Abraham and Isaac!

[Huiou_Theou]

excuse me you have got it all wrong and then use a lot of words to embellish it - nowhere does Jesus say “you know me - you are saved”- it seems all the devils know and knew Him but cannot believe in Him,their battle cry still rings out “I will not believe or serve”- we are simply asked to simply do that which devils simply cannot do simply believe and so these things are written that you may simply believe “that Jesus is the Christ,the son of God;and that believing you may have life in his name” - simple and yet not simple at all - twinc

I think you just made that up – where does scripture say “I will not believe” with respect to any demon. It says the opposite of you:
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well:** the devils also believe,** and tremble.

You aren’t convincing me – I don’t need to convince you. I already said faith is a work. By saying I am wrong – you deny John 6:28-29.

The point is, belief alone is not enough – if you don’t agree, cite a scriptural example where there are absolutely no works, the person is saved, and the saved person refuses to do any work and no one does a work on their behalf-- eg: they will not serve, but only believe. They will not listen to Jesus, but he saves them anyway.

You won’t because you can’t. Not even the example of Jacob and Esau is of any value against faith being a work – and a work being required for ultimate salvation.

 

[Pax]

Pax, Thanks for your extended comments on this passage. Here are a couple of observations.
…
The word “when” is not in the Greek text either in James 2:21 or 2:25. It is rendered in connection with the aorist participles to show that they are temporal in force. Your argument about the temporal force is correct, but it doesn’t come from James use of the word “when.”

1. If Abraham was justified by faith, isn’t it possible that these later passages you mention are merely showing that Abraham’s faith matured as he trusted the Lord throughout his life? It wasn’t completed in the sense that Abraham lacked something in the faith that had justified him before God. Rather, it grew stronger.
2. "Paul tells us that:
3. “In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told,”
4. “He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb.”
5. “No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.”

Your conclusion does not seem to follow from these texts. … c) Therefore, it is through works that Abraham’s faith received divine approval, in the sense of justifying him before God.
…
…

day2day in Christ,

Thank you for the thoughtful analysis and response. I’ll try to address your points. The word “when” appears in the English translation and not in the Greek for the reasons you stated. This is typical in translating from one language to another in order for the meaning to come across correctly. I generally do not rely on the Greek because I am not a Greek scholar. I do, however, have eleven English translations at my immediate disposal and I compare the versions to zero in on what is actually meant. I mentioned the word “when” because I have had people attempt to the use that word to argue against the clear intent of the text.

Your point #2 is a line of thought that I see no reason to argue with except to say that it does not undo my line of reasoning nor does it contradict it. The most important thing to keep in mind is that scripture makes it clear that Abraham was justified on three occasions and not just one. Moreover, one of those occasions is prior to the one cited by Paul in the book of Romans. This generally unravels the non-Catholic arguments concerning justification and OSAS, and is one of the reasons non-Catholics almost unanimously insist that Abraham was justified only once.

Your remarks identified in item (c) need to be addressed so that you have a better understanding of my argument. Please note that works have nothing to do with God granting us the initial grace that justifies us. All of that is pure gift, and there is absolutely nothing that we have done in advance of that grace that in any way, shape, or form contributes to justification. Before grace we are dead in our sins, and anything that we do, that can be construed as a good work by human standards, “falls short” of what is necessary to please God. Paul clearly tells us in Romans 14:23 that:

…whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Therefore, without God bringing us gratuitously into a right relationship with him[justification], works are meaningless. The motivations for good works when we are not in a state of friendship with God, are self centered and not God centered. The works are not God derived, they are self derived. The Father has, however, prepared works for us to do even before he gratuitously justifies us by grace through faith[See Eph 2:9-10]. We see this over and over again in the examples of Abraham, Sarah, and the patriarchs as outlined in my earlier posts. This is where I make the clear connection of faith and works in my commentary, and this where the focus needs to be placed in order to appreciate the role of works in justification as stated by the apostle James.

It is quite clear from scripture that we would have a contradiction that would render Abraham’s belief null and meaningless if Abraham refused to be obedient and follow the instructions given him by God. Abraham could not say “I believe” and have faith that God would give him heirs and then refuse to act upon the promise. No excuse about his own age, frailty, or the barren state of Sarah would “justify”[pun intended] a refusal to engage in marital relations with Sarah. Likewise, all of the examples cited of the patriarchs have an element of works associated with them that follow the same kind of pattern. The works, as James points out. “complete” the faith that justifies. It is in that sense that we are justified by works. Likewise, our faith becomes meaningless if that completion does not occur because of a refusal on our part to do the works the Father prepared in advance of our justification. Remove the marital relations on the part of Abraham and Sarah and there is no Isaac, and the promises made by God concerning off spring simply would not have occurred. The implications for Abraham’s justification in that scenario are obvious. It is for this reason that James clearly states that “faith without works is dead.”

I hope this “begins” to clarify my position.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Pax, Thanks for your extended comments on this passage. Here are a couple of observations.

…
… It also appears that you wish to argue that had Abraham not done works, his faith would have been uncompleted and would not have brought about his justification.

Your terminology indicates that a misunderstanding exists between what I believe and what you understood me to say. Please be advised that it is not the completion of works that “brought about his justification.” Faith is completed by works. The initial grace that brings the gift of faith is what brought about Abraham’s justification. That state of friendship/justification created by God is not unlike that of Adam and Eve prior to the fall. If Abraham willfully disobeyed God concerning the promises then his faith would be void and meaningless. His God given gift of justification would broken just as Adam and Eve’s was broken.

…
Also, I am wondering how you reconcile James 2:24 with Romans 4:2. In regard to Abraham, James says a man is justified by works, but Paul says if Abraham was justified by works, he had something to glory about, but not before God.
…

My comments above partially if not entirely reconcile James 2:24 and Romans 4:2. Paul is pointing out what I pointed out in my clarifications in the prior post. There is absolutely nothing that we do to bring about God’s gratuitous gift of grace that justifies us. That initial grace is a totally unearned gift. James would completely agree with Paul on that score and there is nothing in his epistle to the contrary. James is speaking about the relationship of faith and works in justification after God brings us into that state of friendship gratuitously. James is saying what I have been pointing out along the way. Likewise, Paul’s epistle is congruent with James comments in that Paul makes it quite clear that we cannot, as believers, live in sin. This is abundantly clear beginning with the final verse of Romans 5 through all of Chapters 6 and 7.

Paul argues throughout his letter against the Judaizers and even the gentiles concerning their respective systems of works which are not based on grace and belief in Jesus. He points out that “the law” could not save because it did not give power to overcome sin. The law merely “pointed out sin” as a custodian. Grace, on the other hand, and faith in Jesus give us the power to overcome sin. Romans 6:17-18 among other passages is instructive in that regard and it says:

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

This is just one of the many places that we see the bridging of James and Paul’s teachings. Paul would never say that we can simply believe, and he never says anything negative about good works within the “Christian system of grace and works.” Paul only attacks works within the systems of the Judaizers and the gentiles with their pagan gods.

I could say much more about all of this and may need to do so in future posts, but it is extremely late and I need to drag myself off to bed for some needed shut eye.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Pax, Thanks for your extended comments on this passage. Here are a couple of observations.

…
… It also appears that you wish to argue that had Abraham not done works, his faith would have been uncompleted and would not have brought about his justification.

Your terminology indicates that a misunderstanding exists between what I believe and what you understood me to say. Please be advised that it is not the completion of works that “brought about his justification.” Faith is completed by works. The initial grace that brings the gift of faith is what brought about Abraham’s justification. That state of friendship/justification created by God is not unlike that of Adam and Eve prior to the fall. If Abraham willfully disobeyed God concerning the promises then his faith would be void and meaningless. His God given gift of justification would broken just as Adam and Eve’s was broken.

…
Also, I am wondering how you reconcile James 2:24 with Romans 4:2. In regard to Abraham, James says a man is justified by works, but Paul says if Abraham was justified by works, he had something to glory about, but not before God.
…

My comments above partially if not entirely reconcile James 2:24 and Romans 4:2. Paul is pointing out what I pointed out in my clarifications in the prior post. There is absolutely nothing that we do to bring about God’s gratuitous gift of grace that justifies us. That initial grace is a totally unearned gift. James would completely agree with Paul on that score and there is nothing in his epistle to the contrary. James is speaking about the relationship of faith and works in justification after God brings us into that state of friendship gratuitously. James is saying what I have been pointing out along the way. Likewise, Paul’s epistle is congruent with James comments in that Paul makes it quite clear that we cannot, as believers, live in sin. This is abundantly clear beginning with the final verse of Romans 5 through all of Chapters 6 and 7.

Paul argues throughout his letter against the Judaizers and even the gentiles concerning their respective systems of works which are not based on grace and belief in Jesus. He points out that “the law” could not save because it did not give us the power to overcome sin. The law merely “pointed out sin” as a custodian. Grace on the other hand and faith in Jesus gives us the power to overcome sin. Romans 6:17-18 among other passages is instructive and it says:

But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

This is just one of the many places that we see the bridging of James and Paul’s teachings. Paul would never say that we are free simply believe, and he never says anything negative about good works within the “Christian system of grace and works.” Paul only attacks works within the systems of the Judaizers and the gentiles with their pagan gods.

There is much more to be said on all of this, but it is extremely late and I need to saunter off to bed to get some shut eye.

God bless.

 

[twinc]

I think you just made that up – where does scripture say “I will not believe” with respect to any demon. It says the opposite of you:
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well:** the devils also believe,** and tremble.

You aren’t convincing me – I don’t need to convince you. I already said faith is a work. By saying I am wrong – you deny John 6:28-29.

The point is, belief alone is not enough – if you don’t agree, cite a scriptural example where there are absolutely no works, the person is saved, and the saved person refuses to do any work and no one does a work on their behalf-- eg: they will not serve, but only believe. They will not listen to Jesus, but he saves them anyway.

You won’t because you can’t. Not even the example of Jacob and Esau is of any value against faith being a work – and a work being required for ultimate salvation.

sorry - wrong again and again - Lucifer/Satan and the devils knew the God who had expelled them,they didnt know or quite know or accept the man/God as saviour and redeemer and even had the audacity to tempt Him - btw it had better be true that we are saved by faith through grace and mercy or else St.Therese of Lisieux could not have made it because of her empty hands and bad advice to others - anyway the Church does indeed teach that we are justified and saved by faith through grace and mercy or else she would have damned the halt the lame.the blind,the bed ridden etc -twinc

 

[day2day]

Pax, Thanks for your reply. I understand that our viewpoints are different in regard to faith and works. I am not expecting to change your mind. I merely wish to argue that Romans 4:2 cannot be construed to support your idea. There is no clearer way Paul could have stated the idea that Abraham was not justified before God by works. To make it say the opposite is to misconstrue the text.

“It is quite clear from scripture that we would have a contradiction that would render Abraham’s belief null and meaningless if Abraham refused to be obedient and follow the instructions given him by God.”

That statement is not “quite clear.” The Abrahamic Covenant was a unilateral covenant. Had it been a bilateral covenant, Abraham would also have walked between the animal pieces (Gen 15:17). The fulfillment of that covenant depended entirely upon God and not upon Abraham or Abraham’s faith.

Further, Genesis 15:6 states that Abraham was justified, because he “believed in the Lord.” It was not Abraham’s works that were reckoned to him for righteousness, but his faith. There is no indication that if he failed to do works, he would lose that justification. There is no later indication that he lost his earlier justification.

Your view directly contradicts what Paul says in Romans 4:2. Paul’s point is that Abraham was not justified before God by works. You try to reconcile the contradiction by arguing that Paul is just talking about “initial justification.” However, there is nothing in that passage to indicate that Paul is talking about “initial justification.” He is talking about the same justification he has been discussing in 3:20, 24, 26, 28 and 30.

If you are arguing that 4:2 refers to “initial justification,” then the other verses must also be about initial justification. There is nothing in the text to indicate a switch in meaning. In fact, there is every reason to understand the meaning to be the same throughout this extended section through 5:21.

Arguing that the word means “initial justification” makes 3:31 nonsensical, for Paul would be saying that it is only initial justification that is provided by faith and not by works of the law. If that were the case, 3:20-3:30 would not nullify the law at all, because works of the law would be a basis of maintaining justification.

In Chapter 3 Paul has been arguing that God declares people righteous on the basis of faith rather than works. In chapter 4, he uses Abraham to illustrate his argument. Abraham is an example of someone who was justified before God by faith and not by works.

The word “justified” is also used in 5:1 with the word “therefore,” an inferential word denoting that what it introduces is the result of or an inference from what precedes. Paul is talking about the same kind of justification, a justification before God, not an “initial justification.” He continues, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (5:9). Again, Paul is not speaking of initial justification at all. The present participle in 5:1 and 5:9 expresses a present condition. Paul was saved in about 36 A.D. and wrote the book of Romans about twenty years later in 57 or 58 A.D. When he states “being justified by faith” he is not referring to his “initial justification” twenty years earlier!

Paul further states that based on that present condition, “we shall be saved from wrath through him.” The promise of deliverance from future wrath rests on being justified by his blood, not on works. Although we were enemies with God, we were reconciled and “being reconciled” we “shall be saved,” (5:10). We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom “we have now received the atonement,” the covering of our sins. To say that Paul is speaking of “initial justification” in these passages is to inject into the text something that is not there. To say that works are required is to argue the opposite of what Paul so clearly states in 3:20-5:21.

Thanks, Pax. I know that Catholic theology rests on just the opposite and that this forum is committed to that position. I appreciate having the opportunity to post these comments and do not wish to take advantage of the graciousness of the forum by turning Catholic Answers into Non-Catholic Answers. However, since you had taken so much time to articulate your view, and had specifically asked for a response to your argument, I thought a response would be appropriate. If you wish to interact further, I would be willing to do so, but I also want to be sensitive to the nature of the forum.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

sorry - wrong again and again - Lucifer/Satan and the devils knew the God who had expelled them,they didnt know or quite know or accept the man/God as saviour and redeemer and even had the audacity to tempt Him - btw it had better be true that we are saved by faith through grace and mercy or else St.Therese of Lisieux could not have made it because of her empty hands and bad advice to others - anyway the Church does indeed teach that we are justified and saved by faith through grace and mercy or else she would have damned the halt the lame.the blind,the bed ridden etc -twinc

Sigh. Thistle is absolutely right about you. You aren’t here to argue logically.

If we are saved through grace (as you assert]-- we must respond, for grace is not a one way Gift. St. Paul uses the word both as please, supplication – and as a thank you. At dinner my family (at least) says “thank you” and asks for a blessing in the selfsame prayer. Grace is a relationship, not a mere “gift”.

The blind, lame, bed ridden all can do works – no matter how small. None of these earns them the right to meet Jesus for the first time; but once they have, they are required to love him. “If you love me, keep my commandments.” The lame who are healed, the blind who’s eyes are opened, are no longer crippled that they should do no work; that they should not at least say “Thank you.”

BTW: St. Therese is not a scriptural example; Her salvation is a matter of the church’s Judgment – and there was a canonization process where a “devils advocate” tried to show she had faults that would bring her salvation into question, and that she had no works to recommend her; Obviously – she miraculously had them.
.
St. Therese said the way was to do “little” things – those are still “works” – they didn’t earn anything, but one can’t have a relationship with Christ without doing something, and these “somethings” are works.

Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, as St. Paul advises.
Be a friend of God, responding to his invitation to get to know him.
Don’t tempt God demanding a demonstration of his mercy – he can, and will say “I don’t know you.”

I respectfully withdraw from the thread; there is no point in further discussion.

 

[twinc]

Sigh. Thistle is absolutely right about you. You aren’t here to argue logically.

If we are saved through grace (as you assert]-- we must respond, for grace is not a one way Gift. St. Paul uses the word both as please, supplication – and as a thank you. At dinner my family (at least) says “thank you” and asks for a blessing in the selfsame prayer. Grace is a relationship, not a mere “gift”.

The blind, lame, bed ridden all can do works – no matter how small. None of these earns them the right to meet Jesus for the first time; but once they have, they are required to love him. “If you love me, keep my commandments.” The lame who are healed, the blind who’s eyes are opened, are no longer crippled that they should do no work; that they should not at least say “Thank you.”

BTW: St. Therese is not a scriptural example; Her salvation is a matter of the church’s Judgment – and there was a canonization process where a “devils advocate” tried to show she had faults that would bring her salvation into question, and that she had no works to recommend her; Obviously – she miraculously had them.
.
St. Therese said the way was to do “little” things – those are still “works” – they didn’t earn anything, but one can’t have a relationship with Christ without doing something, and these “somethings” are works.

Work out your salvation in fear and trembling, as St. Paul advises.
Be a friend of God, responding to his invitation to get to know him.
Don’t tempt God demanding a demonstration of his mercy – he can, and will say “I don’t know you.”

I respectfully withdraw from the thread; there is no point in further discussion.

of course wrong is wrong - besides being a saint St.Therese is a Doctor of the Church at her early age - and re fear and trembling is often quoted out of context and misunderstood since only 2:12 is quoted as regards works whilst 2:13 is ignored - twinc

 

[Pax]

…
…

1. In reference to Gal 3:5-9 you mention, “This quote is a reference to Abraham’s justification in Genesis 12:1-4”

The Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 12 sets forth several promises from the Lord to Abraham, but the passage doesn’t mention justification. Therefore, the reference to justification in Gal 3 is in regard to Genesis 15:6, and the reference to Gen 12 links the Gentiles to Abraham, “In you shall all nations of the world be blessed.”

1. “The belief that Abraham had in this instance came by way of the Spirit and faith.”

The words for “belief” and “faith” are the same thing. Abraham’s belief did not come by way of faith, it was faith.

day2day in Christ,

It is a mistake to conclude that Genesis 12 does not refer to justification simply because it does not use the word. We see a perfect example of this happening over and over again when we look at the patriarchs mentioned Hebrews 11 starting with Abel. When we go back to the OT text pertaining to that list we do not see the mention of justification in the OT text. Every instance of justification in scripture is tied to an event. Therefore, we can expect to tie the mention of justification in Gal 3 to an event. You attempted to do this yourself by mistakenly defaulting to Gen 15:6. The reason that you cannot do so is because the context of Gal 3 points to a specific instance. The text says:

Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Thus Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith.

This quote is an unmistakable reference to Abraham’s justification in Genesis 12:1-4 which says:

Gen 12:1-4

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.” So Abram went, as the Lord had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.

Gal 3----“In you all nations shall be blessed.”

Gen 12:1-4-----"…you will be a blessing. I will bless tho who bless you…by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves."

These two are obviously connected whereas Gen 15:6 is not because the instance it refers to is the promise of off spring in Isaac and additional descendents. That instance simply does not fit the context of Galatians 3. Since Gal 3:5-9 speaks of justification making reference to Genesis 12. If Paul says that instance is connected with justification then we don’t need to find that word in text in Genesis 12. Paul’s word is as good as gold on that point.

You were right to make the connection to the gentiles, but simply should not have made the connection to Gen 15. The nations/all families of the earth is the connection to gentiles and it is Genesis 12:1-4.

You rightly corrected my statement that said:

“The belief that Abraham had in this instance came by way of the Spirit and faith.”

You said:

The words for “belief” and “faith” are the same thing. Abraham’s belief did not come by way of faith, it was faith.

You are right…what I should have said is “by way of the Spirit and grace.” Sometimes the brain slips a cog. Thanks for pointing that out.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Pax, Thanks for your reply. I understand that our viewpoints are different in regard to faith and works. I am not expecting to change your mind. I merely wish to argue that Romans 4:2 cannot be construed to support your idea. There is no clearer way Paul could have stated the idea that Abraham was not justified before God by works. To make it say the opposite is to misconstrue the text.

“It is quite clear from scripture that we would have a contradiction that would render Abraham’s belief null and meaningless if Abraham refused to be obedient and follow the instructions given him by God.”

That statement is not “quite clear.” The Abrahamic Covenant was a unilateral covenant. Had it been a bilateral covenant, Abraham would also have walked between the animal pieces (Gen 15:17). The fulfillment of that covenant depended entirely upon God and not upon Abraham or Abraham’s faith.

Further, Genesis 15:6 states that Abraham was justified, because he “believed in the Lord.” It was not Abraham’s works that were reckoned to him for righteousness, but his faith. There is no indication that if he failed to do works, he would lose that justification. There is no later indication that he lost his earlier justification.

Your view directly contradicts what Paul says in Romans 4:2. Paul’s point is that Abraham was not justified before God by works. You try to reconcile the contradiction by arguing that Paul is just talking about “initial justification.” However, there is nothing in that passage to indicate that Paul is talking about “initial justification.” He is talking about the same justification he has been discussing in 3:20, 24, 26, 28 and 30.

If you are arguing that 4:2 refers to “initial justification,” then the other verses must also be about initial justification. There is nothing in the text to indicate a switch in meaning. In fact, there is every reason to understand the meaning to be the same throughout this extended section through 5:21.

Arguing that the word means “initial justification” makes 3:31 nonsensical, for Paul would be saying that it is only initial justification that is provided by faith and not by works of the law. If that were the case, 3:20-3:30 would not nullify the law at all, because works of the law would be a basis of maintaining justification.

In Chapter 3 Paul has been arguing that God declares people righteous on the basis of faith rather than works. In chapter 4, he uses Abraham to illustrate his argument. Abraham is an example of someone who was justified before God by faith and not by works.

The word “justified” is also used in 5:1 with the word “therefore,” an inferential word denoting that what it introduces is the result of or an inference from what precedes. Paul is talking about the same kind of justification, a justification before God, not an “initial justification.” He continues, “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” (5:9). Again, Paul is not speaking of initial justification at all. The present participle in 5:1 and 5:9 expresses a present condition. Paul was saved in about 36 A.D. and wrote the book of Romans about twenty years later in 57 or 58 A.D. When he states “being justified by faith” he is not referring to his “initial justification” twenty years earlier!

Paul further states that based on that present condition, “we shall be saved from wrath through him.” The promise of deliverance from future wrath rests on being justified by his blood, not on works. Although we were enemies with God, we were reconciled and “being reconciled” we “shall be saved,” (5:10). We also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom “we have now received the atonement,” the covering of our sins. To say that Paul is speaking of “initial justification” in these passages is to inject into the text something that is not there. To say that works are required is to argue the opposite of what Paul so clearly states in 3:20-5:21.

Thanks, Pax. I know that Catholic theology rests on just the opposite and that this forum is committed to that position. I appreciate having the opportunity to post these comments and do not wish to take advantage of the graciousness of the forum by turning Catholic Answers into Non-Catholic Answers. However, since you had taken so much time to articulate your view, and had specifically asked for a response to your argument, I thought a response would be appropriate. If you wish to interact further, I would be willing to do so, but I also want to be sensitive to the nature of the forum.

day2day in Christ,

I see an immediate problem. I am not arguing initial justification, but rather the initial grace of justification. Likewise, I am not arguing that works bring about the grace for justification. Two of my prior posts strongly stress the point that nothing we do before or after our justification brings us the grace or the gift of faith that is gratuitously given to us by God when he justifies us.

However, scripture does in fact clearly state that faith without works is dead and that faith is completed by works. James also says that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Paul never says that we are justified by faith “alone.” The Catholic explanation, when it is properly understood, is the only way of reconciling and properly understanding Paul and James.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Pax, Thanks for your reply. I understand that our viewpoints are different in regard to faith and works. I am not expecting to change your mind. I merely wish to argue that Romans 4:2 cannot be construed to support your idea. There is no clearer way Paul could have stated the idea that Abraham was not justified before God by works. To make it say the opposite is to misconstrue the text.

“It is quite clear from scripture that we would have a contradiction that would render Abraham’s belief null and meaningless if Abraham refused to be obedient and follow the instructions given him by God.”

That statement is not “quite clear.” The Abrahamic Covenant was a unilateral covenant. Had it been a bilateral covenant, Abraham would also have walked between the animal pieces (Gen 15:17). The fulfillment of that covenant depended entirely upon God and not upon Abraham or Abraham’s faith.

Further, Genesis 15:6 states that Abraham was justified, because he “believed in the Lord.” It was not Abraham’s works that were reckoned to him for righteousness, but his faith. There is no indication that if he failed to do works, he would lose that justification. There is no later indication that he lost his earlier justification.
…
…

day2day in Christ,

First of all, we need to think of what Paul is saying about faith. Please be advised that when Paul is speaking about faith he is also speaking of obedience. We know this by way of two very important facts.

#1 Faith and Obedience are closely related in Judaism. In the Greek NT the following definitions are very helpful. The verse John 3:36 says a great deal about faith and obedience for salvation. The verse reads as follows:

“He who believes[pisteuo] in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey[apeitheo the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

Strong’s Number: 4100
Transliterated: pisteuo
Phonetic: pist-yoo’-o

Text: from 4102; to have faith (in, upon, or with respect to, a person or thing), i.e. credit; by implication, to entrust (especially one’s spiritual well-being to Christ): --believe(-r), commit (to trust), put in trust with.

Strong’s Number: 544
Transliterated: apeitheo
Phonetic: ap-i-theh’-o

Text: from 545; to disbelieve (wilfully and perversely): --not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.

#2 The overarching theme of Romans is “the obedience of faith.” The apostle Paul opens his letter to the Romans by stating that through Christ

“…we have received grace and apostleship to bring about **the obedience of faith **for the sake of his name among all nations,”(Romans 1:4-5). Later Paul asks the question,

"Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or obedience which leads to righteousness?"(Romans 6:16).

Paul goes on to add

“For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles,”(Romans 15:18).

Finally, Paul concludes Romans by giving glory to God and includes the phrase,

“according to the command of eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith…”(Romans 16:26).

Obedience is an integral part of faith. This is revealed in the words of Jesus in the gospel and is reinforced by the testimony of all of the apostles. This inextricable relationship explains why we are not saved by faith alone as understood within non-Catholic circles.

I hope this helps and God bless.

 

[Pax]

day2day in Christ,

I appreciate all of your (name removed by moderator)ut, thoughtful analysis, and remarks. Your charity and good will are commendable.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

…
…
That statement is not “quite clear.” The Abrahamic Covenant was a unilateral covenant. Had it been a bilateral covenant, Abraham would also have walked between the animal pieces (Gen 15:17). The fulfillment of that covenant depended entirely upon God and not upon Abraham or Abraham’s faith.
…
…

day2day in Christ,

I disagree with you. Covenants are not unilateral and I do not believe your evidence suggests that the covenant was unilateral. It is much more important and productive to think of the covenants in scripture as family bonds. Family bonds are different from unilateral and bilateral arrangements as we would understand them in other situations.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

day2day in Christ,

I have an important question for you. Do you believe that a man who has no love for God is saved?

God bless.

 

[day2day]

***B]1) It is a mistake to conclude that Genesis 12 does not refer to justification simply because it does not use the word. We see a perfect example of this happening over and over again when we look at the patriarchs mentioned Hebrews 11 starting with Abel. When we go back to the OT text pertaining to that list we do not see the mention of justification in the OT text. Every instance of justification in scripture is tied to an event. Therefore, we can expect to tie the mention of justification in Gal 3 to an event. You attempted to do this yourself by mistakenly defaulting to Gen 15:6. The reason that you cannot do so is because the context of Gal 3 points to a specific instance. ***

The assumption in that paragraph is that every instance of faith in Hebrews 11 is an example of faith that brings justification before God as in Romans 5:1, “being justified by faith.” There is no reason to accept that assumption as being true.

The writer of Hebrews is exhorting and encouraging believers to continue to live lives of faith. He uses the prior heroes of faith as examples so that we might run the race before us with endurance (12:1). We are to fix our eyes on Jesus the author and finisher of our faith (12:2). Chapter 11 is not explaining how these people were justified before God. It doesn’t teach that faith involves works or that without works the OT representatives in chapter 11 would not have been justified before God. Paul tells us that they were justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (Rom 3:20ff) How did all of these people gain approval: “Through their faith.” (Heb 11:39).

The paragraph states, “Every instance of justification in scripture is tied to an event.” In one sense that statement is correct, because every instance of justification involves God declaring a person righteous on the basis of his grace and by means of their faith in Him. However, I am quite certain that understanding is not is meant in the quotation.

Using the clear passages of Scripture to explain the more obscure passages is preferable to doing it the other way around. Creating doctrine from obscure texts and then nullifying or negating what is taught in the plain texts is not the approach normally adopted with respect to the Bible or any other literature. We have a difference in that regard.

Thanks, PAX.

 

[day2day]

1. Gal 3----“In you all nations shall be blessed.”

Gen 12:1-4-----"…you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you…by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves."

These two are obviously connected whereas Gen 15:6 is not because the instance it refers to is the promise of off spring in Isaac and additional descendents. That instance simply does not fit the context of Galatians 3. Since Gal 3:5-9 speaks of justification making reference to Genesis 12. If Paul says that instance is connected with justification then we don’t need to find that word in text in Genesis 12. Paul’s word is as good as gold on that point.

The reason I made the connection between Gal 3:6 and Gen 15:6 is because Paul is quoting Gen 15:6

Throughout his writings Paul quotes the Old Testament to make points. Frequently, he pieces together quotes from different sections to illustrate or prove a truth. For example, in Romans 11:26-27 he quotes from Is 27:9; Is 59:20 and Jer 31:31. Your argument is not consistent with Paul’s literary style in relation to his use of the Old Testament.
Gen 15:6 is not because the instance it refers to is the promise of off spring in Isaac and additional descendents. That instance simply does not fit the context of Galatians 3.
Genesis 15:6 does not mean that Abraham’s faith is connected to what has happened earlier in Gen 15:1-5. It is merely a statement indicating that Abraham believed God and that God reckoned it to him for righteousness. It is a parenthetical statement, just as I might be commenting about you in connection to something and say “Now Pax is a Catholic.”

PAX, Thanks again for any response you may wish to provide. d2d

 

[Pax]

***B]1) It is a mistake to conclude that Genesis 12 does not refer to justification simply because it does not use the word. We see a perfect example of this happening over and over again when we look at the patriarchs mentioned Hebrews 11 starting with Abel. When we go back to the OT text pertaining to that list we do not see the mention of justification in the OT text. Every instance of justification in scripture is tied to an event. Therefore, we can expect to tie the mention of justification in Gal 3 to an event. You attempted to do this yourself by mistakenly defaulting to Gen 15:6. The reason that you cannot do so is because the context of Gal 3 points to a specific instance. ***

The assumption in that paragraph is that every instance of faith in Hebrews 11 is an example of faith that brings justification before God as in Romans 5:1, “being justified by faith.” There is no reason to accept that assumption as being true.

The writer of Hebrews is exhorting and encouraging believers to continue to live lives of faith. He uses the prior heroes of faith as examples so that we might run the race before us with endurance (12:1). We are to fix our eyes on Jesus the author and finisher of our faith (12:2). Chapter 11 is not explaining how these people were justified before God. It doesn’t teach that faith involves works or that without works the OT representatives in chapter 11 would not have been justified before God. Paul tells us that they were justified by faith apart from works of the Law. (Rom 3:20ff) How did all of these people gain approval: “Through their faith.” (Heb 11:39).

The paragraph states, “Every instance of justification in scripture is tied to an event.” In one sense that statement is correct, because every instance of justification involves God declaring a person righteous on the basis of his grace and by means of their faith in Him. However, I am quite certain that understanding is not is meant in the quotation.

Using the clear passages of Scripture to explain the more obscure passages is preferable to doing it the other way around. Creating doctrine from obscure texts and then nullifying or negating what is taught in the plain texts is not the approach normally adopted with respect to the Bible or any other literature. We have a difference in that regard.

Thanks, PAX.

Actually, I did not make an assumption at all. Please note for example what a well respected Protestant commentary has to say about Hebrews 11. Henry’s Concise Commentary says the following:

Citation: - HEBREWS 11

Synopsis: - The nature and power of faith described. (1-3)
It is set forth by instances from Abel to Noah. (4-7)
By Abraham and his descendants. (8-19)
By Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the Israelites, and Rahab. (20-31)
By other Old Testament believers. (32-38)
The better state of believers under the gospel. (39, 40)

Text: - Ver. 1-3 Faith always has been the mark of God’s servants, from the beginning of the world. Where the principle is planted by the regenerating Spirit of God, it will cause the truth to be received, concerning justification by the sufferings and merits of Christ.

…
…

What I have stated is clear from the scriptural text and is not in the least bit based on assumption. Even Henry’s non-Catholic commentary acknowledges that fact. And please note how scripture makes the book ends in Hebrews 11. It starts with with Abel using the term “approval as righteous” which is the same as “justification”.
It then book ends the list of patriarchs with the example of Rahab where James makes reference to her and that instance using the term “justified.”

God bless.

 

[Pax]

1. Gal 3----“In you all nations shall be blessed.”

Gen 12:1-4-----"…you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you…by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves."

These two are obviously connected whereas Gen 15:6 is not because the instance it refers to is the promise of off spring in Isaac and additional descendents. That instance simply does not fit the context of Galatians 3. Since Gal 3:5-9 speaks of justification making reference to Genesis 12. If Paul says that instance is connected with justification then we don’t need to find that word in text in Genesis 12. Paul’s word is as good as gold on that point.

The reason I made the connection between Gal 3:6 and Gen 15:6 is because Paul is quoting Gen 15:6

Throughout his writings Paul quotes the Old Testament to make points. Frequently, he pieces together quotes from different sections to illustrate or prove a truth. For example, in Romans 11:26-27 he quotes from Is 27:9; Is 59:20 and Jer 31:31. Your argument is not consistent with Paul’s literary style in relation to his use of the Old Testament.
Gen 15:6 is not because the instance it refers to is the promise of off spring in Isaac and additional descendents. That instance simply does not fit the context of Galatians 3.
Genesis 15:6 does not mean that Abraham’s faith is connected to what has happened earlier in Gen 15:1-5. It is merely a statement indicating that Abraham believed God and that God reckoned it to him for righteousness. It is a parenthetical statement, just as I might be commenting about you in connection to something and say “Now Pax is a Catholic.”

PAX, Thanks again for any response you may wish to provide. d2d

day2day in Christ,

Sorry, but the contextual relationship is crystal clear. I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree on that one.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

day2day in Christ,

You have used the following to passages from Romans to support your position:

Rom 3:20

For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.

Rom 4:2

For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that both of these passages are speaking of the same thing. We know this because Rom 4:2 is put into context by Rom 4:9-10 which says:

Is this blessing pronounced only upon the circumcised, or also upon the uncircumcised? We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

This last verse clearly demonstrates that in Rom 4:2 Paul is referring to works of law just as he is in Rom 3:20. Paul throughout his letters is referring to “works of law” when he speaks of works. Moreover, his principle example is always “circumcision.”

Paul is not discounting the Christian works performed in response to grace that we do as a new creation in Christ Jesus as mentioned in Eph 2:9-10. We know this because of the many statements that Paul makes throughout his letters involving works. Paul speaks negatively only of the works of law. In this regard Paul uses the Greek term “ergon nomou.” James does not use that term when he speaks of works because he is not speaking of works of law. James uses the term "“ergois agathois” which is a totally different term with accompanied conotations. These are the good works done in faith by grace while being led by the Spirit. These are the works prepared by the Father in advance of our justification per Eph 2:9-10.

Paul does not approve of the Judaizers and their contentions concerning justification by way of the OT law. Paul speaks positively, however, of the law of Christ[see 1 Cor 9:21 and Gal 6:2]. James makes reference to the same thing using the term “the royal law”[see James 2:8]. Likewise, Paul condemns what he calls “lawlessness” and he condemns lawless men[see 2 Thess 2 and 1 Tim 1:9]. Hebrews 1:9 also contrasts righteousness and lawlessness. We see the same thing in 1 Peter 4, 2 Peter 2 and 2 Peter 3, and also in 1 John 3.

Please consider all of that especially in light of all of my earlier posts.

Thanks and God bless.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

of course wrong is wrong - besides being a saint St.Therese is a Doctor of the Church at her early age - and re fear and trembling is often quoted out of context and misunderstood since only 2:12 is quoted as regards works whilst 2:13 is ignored - twinc

St. Theresa’s doctorate has nothing to do with the argument at all.
You are multiplying words.

I didn’t ignore 2:13 – but you are ignoring 2:12.
John 6:28 says it is the “work of God”, and 6:29 says that we are to “do” it.
Philemon 2;12 and 13 does nothing to refute or make what I say wrong, rather it establishes it a second time. We are to work – BECAUSE (for) – God IS working in us.

I respectfully withdrew, and I will do so again – will you be graceful and allow it without more cheap shots?