, again I will try to trim down any redundancy so as to keep the responses manageable size.

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.

Then on what exegetical basis can you say one is justified by “faith alone” if you admit Hope and Love are also present? By simple logic: faith by itself (alone) is insufficient. This also undermines the notion faith is an ‘empty hand’, since such is impossible if animated by Hope and Love. Loving God is thus a condition for being Justified, refuting the idea of Imputation.

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.

Agreed - and this point is important. If main the issue were good works, how could Paul use a “hundreds of years before” argument? The Judaizers could sidestep and say Abraham was justified by his love for God along with faith.

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 4:4-5

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.

How am I trying to “sneak in good works” when you’ve admitted above Hope and Love must also be present? And how can “good works” be ruled out when the context eminently is about circumcision (the fundamental “work of the Law”)?

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.

Given what was just said before this, it seems the burden is on you to prove ‘good works’ are being excluded here, and if a mere 2 verses out of the entire corpus of Paul’s work is the cardinal text for your thesis, then that seems like dubious grounds to bet everything on.

The “principle” Paul lays down in 4:4f can be read various ways, none of which rules out ‘good works’. One option is the ‘debt-principle’ in which one does something **selfishly **expecting to put God in debt and thus ‘owe’ the creature a reward. This in no way rules out doing good works with a humble spirit, trusting God will reward, Mat 6:1ff is a perfect and explicit example. The other option is that there is a qualitative difference between earthly blessings (OT works-wages) and heavenly blessings (Christian Faith-‘wages’): thus while the Law of Moses promised ‘health and wealth’ in this life for keeping the Law, looking beyond this life and enduring (present) hardship for Christ by Faith, you will receive a superabundant reward, Heaven!

It seems to me the Catholic would have to rewrite this as follows: [edited for space]

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.

I think this lets Paul “speak for himself” quite well, especially considering it takes into account the context and Paul’s thought as a whole. It seems you are making 4:4f Paul’s over-arching thesis of his work, when that’s by no means established. Could you make an equally strong case without appealing to 4:4f (for such would be the mark of a truly strong foundation)?

It seems to me that you’re dogmatically (and without exegetical basis) interpreting “works” in 4:4f as “any work whatsoever,” when such is begging the question.

When we put ourselves back into the equation, justification becomes synergistic when truly it is monergistic, or the work of one.

Where is ‘monergism’ an issue for Paul in this context? How can there even logically be monergism when Paul is exhorting Christians to faith, hope, and love of God - which are all human actions?

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 term “good works” is for lack of a better term, it merely refers to Christians living by Christ’s commands. Christ’s commands supersede Moses’ commands. Again: does the Mosaic Law ever command Baptism as an expression of love and obedience to God? No, it’s a different standard which Christians are under. When “Moses says” no outward adultery, Jesus’ new law says ‘not even inward adultery of the heart’. It’s false to say or believe the Mosaic Law includes all possible good works within it’s 613 commands.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

This is a category mistake, Christian Faith, Christian Hope, and Christian Love, supersede the Mosaic ‘faith’, ‘hope’, and ‘love’ - you even indirectly admit this when you say Christian faith is joined by hope and love. What Paul is saying is that the Mosaic Law does not justify - this says nothing about Christ’s Commands, much less imply Christ’s Commands don’t justify either.

If anything, you are contradicting yourself since you say loving God is not a basis upon which man is justified and yet simultaneously believe faith includes love for God at justification.

The Mosaic Law doesn’t have a monopoly on loving God, since men were called and required to love God long before Moses came along.

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.” 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.

Stop and think about what you said: Not one iota of the Law would pass away.
Is that a true statement? I would think abolishing circumcision and the Sacrificial system and other such things is more than an ‘iota’ in the Torah. No, you’ve kept cut off Jesus mid-sentence: He said nothing of the Law would pass away until all was fulfilled! Big difference. And Paul and Hebrews makes it clear the whole Law was abolished, not just selective chapters from the Torah.

Jesus nor Paul butchered the Torah, upholding parts but not others: all of it was fulfilled! Jesus and Paul’s definition of morality was above and beyond what Moses’ definition of morality was.

As I said before, you keep the ten commandments because Jesus and Paul taught their enduring validity. …

The Ten Commandments are abolished as a legal code, otherwise you’d be keeping the Sabbath. To say the Church can cut out the 4th Commandment and re-write in Sunday is butchering the Torah; it is not the Ten Commandments that God gave on Sinai.

Jesus and Paul never “taught their enduring validity,” and Paul even called the Ten Commandments the “ministry of death” in 2 Cor 3. Whatever was ‘enduring’ in the Ten Commandments, was already enduring before the Ten Commandments ever existed.

…Luther’s logic is impeccable on this point.

The real “problem” cannot be a corrupt church or Luther going “too far” or an “anachronism” if “Luther’s logic is impeccable,” since the latter necessitates that it was plainly an exegetical issue and if his exegesis was fine then Paul indeed was saying Sola Fide. But, as I already noted, the burden is on the Reformer to prove “works of the Law” includes things like agape (Christian love) and Baptism (which wasn’t even commanded in the Law) in order to logically and exegetically jump to “Faith alone”.

Where does Paul ever speak of an initial salvation that doesn’t also anticipate a final one? …

My point was that Paul doesn’t tie the granting of “eternal life” to the moment of conversion/justification but rather to the faithful living out of Christian living. The Protestant thinks that Justification is essentially a legal entitlement to enter Heaven, when that’s not exegetically warranted; it’s a huge assumption that simply goes unquestioned.

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.

I’m not sure what you are requesting - I was simply speaking on works being the basis for the Final Judgment, which is the even when Scripture states man is judged worthy of entering Heaven or not.

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.

But you’re not taking your logic into reality: do Christians still sin? According to the Westminster, Christians not only are able to still be overcome by temptation and sin, but they can even fall into a sinful lifestyle and remain therein “for a time”. The moment you or any other Christian sins, do you have tangible proof that they must in fact be a “bad tree”? Whenever you sin, do you first assume you were never really saved in the first place, or that you produced “bad fruit” despite considering yourself a ‘good tree’? How much ‘bad fruit’ do you have to see before you have grounds to make such judgments? See how this quickly slides into pure subjectivity?
That was my point regarding the idea that “good works are guaranteed to flow” is neither Biblical nor what we see in practice.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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

Since we agree they are not always synonymous (and I say they never are), the burden is on you to prove they are synonymous sometimes.

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…

As I clarified earlier in this response, the term “good works” isn’t itself a true category within the Mosaic Law - the Torah doesn’t contain a mixture of good and neutral works - rather they are statues, and following any of them properly is a ‘good work’ in so far as one is obeying God. The Levitical Sacrifices, for example, are said to be a “sweet aroma” to God, indicating God is pleased with them done properly and thus are ‘good works’ and showing “love of God” in a real sense. You’re under the impression Jesus did nothing more than issue an ‘abridged version’ of the Mosaic Law, when that’s incorrect.

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.

Where in Paul do you justify your claim that “good works is a general category”? And where do you get the grounds to go through all 613 commands and personally judge whether it is a ‘good work’ or not? As I said, which you’re responding to, if circumcision is not a good work (as you admit) then for Paul to be using that as his prime example indicates ‘good works’ cannot be in view in his argument.

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.

The category of “good works” as a class of works within the Mosaic Law is fictitious. When we categorize the Law into moral, civil, and ceremonial statues, that is largely an extrabiblical human invention, and only done for illustrative purposes. In reality, the categories of moral, civil, and ceremonial can overlap, and they can all be considered ‘good works’ in so far as the are done in obedience to God.

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?”

But in verse 2:8 he simply mentions works, and in 2:11ff he clarifies the context of that of the Mosaic Law and it being abolished. From an exegetical standpoint, you would be arguing Paul only was advocating partial abolishing and partial fulfilment of the Law. Thus, I don’t think it’s warranted to say the “good works” of 2:10 is merely a synonym for a subset of the 613 commands, but rather living life by the Spirit according to Christ’s new standards.

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.

Paul speaks highly of circumcision, and it would be blasphemy to his and other Jewish ears to hear it is not a good work since God established a covenant in that manner and it was to be followed by all Jews: Gen 17:10; Rom 2:25; Rom 4:11. It would be like saying Baptism is a ‘neutral work’ and thus doesn’t apply to Christians via Eph 2:10, when in fact it’s an important Christian rite.

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?”

Yes, it would qualify as a good work, but not as your thinking.
Matthew 22:36ff, “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God … This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
Notice that “ALL” of the Law and Prophets hang on those principles, not only certain works or commands from the Law and Prophets. ALL the 613 commands were given to promote love of God and neighbor in some way.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

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.

What you are arguing isn’t exegesis but eisegesis: if a text like Rom 3:28 only says “apart from Works of the Law,” and you admit Baptism doesn’t fall under that heading, then you cannot (dogmatically) assume Baptism is likewise rejected by analogy. In short: your “IF-THEN” statement is not established by any means.

One obvious problem with your approach is that it assumes the “law of Christ” is in essence the same as the “law of Moses,” but with a few modifications. This is why you think in terms of substituting “one work of the law for a Christianized version of it”. This implies the Jewish Covenant has survived but taken on a new name. But if the Christian Covenant is truly a new and superior and independent covenant, then your argument doesn’t stand.

I think the root of this problem is misidentifying what Paul was combating, specifically assuming the main problem was a sort of ‘Pelagianism’, when the real problem was just the opposite, Judaizing (a form of monergism). Paul was saying “don’t get circumcised” not because there was a ‘works-righteousness’ problem, but because circumcision was the gateway to the Old Covenant which was now abolished. When Paul speaks to Christians in Gal 5:4 “if you get circumcised, you have fallen from grace,” by your logic Paul could have substituted any Christian work with “circumcised,” which is obviously absurd.

In Gal 5:2, Paul says, “I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.” Why couldn’t Paul have said “Baptism” here if it was simply the “Christianized version” of circumcision? If Paul is arguing ‘principle’, not specifics, then you’re forced to admit Baptism severs the Christian from Christ.

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.

It is false to say the Church sets up a “Christian equivalent to to ‘works of the Law’”. That is not only an unwarranted leap of logic, it is false and results in absurdities. What you’re saying would mean that right along with Judaizing was a parallel/analogus heresy of “Christainizing” in the early church which simply didn’t receive any mention yet was an equivalent heresy.

… The danger of legalism wasn’t only a Jewish problem. It continues to be a very Christian one too.

This last sentence [edited down from the original paragraph] highlights the fundamental error in your thesis: you think the Mosaic Covenant and Christian covenant are equivalent in essence and differ only in non-essentials. But this is obviously wrong. The Mosaic Covenant never included the forgiveness of sins and promise to eternal life, the Mosaic Covenant was imperfect and temporary. The New Covenant is all about the forgiveness of sins and offering eternal life and is a perfect and eternal Covenant.

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.

My point was that the “Law” Paul was opposing was the Mosaic Law, not some universal “law”, thus while the “law-gospel” distinction uses the same terms, the meaning of “law” and “gospel” is different than Paul’s.

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.”

The “law of Christ” is simply a term I’ve been using to signify Christ’s new and superior teachings for Christians to live by, especially as taught in the Gospels (e.g. Matthew 5-7).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It’s false to limit fulfillment of the Old Covenant to particular aspects and claim only parts of the Old are obsolete

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.

You can’t have a covenant abolished and yet have some parts of it still lingering around as binding. Exegetically and logiacally that’s false. The text is not limiting this to “entire aspects” or “sorts of things.” Read the context of the passage you quoted, Hebrews 8:8-13 and see this is a wholesale abolition.

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).

This is false, nothing in the old “continues to be with us” as if it were merely re-incarnated or took on a new title. The Old was merely a shadow of the superior things yet to come. For example, Jesus says in places like Matthew 5 that various teachings of the Ten Commandments don’t go far enough as He ushers in His new and perfect standards.

I agree we interpret the Old in light of the New, but that’s precisely because the Old was only a “shadow” of the New. Paul speaks negatively of the Mosaic Covenant not because it was evil, but because in comparison the New Testament shined so brightly that the Mosaic Covenant was plainly seen as objectively inferior.

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.

Amen - I AGREE that “works of the Law” and “works” are synonymous for Paul - that’s crucial! What this does NOT mean is that “works of the Law” OR it’s abbreviate form “works” are synonymous with “good works”.

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.

You are confusing categories. Your quote above of Fitzmyer says the opposite of what you’re trying to prove (that when Paul speaks of “works” he means “good works” rather than Mosaic works). Thus you cannot make the leap exegetically that the text is condemning good works. This error in your founding premise leads you to think that good works somehow are incompatible with or deny grace, and this error even leads you to the idea “faith” isn’t “of ourselves in any way, shape, or form,” and thus must be a passive “empty hand”.

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?”

Think of it this way: was man was free to oppress migrants before Moses? The Law didn’t exist yet, so by your logic man should have been free to sin in this way and many other ways. The answer to my question is “No” because such were always sinful, Moses merely codified it within a covenantal context and attached corporal punishments for it.

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”

Correct, oppression would fall under the category of Christ’s new and perfect demands regarding how we treat neighbors. Remember, in the Jewish system, a neighbor was a fellow Jew, not Samaritans or pagans, yet Jesus’ demanded that “neighbor” be redefined to mean all men who are in need and within reach.

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.”

We are not bound to it as an Mosaic legal statute, but we are bound to a new and perfected form outlined under Christ’s new and perfected standards.

Nor can you claim it as a “universal moral principle,” since nowhere was this mentioned prior to the Exodus.

It is part of natural law, and to argue otherwise would mean oppressing prior to Exodus was morally acceptable (which would also have implications with moral relativism).

 

[GreggAlvarez]

If I may interject, perhaps the conversation should shift towards the “faith” part of salvation as that is the word that is included in both “Faith Alone” and "Faith and Works. Right now, there seems to be a redundant impasse (to which I took a part in) between whether or not “good works” and “works of the law” are different (which they are fundamentally different).

We have to consider what faith is.

If we were to consider the syntax of Faith Alone, then those advocates must answer this question:

Is a person justified by an intellectual assent to belief in Christ? (No repentance, no prayer, no charity, no Sunday worship) but they truly figured it out, yet still believe.

If yes, then what is the point of the Christian life that the Old and New Testament have laid out for us? Why “pray without ceasing”? Why refrain from sin?

If not, then why is that? Is it because they have not “truly believed” is they are not going to repent? If yes, then we are in complete agreement. That faith is dead and useless.

Faith works through love/charity (agape) because that is part of the Christian life. Our faith is completed by works through agape. Without it, faith is dead. “Faith Alone” says that even a dead faith justifies.

If one were to object to that, then there is only one good reason why anyone should object to it: because it is not true.

Here are our definitions to the simple-minded like me (not to mention they are also biblical):

1. Good works: agape - love/charity… Works done to love God and/or neighbor. Contrary to a mere doing a Commandment, i.e. Loving God and neighbor. “Ok… I am fulfilling a Commandment. Now what.” Instead of “I pray for my friend that he may be healed of his sufferings.” It fulfills the Commandment, but most importantly, it loves.
2. Faith: Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things unseen. Faith loves. Faith works through love. Faith lives through love. Faith lives to love. Faith loves to live. Live to love to live to love.

Faith is not just an intellectual assent. Without love, we are nothing… Or so Paul says.

**I will say this again: Faith Alone has nothing to do with the Christian life. “Faith and Works” is inherent in the Christian life. Without works, that “Christian life” is dead. Without Faith, we walk in darkness. We absolutely NEED both.

Christ commands Faith. Christ commands works. Why would Christ command something that had no relevance to our salvation?**

 

[paul_c]

I think this whole sequence misses the point.

God does save us with Grace, solely based on Faith. BUT that does not guarantee that we will go to heaven. You see, When we are saved, we are freed from former sin and given the grace to truely live the Christian life. There are no works involved in this, merely the desire to be baptized and to live this new life as a member of Jesus’s one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

But to go to heaven, we must cooperate with the grace given us. We must love our neighbor as ourselves and we must love God with all our heart, all our strengtht, and all our souls, and in doing so we will avoid mortal sin. If we die in the state of grace, we will go to heaven.

The mistake of Luther, Calvin and all that followed them was that they thought their obligation to God ended with a mere assent of faith. They failed to recognize that Jesus said to “Follow” him. And what Jesus did was to do his Father’s will flawlessly.
Now granted, we are not divine as Jesus was and so we are prone to sin. But Jesus recognized that and in his mercy, gave us the eucharist to increase his grace within us and he gave us the sacrament of reconciliation, which allow us to continually reenter the state of grace after we sin. And for all those that doubt this, recognize that the risen Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive or retain sins. (John 20:23). That is the scriptural basis for the sacrament of reconciliation.

There is no reason to argue incessantly about whether Saint Paul was denying the efficacy of Good works or Only works of the law in the economy of salvation. He’s merely pointing out that you don’t earn baptism, you ask for it. And whether or not you are circumcised has nothing to do with it. But just becasue you are baptized or “born again” does not mean you will enter heaven. Paul recognizes this all too well. For he says in Romans 2:

5 By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6 who will repay everyone according to his works:
7 eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8 but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.
9 Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek.
10 But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Then on what exegetical basis can you say one is justified by “faith alone” if you admit Hope and Love are also present?

Why yes. Question: Where in scripture does it say we are “justified” by faith, hope and love? If you can find me a passage that says this, I’ll drop “faith alone” as an unreasonable inference. Now it may very well be that Christians have, in addition to faith, both hope and love and that they also must do “good works.” But if you’re looking for an “exegetical basis” (your terms), then kindly show us where Paul says that the way we stand righteous before God is on the basis of anything other than our faith in Jesus Christ.

By simple logic: faith by itself (alone) is insufficient.

I disagree:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works…(Romans 4:2-6)

What, in addition to faith, does Abraham need? It appears that his faith is “sufficient” for God to count him as righteous. In fact, if Paul thought that in addition to faith, he also needed “good works,” it is most strange that Paul would add, “to the one who does not work.” Had Paul just left it at, “to the one who believes,” I could agree with you that this leaves open the possibility that there could also be good works along with that belief and that those works might be considered as part of the basis for one’s justification. But when Paul goes so far as to say, “to the one who does not work,” then he closes the door on the possible implication that our good works might play any part in our justification.

Agreed - and this point is important. If main the issue were good works, how could Paul use a “hundreds of years before” argument? The Judaizers could sidestep and say Abraham was justified by his love for God along with faith.

Have you considered the fact that when Paul says Abraham was justified by faith and not by works, that he could not possibly have had “works of the law” in mind at this point. The reason is simple. The law had not been given yet. That means there was no circumcision, no Passover, no sacrificial offerings, nothing of the civil and ceremonial laws that so many equate with “works of the law.” It follows, therefore, that the only “works” that could have possibly justified Abraham would have been what we would call “good works.” Therefore, according to Paul, if the works that Abraham had done were part of the justification equation, they could only have been good works. So when Paul insists that “the one who does not work but believes” is justified, what in the world does he have in mind when he says “work?” How could it have been “works of the law” for Abraham when the Law had not been given yet? So it must have been some other kind of “work” that he had in mind. Could it be that “good works” were what he had in mind? I don’t see how it could be anything else unless there is a third kind of work that we have not yet considered. But now that the Law has been given, Abraham serves as an example of the person who is justified, “apart from works,” whether those be good works or those specifically commanded under the “Law.”

How am I trying to “sneak in good works” when you’ve admitted above Hope and Love must also be present?

The difference is simple. I say that only faith is what justifies because Paul only says that by faith we are counted righteous. (Remember, we’re reading Romans 4 here.) Paul could have explicitly mentioned hope and love or “good works,” which you seem to be using synonymously with “Hope and Love.” But he doesn’t. In fact, he says just the opposite. A better question is how can you say, that we are justified by faith “and good works,” when Paul says “apart from works?” Remember, I only said that a person who has faith, almost certainly has hope and love too. But I never said hope and love are part of our justification—and more importantly—neither did Paul.

And how can “good works” be ruled out when the context eminently is about circumcision (the fundamental “work of the Law”)?

You’re all over the map here. Now you’re saying circumcision is a “good work.” But read the context. There is no way Paul could have ever argued that Abraham was justified by any work of the Law prior to the giving of the Law, right? That’s how he is able to point out that Abraham was not justified by the works of the Law. But the very same argument rules out “good works” as well, since those are the only kind of works Abraham could have done by which he could have been justified, were such works capable of justifying.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The “principle” Paul lays down in 4:4f can be read various ways, none of which rules out ‘good works’. One option is the ‘debt-principle’ in which one does something **selfishly **expecting to put God in debt and thus ‘owe’ the creature a reward.

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

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

Personally, I like option C:

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works…(Romans 4:2-6).

It seems to me that you’re dogmatically (and without exegetical basis) interpreting “works” in 4:4f as “any work whatsoever,” when such is begging the question.

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

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

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

Here: “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness (Romans 5:4). And here: “For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

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

Stop and think about what you said: Not one iota of the Law would pass away

Yes, I’ve given it quite a bit of thought. Somehow Jesus’ words about the Law not passing away must fit in with Paul’s claim that it has been “abolished” and Hebrew’s claim that the Old Covenant is “obsolete.” In what way can we say it is still useful for “teaching, reproof, correcting” etc., even as we say it is “fulfilled?” Fortunately we have many examples in the New Testament that guide us to an answer. We no longer sacrifice the Passover because Christ our Passover has been sacrificed, etc. (I won’t cite all the examples I listed before.) But we do keep honoring our mother and father, despite the fact that we’re in the New Covenant—no longer under Law, but grace.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Jesus nor Paul butchered the Torah, upholding parts but not others: all of it was fulfilled! Jesus and Paul’s definition of morality was above and beyond what Moses’ definition of morality was.

Yes, it is fulfilled. That means quite a bit of it is no longer applicable, which explains why you don’t keep Jewish festivals, sacrifice animals and circumcise your first born on the eighth day. Yet you honor your mother and father, use content from the Old Testament for “reproof and correction” etc., and continue not to oppress aliens in your land, even though you personally probably were never an alien in Egypt. In other words, the moral content of the Old Testament carries over to the New, even if much of it has been upgraded, i.e., “you have heard it said, but I say to you…”

Jesus and Paul never “taught their enduring validity,” and Paul even called the Ten Commandments the “ministry of death” in 2 Cor 3.

Sure they did. Here’s what Paul said about the ten commandments: “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good” (Romans 7:12). Here is what Jesus said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). Any interpretation, however, that would equate “fulfill” with “no longer valid” leads to absurdities. For then “thou shalt not commit adultery” would mean “go ahead and cheat on your spouse.” But in fact, Jesus says if we even look with “lust” we’ve committed adultery in our hearts. So the idea of fulfillment is not only to affirm the enduring validity of the moral content of the law, it’s actually an elevation of it to an even higher standard.

My point was that Paul doesn’t tie the granting of “eternal life” to the moment of conversion/justification but rather to the faithful living out of Christian living.

Actually it’s both. Eternal life begins at justification, which for Paul, is entirely eschatological. It is judgment moved up to the present wherein we hear the pronunciation of a “not-guilty” verdict with the concomitant expectation that he who is in Christ is not only not condemned (Romans 8:1), but will also “walk in the Spirit” rather than the flesh (Romans 8:4) and wait hopefully and patiently for a future glory. Salvation is past, present and future for Paul in Romans 8. When, however, Paul talks specifically about justification of the believer, he seems to have the beginning point of salvation primarily in mind.

The Protestant thinks that Justification is essentially a legal entitlement to enter Heaven,

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

See how this quickly slides into pure subjectivity?

No one escapes that problem. How do you know someone is among the elect by your own church standards? I’ve read things such as a baptized, practicing believer, frequenter of the sacraments, devotion to the Virgin Mary etc. can all be indicators that someone is among the elect. But there is no way to know for sure. But no Calvinist claims to know the identity of the elect either. I’m not going to knock the Biblical criteria were given. Trees produce good fruit and present tense verbs in Greek are ongoing. You are quite correct that when we fall into sin for long stretches of time we are quite justified in wondering whether or not the person was a Christian to begin with. 1 John 2:19 puts it this way: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.” Don’t peg me as one of those Christians who think they can have an absolute certitude about their identify among God’s elect. I’m certainly not one of them and neither is the Reformed tradition as a whole. Paul said this: “Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith” (2 Corinthians 13:5) and Peter had to say in this regard: “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall” (2 Peter 1:10).

Paul speaks highly of circumcision, and it would be blasphemy to his and other Jewish ears to hear it is not a good work since God established a covenant in that manner and it was to be followed by all Jews: Gen 17:10; Rom 2:25; Rom 4:11.

We were talking about the content of the “good works” mentioned in Ephesians 2:10. Clearly Paul isn’t thinking of things like circumcision since elsewhere he tells Christians that if they have themselves circumcised Christ will be of no value to them. So if “good works” in Ephesians 10 doesn’t refer to the civil and ceremonial prescriptions of the Old Covenant, what does it refer to? I think it refers to the kinds of concrete deeds of love and Christian service to be done by Christians in the body and for the world around us. I think it includes our ministries and perhaps even our civic obligations. Paul doesn’t give us an exhaustive list, but rather a category. Now, if this is the same Paul who tells us that scripture is useful for “teaching and reproof and equipping,” etc., then is it perhaps possible that some of the content of the Old Testament might give us some ideas for what it means to do “good works?” Take a passage like Leviticus 19: 9-10:

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God. (Leviticus 19: 9-10)

Somehow it seems to me that the “spirit” behind this prescription is that society ought to have some kind of welfare for the poor and that a greedy profit motive should never outweigh our duty to love our neighbor as ourselves. I therefore have trouble disassociating this kind of Old Testament prescription from what Paul means by “good works” even as I have trouble believing circumcision is what Paul had in mind, given how hard he worked to keep it out of the church. What do you think?

What you are arguing isn’t exegesis but eisegesis: if a text like Rom 3:28 only says “apart from Works of the Law,” and you admit Baptism doesn’t fall under that heading, then you cannot (dogmatically) assume Baptism is likewise rejected by analogy. In short: your “IF-THEN” statement is not established by any means

Let’s just summarize a few things thus far:

1. You agree that we are not justified by “works of the law.”
2. But you would argue that we are justified by “good works.”
3. But you also admit that “works of the law” include good works.
4. [Scratches head to how you hold 2 and 3 together]
5. “Works of the law” only refers to the Old Testament.
6. You reject any “mutatis mutandis” application of the principle Paul is teaching. (Why, I’m not sure.)
7. But you also hold that Baptism and Circumcision stand in typological relationship to one another. Baptism is the new circumcision, right?
8. Yet while you believe that circumcision is a “work of the law” that cannot justify, you would argue that baptism is a “good work” that can.
9. Question: Where does anyone in the New Testament talk about baptism, love or hope in the context of “justification”?
10. [Sound of crickets]
11. Do you really believe that Paul thought baptism justified us, while circumcision did not? If so, why wouldn’t the principles that lead Paul to reject justification by the Old circumcision likewise lead him to reject justification by the New? Don’t get me wrong. Paul was all for baptism. But nowhere does he tie it into justification. I am only saying that if he were aware that churches are now teaching baptismal regeneration of infants, then by a second application of his principle, it would seem that he would reject that kind of theology, especially when you see the results—millions of baptized unbelievers, just as there were many circumcised Jews whose hearts were far from God.

Amen - I AGREE that “works of the Law” and “works” are synonymous for Paul - that’s crucial! What this does NOT mean is that “works of the Law” OR it’s abbreviate form “works” are synonymous with "good works.”

So here we are back to the utter incoherence of your thesis so far. On the one hand, you maintain that “works of the law” include all the prescriptions of the Old Testament. You also admit that the Old Testament prescribes “good works” under the heading, “love of God” and “love of neighbor.” So, I take it, leaving extra grapes for gleaners and not oppressing the alien in your land would be examples of “good works” under the rubric of “love your neighbor,” and avoiding idolatry and offering pure sacrifices would fall under the rubric of “love of God.” Question: Aren’t these kind of “good works” also the kinds of “good works” that Paul would approve of in Ephesians 2:10? If not, why not? Further, where does Paul ever even hint at the idea that while we are not justified by “works of the law,” we are justified by “good works?” It isn’t nearly enough for you to insist that “works of the law” and “good works” aren’t exactly the same thing (I’ll concede that). But are they categorically different when, as you’ve already admitted, that “works of the law” include all the prescriptions of the Old Testament?

 

[paul_c]

Miguel Satre and Catholic Dude,
I feel you two are arguing the wrong point here and that’s why you are encountering difficulties.
.
Think about justification as entering into a covenant relationship with God. In the Old Testament, this special covenential relationship was available only to chosen race (Israel )who were circumcised and followed the jewish ceremonial laws to set them apart from the rest of humanity

With Jesus’ pascal sacrifice, the old Covenant ended and the new one began. As Paul points out, entry into the new covenant (justification) is no longer dependent on the Jewish ceremonial laws, nor is it exclusive to Jews. In fact, it is open to all that have Faith, whether gentile or Jew. . And the covenant ceremony is baptism, not circumcision. There are no works required to be baptized, only the desire to follow Jesus. So the argument about whether Paul was talking about good works or works of the law is a moot point, since neither are required to become a Christian.

The other misunderstanding is what is required of someone who has entered into this covenant with Christ to enter heaven. Miguel would maintain that simply aving entered into the covenant was sufficient. But it is not. When we enter into the new covenant,we make a set of promises:

Celebrant: Do you reject Satan?

Response: I do.

Celebrant: And all his works?

Response: I do.

Celebrant: And all his empty promises?

Response: I do.

Celebrant: Do you believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth?

Response: I do.

Celebrant: Do you believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, Who was born of the Virgin Mary, was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?

Response: I do.

Celebrant: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting? Response: I do.

When you say signal your intent to follow these promises, you take on the responsiblity not only in believing what Jesus and his church teach, but also in rejecting Satan and sin.

In the new covenant with God, HE agrees to forgive our sins, gives us the grace necessary to do his will and makes us members of his Church. We agreed to follow him and do his will. If we do so, we will enter heaven. If we fail to do as we have promised, we will be condemned to hell

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I think this whole sequence misses the point. God does save us with Grace, solely based on Faith.

Yes Paul. This is why Catholic ecumenists state quite matter-of-factly that there is a qualified sense in which Catholic theology can embrace sola fide.

BUT that does not guarantee that we will go to heaven.

That depends. If the faith is truly of God, then it is given for the purpose of saving us and therefore cannot fail to do so. So, in the “order of being” faith alone justifies and justification leads to sanctification, which in turn leads to glorification (so the “golden chain” of salvation in Romans 8). But there is such a thing as a false faith. This is why there are so many qualifications throughout scripture that describe what the believer looks like. The true believer: follows Jesus, produces fruit, puts to death the deeds of the flesh, walks in the spirit, supplements faith with virtue, examines him/herself to make sure she/he is in the faith, invests talents wisely, does not sin (on an ongoing, regular basis) and on and on it goes. Therefore, in “the order of knowing,” faith alone is not sufficient for attaining the knowledge of salvation that 1 John 5 says we can have.

You see, When we are saved, we are freed from former sin and given the grace to truely live the Christian life. There are no works involved in this, merely the desire to be baptized and to live this new life as a member of Jesus’s one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I agree that salvation is both logically and temporally prior to the desire to live the Christian life and that grace empowers us to do so for the simple reason that we are given a new nature, or else who could Paul call us a “new creation?” The desire to be members of his body is absolutely true and the church is one, holy, built on the foundation of the apostles and made up of the elect gathered from every race, tribe nation and tongue (catholic). I suspect, however, that we define unity and catholicity and apostolic and even holy in very different senses.

But to go to heaven, we must cooperate with the grace given us.

No. There is nothing on our part that provides entry into heaven. This is the mistake of Pelagius and the Semi-Pelagians and all synergists. The salvation that Paul clearly says is “not of yourselves” in no way admits of the possibility that it is, at the end of the day, “of yourselves” after all. We do not finish what God started; rather it is God alone who starts and finishes our salvation. Essentially your view is this: God puts us in the state of grace. You do the rest, (but with God’s help, of course, which you nevertheless can refuse).

We must love our neighbor as ourselves and we must love God with all our heart, all our strengtht, and all our souls, and in doing so we will avoid mortal sin. If we die in the state of grace, we will go to heaven.

This is the very definition of “another gospel” and a “different gospel” from the one taught in Scripture. Nowhere is any kind of commandment keeping the means to our salvation or the condition by which we secure our own salvation. While all the things you mention are required of the Christian, none of these things are means by which we are saved.

The mistake of Luther, Calvin and all that followed them was that they thought their obligation to God ended with a mere assent of faith.

This only proves you’ve never read either one of them and/or failed to understand them.

There is no reason to argue incessantly about whether Saint Paul was denying the efficacy of Good works or Only works of the law in the economy of salvation. He’s merely pointing out that you don’t earn baptism, you ask for it.

Agreed. That’s why we’re not supposed to baptize infants who can’t ask for it. It’s also why justification isn’t “earned” and neither is final salvation.

For he says in Romans 2: “who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.”

You’re not understanding this passage in relation to the whole of Romans. First, recall that in chapter 2, Paul is describing salvation as a Jew would understand salvation. Salvation is primarily by keeping the law. But as we read on to chapter 3 and following, Paul is going to deny that salvation is by works, that no one in fact does seek glory, honor and immortality through perseverance in good works, which means the entire point is moot anyway, because there isn’t anyone who fits this description. That said, even if this were a description of the Christian in the state of grace (as some commentators take it), none of these things are imperatives, but rather all are indicatives. On this reading, Paul would be describing what a saved person looks like, not prescribing the requirements that must be met in order to go to heaven. In short, the true believer does these things because he is saved, not in order to gain, earn, or maintain a salvation not already secured for him/her in heaven.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
I think this whole sequence misses the point. God does save us with Grace, solely based on Faith.

yes, a very qualified sense.

Quote:
BUT that does not guarantee that we will go to heaven.

I’m fine if you want to think of thee true beleiver as one who embraces all that Jesus taught us to do through his Church.

Quote:

You see, When we are saved, we are freed from former sin and given the grace to truely live the Christian life. There are no works involved in this, merely the desire to be baptized and to live this new life as a member of Jesus’s one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I will tell you what I think of as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. This is the definition from the catechism: scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

• One: One Church, unified in doctrine under the leadership of the Pope, who holds the chair of St. Peter, the rock on which Jesus built his Church
• Holy: The Church is sanctified because it comes from God and its people seek to become Holy as well
• Catholic: The Church is universal and open to all that want to join
• Apostolic: The Church derives form the Apostles and is governed by its successors, the Pope and the bishops

.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
But to go to heaven, we must cooperate with the grace given us.

So, you deny that we have free will? This is your error. We most certainly do have free will. This was made abundantly clear in the first few chapters of Genesis. Man was given everything he needed but was given the choice of accepting it and living in God’s grace, or rejecting it by partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Man today is given that same choice after baptism. He can do what God asks and stay in the state of Grace and ultimately go to heaven, or he can reject that grace through sin.

Quote:
We must love our neighbor as ourselves and we must love God with all our heart, all our strengtht, and all our souls, and in doing so we will avoid mortal sin. If we die in the state of grace, we will go to heaven.

They are not the means by which we are saved. They are the means by which we live the Christian life and go to heaven after we are saved. These are in fact the rules laid out in all scriptural moral teaching. Review the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) if you doubt this

Quote:
The mistake of Luther, Calvin and all that followed them was that they thought their obligation to God ended with a mere assent of faith.

I understand them only too well. Calvin stated unequivocally that man’s destiny on earth was predetermined, with nothing man did having an effect on his salvation. Luther disagreed with Calvin, in that he recognized that man had to have faith but he also taught that if you hae faith in God’s saving power, that was all that was required for the forgiveness of sin and eternal life. Both would say that the saved will follow Jesus’s teachings but they failed to recognize or rationalized away the corollary, : the fact that if you don’t follow Jesus’ teachings, you will not enter enter heaven

Quote:
There is no reason to argue incessantly about whether Saint Paul was denying the efficacy of Good works or Only works of the law in the economy of salvation. He’s merely pointing out that you don’t earn baptism, you ask for it.

Theres a lot of misunderstanding in those two sentences:
For infant baptism: Their parents are standing in for them, as they do in all other actions, and the infant is given grace on the strength of their parents request. Ultimately, as the child becomes old enough to speak for him/herself, he/she will repeat these vows and be sealed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of Confirmation. In adults, the sacraments of baptism and confirmation can be rendered at the same time.

Jusitification isn’t earned, it is simply the desire to be baptized… Entry into heaven is not earned either in the strictest sense. - you merely must cooperate with God’s will. It might be more accurate to say that we can lose heaven by turning away from God.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
For he says in Romans 2: “who will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works, but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness. Yes, affliction and distress will come upon every human being who does evil, Jew first and then Greek. But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek.”

Your argument shows your confusion in that you are forced to try to explain away what Paul says quite clearly: you will be judged based on your works with those who do good works attaining to eternal life and those that do evil with condemnation.

The real point of Chapter 3 and the following is to point out that in the new covenant, it doesn’t matter if you are Greek or Jew because entry into the new covenant is by faith in Jesus and not by works of the law. He’s pointing out that sins are forgiven, not by animal sacrifice but by the sacrifice of Jesus . By chapter 6, he is explaining that once saved, we need to live the Christian life adn by chapter 11, he is warning that if you don’t stay faithful, you will be detached from the vine of life. So he returns to the points in Chapter 2, that only those that do good will enter into heaven. If you want to say that they do good because they have been given grace, you will get no argument from me. because it is the truth. But it is also the truth that as Paul states in chapters 2 and 11, you can deny that grace, do evil, and be ripped from the vine.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

That depends. If the faith is truly of God, then it is given for the purpose of saving us and therefore cannot fail to do so. So, in the “order of being” faith alone justifies and justification leads to sanctification, which in turn leads to glorification (so the “golden chain” of salvation in Romans 8). But there is such a thing as a false faith. This is why there are so many qualifications throughout scripture that describe what the believer looks like. The true believer: follows Jesus, produces fruit, puts to death the deeds of the flesh, walks in the spirit, supplements faith with virtue, examines him/herself to make sure she/he is in the faith, invests talents wisely, does not sin (on an ongoing, regular basis) and on and on it goes. Therefore, in “the order of knowing,” faith alone is not sufficient for attaining the knowledge of salvation that 1 John 5 says we can have.

Why do you add “faith alone”? Good works justify faith. This false faith is because it is dead without works. Who cares what they look like? Read 1 Samuel 16:7. True faith produces fruit. I agree. Faith and Works. A Christian cannot have one without the other. Otherwise, they are not a Christian. FAITH AND WORKS. Why strip reality about Christianity?

I agree that salvation is both logically and temporally prior to the desire to live the Christian life and that grace empowers us to do so for the simple reason that we are given a new nature, or else who could Paul call us a “new creation?” The desire to be members of his body is absolutely true and the church is one, holy, built on the foundation of the apostles and made up of the elect gathered from every race, tribe nation and tongue (catholic). I suspect, however, that we define unity and catholicity and apostolic and even holy in very different senses.

One = One Body
Holy = “I came not to call the righteous, but to call sinners”. We do not make the Church holy. We are not for the Church. Christ built a Church for us.
Catholic = Universal
Apostolic = Tradition held through Apostolic Succession.

No. There is nothing on our part that provides entry into heaven. This is the mistake of Pelagius and the Semi-Pelagians and all synergists. The salvation that Paul clearly says is “not of yourselves” in no way admits of the possibility that it is, at the end of the day, “of yourselves” after all. We do not finish what God started; rather it is God alone who starts and finishes our salvation. Essentially your view is this: God puts us in the state of grace. You do the rest, (but with God’s help, of course, which you nevertheless can refuse).

False assumption = false objection.

This is the very definition of “another gospel” and a “different gospel” from the one taught in Scripture. Nowhere is any kind of commandment keeping the means to our salvation or the condition by which we secure our own salvation. While all the things you mention are required of the Christian, none of these things are means by which we are saved.

Yet, you want to say that Faith Alone saves us and nothing else. All you need is to believe in your brain and that is it. No praying. No charity. No love. Hypocritical assertions are what are destroying Faith Alone. Even though the notion refutes itself in terms of a true believer as you stated above.

This only proves you’ve never read either one of them and/or failed to understand them.

Hubris

Agreed. That’s why we’re not supposed to baptize infants who can’t ask for it. It’s also why justification isn’t “earned” and neither is final salvation.

Where does it say in Scripture, “Do not baptize infants”? Nowhere. You defeat your notion of Sola Scriptura.