IHave I made myself clear, or was that just more confusing?
JMJ + OBT
Your post was excellent. After prayer and reflection over the past few days concerning the dialogue with apohasis and sandusky in another thread which you recently jumped into yourself, I came to a conclusion that is very much related to what you just capsulized in your previous post (i.e. the one I’m replying to):
Sandusky, apophasis, et al. have embraced a principle which they believe is unmistakeably taught by St. Paul: that is,
{1} apart from faith, no actions/activity/efforts of a believer can nor do have any effect nor role in determining whether that person will enter into Heaven at the end of his earthly life.
They also seem to link this to a static understanding of justification, or participation in the life of grace in general, such that there is a second principle:
{2} apart from faith, no actions/activity/efforts of a believer can nor do have any effect in his becoming justified, his remaining justified throughout his earthly life; nor is there any matter of degree in justification such that the believer’s actions/activity/efforts could increase it or decrease it; and even if justification admitted of such degrees, the believer’s actions/activity/efforts could not be said to causally effect any such increase or decrease.
By virtue of {1} and {2} being weilded in a dogmatic fashion, the principle of non-contradiction is then invoked, quite sensibly, when they interpret the rest of Sacred Scripture.
So it’s no use trying to bring the teachings of St. James or St. Peter or Jesus into the fray, what must be done is to demonstrate, solely from the texts of the Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews?) that St. Paul does not teach {1} nor {2}, i.e. that his statements which put “works,” “faith,” and “grace” in contrast can be
plainly understood in a manner that does not establish {1} nor {2}. Moreover it would be important to present an analysis, again solely from St. Paul’s letters, of what St. Paul does teach as regards a believer’s actions/activity/efforts having an effect upon or role in his justification and salvation.
Thus having a viable, consistent, comprehensive understanding of St. Paul’s teaching on faith and works, one which does not establish {1} nor {2}, the texts from James, Matthew, etc. which before had been inerpreted by sandusky, apophasis, et al. so as to be in non-contradiction with {1} and/or {2}, could be seen to fit together with that understanding in a wholly complementary manner. I should note that I’m not implying that it’s strictly necessary nor ideal that a Christian interpret the rest of the NT (or the OT for that matter) in light of his understanding of the Pauline Epistles, but in this case it would be a means to an end, that is cutting the feet out from under this loathsome heresy of
sola fide.
What this reminds of me is reading about old debates between orthodox Christians and the Arians, or modern debates between orthodox Christians and JW’s, where those embracing the heresy that Jesus Christ was/is not a divine person approached all of Scripture with that point fixed dogmatically in their minds, and similarly used the principle of non-contradiction to (mis)interpret passages of Scripture which ran contrary to their views. To make any real headway, their opponents have first to show that an understanding of those Scripture passages upon which their false dogma rested could at least be plausibly and consistently interpreted in another way (i.e. “the Catholic way”).
(continued below)
