By George...

[De_Maria]

By George…
…I think I’ve got it.

I’ve often wondered how St. Paul could say,

Romans 3:28
For we account a man to be **justified by faith, without the works **of the law.

Titus 3:
[5] Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;

And St. James could say,

James 2:24
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

And Catholics and Protestants both say that they are saying the same thing. Catholics say they are both teaching faith and works. And Protestants say they are both teaching faith alone. They aren’t! But they don’t contradict each other either.

Yes, they are talking about justification. But there is more than one kind of justification.

St. James is talking about ordinary justification. The kind that everyone undergoes and which is exemplified by Abraham.

But the one type of justification which we always mention but we never explain is Sacramental justification. And that is what St. Paul is talking about more often than not.

The Works of God. The Sacraments.

In Sacramental justification and each of the Sacraments is a different form of justification, faith ALONE is necessary. They are works of God:

740 These “mighty works of God,” offered to believers in the sacraments of the Church, bear their fruit in the new life in Christ, according to the Spirit. (This will be the topic of Part Three.)

1128 This is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: “by the very fact of the action’s being performed”), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that “the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.” From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.

We can’t make ourselves children of God. Only God can do that for us. But we must believe that in the pouring of the water over us that is exactly what God is doing for us.

No need to fear that the Protestants will say, “AHA! We were right all along!” They don’t accept the Sacraments and consider them works of men.

And that is to what St. Paul is frequently making reference, in my opinion. Sacramental justification, especially in Baptism. But also in Confession, Anointing and Eucharist.

What say you?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

You might be focusing on the wrong word - Justification. The word to focus on is “Works”. St. Paul is speaking of the Mosaic works - purification rites, sacrifices, festivals, etc. These do not justify us.

St. James is speaking of helping your neighbor - of loving your neighbor - something Jesus preached quite often. Think of the Good Samaritan, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, and such.

 

[JimG]

You might be focusing on the wrong word - Justification. The word to focus on is “Works”. St. Paul is speaking of the Mosaic works - purification rites, sacrifices, festivals, etc. These do not justify us.

St. James is speaking of helping your neighbor - of loving your neighbor - something Jesus preached quite often. Think of the Good Samaritan, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, and such.

Yes, and note that in the parable of the last judgment given in Matt: 25:31-45, Jesus does not even mention the “works of the Law,” yet he seems to make our final judgment for heaven or hell entirely dependent on our works of mercy. Faith is not even mentioned.

 

[De_Maria]

You might be focusing on the wrong word - Justification. The word to focus on is “Works”. St. Paul is speaking of the Mosaic works - purification rites, sacrifices, festivals, etc. These do not justify us.

Yes, they do. But that is a different type of justification. It is justification “extra nos”. We all undergod this type of justification by our own efforts. We must TURN TO GOD and we must OBEY GOD.

That is our effort. None of us can approach the waters of Baptism without first undergoing the external justification of our own efforts. It is otherwise called “repentance”.

St. James is speaking of helping your neighbor - of loving your neighbor - something Jesus preached quite often. Think of the Good Samaritan, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, and such.

Very good! You are correct. St. James is speaking of “extra nos” justification. But not of “Sacramental justification”. BOTH ARE NECESSARY. But for Sacramental justification, only faith is required. Lets take the plainest example. BAPTISM. In Baptism, we become children of God. Can you make yourself a child of God?

NO! Only God can make you His child.

In Baptism, we are washed clean of all sin including original sin. Can you wash youself of all sin?

NO! Only God can wash you clean of all sin.

Nothing that you DO can accomplish those effects upon your soul. NOTHING. Therefore, you are justified in Baptism APART FROM WORKS OF THE LAW, WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. APART FROM ANY WORKS except one. Faith.

You must believe that God is able to do these things oooorrrrr… you will be condemned:

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.

And THAT is what St. Paul is mainly explaining.

That is why St. Paul and St. James do not agree with each other and yet do not contradict each other. They are both explaining Catholic doctrine. But they are explaining different doctrines.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Yes, and note that in the parable of the last judgment given in Matt: 25:31-45, Jesus does not even mention the “works of the Law,” yet he seems to make our final judgment for heaven or hell entirely dependent on our works of mercy. Faith is not even mentioned.

Am I a Catholic or a Protestant? I’m a Catholic. And I don’t equate JUSTIFICATION and SALVATION. They are two different things. Matt 25 is about SALVATION.

I’m talking about JUSTIFICATION. And since the advent of Jesus Christ, there is more than one type of justification.

1. Justification extra nos, which is the justification of our own efforts. It is repentance.
2. Sacramental justification. The Sacraments are WORKS OF GOD. We can submit to them. But we can’t perform them. Only God can do that. All the Sacraments justify us in some way, but lets take for instance “Baptism”.

A Priest can pour water over your head all you want but you won’t be baptized UNLESS YOU BELIEVE.

And you can’t baptize yourself. You can’t make yourself a child of God, you can’t wash your soul of all sins including Original Sin. You can’t do any of that. God washes your soul clean APART FROM ANY WORKS OF THE LAW OR OF RIGHTEOUSNESS except one…FAITH.

Thanks for replying. I like these sort of challenges. Keep them coming.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

You might be focusing on the wrong word - Justification. The word to focus on is “Works”. St. Paul is speaking of the Mosaic works - purification rites, sacrifices, festivals, etc. These do not justify us.

St. James is speaking of helping your neighbor - of loving your neighbor - something Jesus preached quite often. Think of the Good Samaritan, the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, and such.

By the way, thanks for your challenge. Keep them coming!

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

By the way, thanks for your challenge. Keep them coming!

Sincerely,

De Maria

No problem. I’m curious though, what is this “extra nos” justification if its not beneficial?

I’ve always heard of only one “Justification”

 

[De_Maria]

No problem. I’m curious though, what is this “extra nos” justification if its not beneficial?

It is beneficial. It is not “effectual”.

Do you remember the 'baptism of repentance" also known as the “baptism of John”. St. John would pour water over the heads of people who had repented. But that Baptism was not effectual. It was just a symbol.

Justification “extra nos” is similar. It is what Protestants confuse with the idea of being “born again”. It is when a person decides to act upon the grace of God and begins to seek Him in faith.

IRONICALLY, Protestants who do not believe in Baptism continue to justify themselves by their works.

Catholics and those Protestants who believe in Baptism, will then elect to be Baptized and God will justify them in the waters of regeneration.

what is this “extra nos” justification

I must admit, I had never heard of it either. Last year some time, I was in a hot and heavy debate with another Catholic about merit before Baptism. In the research for that debate, I found this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
*…This inner quality of righteousness and sanctity is universally termed “sanctifying (or habitual) grace”, and stands in marked contrast to an exterior, imputed sanctity, as well as to the idea of merely covering and concealing sin. By this, however, we do not assert that the “justitia Dei extra nos” is of no importance in the process of justification. For, even if it is not the formal cause of justification (causa formalis), it is nevertheless its true exemplar (causa exemplaris), inasmuch as the soul receives a sanctity in imitation of God’s own holiness. *…

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to say:

The Council of Trent (l. c. cap. vii), moreover, did not neglect to enumerate in detail the other causes of justification: …* the reception of the Sacraments cause (causa instrumentalis**). …*
newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Do you see? Today, Catholic doctrine focuses on SACRAMENTAL justification. Just as St. Paul once did.

But will anyone dare to say that Abraham was not justified by God? Yet which of the Sacraments did he receive?

St. Paul was ahead of his time. That is why St. Peter said of him:

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Did you know that St. Paul was the only Theologian amongst the Apostles? He was taught by one of the greatest of the Jewish Theologians, Gamaliel himself!

St. Paul’s teachings were difficult even for the other Apostles to understand. That’s why St. James thought it necessary to confront his teachings. And why his teachings sound as though they contradict St. Paul’s.

It also explains why St. Paul was wondering whether Sts. Peter, James and John were truly Apostles. Remember when he said:

Galatians 2:9
[9] And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: [10] Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.

The point being, that St. Paul was understood Sacramental justification before anyone else. All the Apostles knew they were necessary. They simply did not have a technical understanding that they were forms of justification.

I’ve always heard of only one “Justification”

That is exactly the problem. We still treat Justification as though there is only one kind. Yet we all understand that Abraham was justified by God without Baptism. And today, Baptism is the form of justification most Catholics focus upon.

Yet all the Sacraments are different forms of justification and there is still justification EXTRA NOS without which no adult would ever arrive at Baptism.

Let me know your thoughts. Whether I turn out to be wrong or not, I think this train o thought is rather exciting.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

It is beneficial. It is not “effectual”.

Do you remember the 'baptism of repentance" also known as the “baptism of John”. St. John would pour water over the heads of people who had repented. But that Baptism was not effectual. It was just a symbol.

Justification “extra nos” is similar. It is what Protestants confuse with the idea of being “born again”. It is when a person decides to act upon the grace of God and begins to seek Him in faith.

IRONICALLY, Protestants who do not believe in Baptism continue to justify themselves by their works.

Catholics and those Protestants who believe in Baptism, will then elect to be Baptized and God will justify them in the waters of regeneration.

I must admit, I had never heard of it either. Last year some time, I was in a hot and heavy debate with another Catholic about merit before Baptism. In the research for that debate, I found this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
…This inner quality of righteousness and sanctity is universally termed “sanctifying (or habitual) grace”, and stands in marked contrast to an exterior, imputed sanctity, as well as to the idea of merely covering and concealing sin. By this, however, we do not assert that the “justitia Dei extra nos” is of no importance in the process of justification. For, even if it is not the formal cause of justification (causa formalis), it is nevertheless its true exemplar (causa exemplaris), inasmuch as the soul receives a sanctity in imitation of God’s own holiness. …

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to say:

The Council of Trent (l. c. cap. vii), moreover, did not neglect to enumerate in detail the other causes of justification: …** the reception of the Sacraments cause (causa instrumentalis**). …
newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Do you see? Today, Catholic doctrine focuses on SACRAMENTAL justification. Just as St. Paul once did.

But will anyone dare to say that Abraham was not justified by God? Yet which of the Sacraments did he receive?

St. Paul was ahead of his time. That is why St. Peter said of him:

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

Did you know that St. Paul was the only Theologian amongst the Apostles? He was taught by one of the greatest of the Jewish Theologians, Gamaliel himself!

St. Paul’s teachings were difficult even for the other Apostles to understand. That’s why St. James thought it necessary to confront his teachings. And why his teachings sound as though they contradict St. Paul’s.

It also explains why St. Paul was wondering whether Sts. Peter, James and John were truly Apostles. Remember when he said:

Galatians 2:9
[9] And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: [10] Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.

The point being, that St. Paul was understood Sacramental justification before anyone else. All the Apostles knew they were necessary. They simply did not have a technical understanding that they were forms of justification.

That is exactly the problem. We still treat Justification as though there is only one kind. Yet we all understand that Abraham was justified by God without Baptism. And today, Baptism is the form of justification most Catholics focus upon.

Yet all the Sacraments are different forms of justification and there is still justification EXTRA NOS without which no adult would ever arrive at Baptism.

Let me know your thoughts. Whether I turn out to be wrong or not, I think this train o thought is rather exciting.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I will absorb what you wrote (it may take some time), but I thought there was a term for what (I think) you are referring to as “extra nos” justification. I thought it was “Imputed Grace”.

Regarding the Justification of Abraham, I’ve always assumed it was God “being God” and not being bound by the normative means of salvation. The Thief on the Cross would be a New Testament example. I know he wasn’t Sacramentally baptized, but he was justified - the Sacramental Justification, not the “extra nos”.

Am I making sense or am I traveling down the wrong rabbit hole?

 

[De_Maria]

I will absorb what you wrote (it may take some time),

No problem.

but I thought there was a term for what (I think) you are referring to as “extra nos” justification. I thought it was “Imputed Grace”.

I always thought that was a Protestant term. I’ve never heard a Catholic say that justice was "imputed’.
Imputed righteousness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Imputed righteousness is the Protestant Christian doctrine that a sinner is declared righteous by God purely by God’s grace through faith in Christ, …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_righteousness -
The Good News of the Judgment

The Catholics have always taught that sinners are saved by “infused” grace. Protestants have always taught that sinners are justified by “imputed” grace. …
www.presenttruthmag.com/Judgment/37.html - Cached - Similar

If you meant to say “infused grace”, that is precisely true. But the grace infused before the Sacraments is not “Sanctifying” grace. It is “actual” grace.

Regarding the Justification of Abraham, I’ve always assumed it was God “being God” and not being bound by the normative means of salvation.

Please explain. In my opinion, Abraham’s justification is a case study in Extra Nos justification.

1. Genesis Chapter 12-God calls him a friend. That is a form of justification.
2. Same Chapter-God says that if he obeys God, he will remain God’s friend and will be rewarded. More justification.
3. Chapter 18-the famous “reckoned” justice because he believed God.
4. Chapter 22-the equally famous “because you have DONE this” I know that you love me.

Abraham was justified OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Just as we are. Justification is a process.

The Thief on the Cross would be a New Testament example.

Agreed.

I know he wasn’t Sacramentally baptized,

How?

but he was justified - the Sacramental Justification, not the “extra nos”.

Unless you mean the Sacrament of Confession while he was speaking to Jesus Christ the eternal Priest upon the Cross, what Sacrament are you referring to?

1. Scripture is silent as to whether the Good Thief, St. Dismas, was ever baptized. Tradition with a little “t”, I only capitalized it because its the first wond of this sentence, implies that he may have been bathed in the same tub as Baby Jesus as an infant. But that hardly constitutes baptism. And little t tradition is not infallible.
2. As I have mentioned to others, St. Dismas did many things upon the Cross which constitute works.
   a. He suffered with Jesus. Literally expiating his sin upon the Cross.
   b. He defended Jesus from the blasphemy of other criminal.
   c. He repented of his sin.
   d. He sought salvation in faith and placed his hope in Jesus Christ.
   e. And of course, his works, being inscribed in Scripture and possibly causing the conversion of countless sinners, are works of gold which merit heaven.
3. So, unless he was baptized, there was no way for him to receive Sanctifying grace in this life. He had to get it in the after life. Possibly by the process of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood. Which are SPIRITUAL or MYSTICAL Baptisms.
4. Or unless when Jesus infused Sanctifying grace in him when He said, “this day yuou will be with Me in paradise,” But there’s no way to figger that from the text and the Church hasn’t, to my knowledge, said so. Although it seems plausible to me.
5. Bottom line, in my opinion, works were involved in the salvation of the Good Thief.

Am I making sense or am I traveling down the wrong rabbit hole?

Yes, you’re making sense.

I look forward to a mutually beneficial discussion.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[NotWorthy]

De Maria, first of all, thanks for the clarification.

I DID mean to say “Infused Grace”, rather than “imputed Grace”. :doh2:

Regarding the Thief missing out on Baptism, the Sacrament of Baptism hadn’t been instituted yet. Not til the Pentecost was the Sacrament of Baptism imparting Grace upon us.

Now, with that being said, Jesus set up within the Church the normative means of receiving His Grace. But He is not bound by those means. He can instill Sacramental Grace on whomever and whenever He wants to.

For example, the Church teaches that if one repents of their sin and confesses their sin to a priest, then upon the priest given them absolution, their sins are forgiven… after they do their penance, of course. If I skipped a step or two, don’t worry about it. I’m merely trying to illustrate that the Church has given us a means to know that our sins are forgiven. This is the normative means.

Now, with that said, I’m not going to fool myself into thinking this is the ONLY way that someone can have their sins forgiven. God does what He Wills. So, if God wished St. Dismas to be justified, without Baptism, then so be it. Just as with Abraham.

I would list Abraham and St. Dismas as two examples of this.

And yes, Abraham was justified multiple times, because Justification is a process. I would imagine God didn’t take too kindly to Abe yielding his wife up to the Egyptian pharaoh for his harem, or Amalek for that matter.

 

[De_Maria]

De Maria, first of all, thanks for the clarification.

I DID mean to say “Infused Grace”, rather than “imputed Grace”. :doh2:

That’s what I thought. Easy mistake to make.

Regarding the Thief missing out on Baptism, the Sacrament of Baptism hadn’t been instituted yet. Not til the Pentecost was the Sacrament of Baptism imparting Grace upon us.

Correct.

Now, with that being said, Jesus set up within the Church the normative means of receiving His Grace. But He is not bound by those means. He can instill Sacramental Grace on whomever and whenever He wants to.

That is also true.

For example, the Church teaches that if one repents of their sin and confesses their sin to a priest, then upon the priest given them absolution, their sins are forgiven… after they do their penance, of course. If I skipped a step or two, don’t worry about it. I’m merely trying to illustrate that the Church has given us a means to know that our sins are forgiven. This is the normative means.

Agreed.

Now, with that said, I’m not going to fool myself into thinking this is the ONLY way that someone can have their sins forgiven. God does what He Wills. So, if God wished St. Dismas to be justified, without Baptism, then so be it. Just as with Abraham.

I would list Abraham and St. Dismas as two examples of this.

I don’t know about St. Dismas. There is controversy whether he went to heaven or to ABRAHAM’S BOSOM. Which is a euphemism for the Limbo of the Fathers. Remember that Abraham himself did not go to heaven. He went to the Limbo of the Fathers to await us. St. Paul says it this way:

Hebrews 11:36
[36] And others had trial of mockeries and stripes, moreover also of bands and prisons. [37] They were stoned, they were cut asunder, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being in want, distressed, afflicted: [38] Of whom the world was not worthy; wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth.** [39] And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise; [40] God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us. **

Therefore, I don’t believe that Abraham received Sanctifying grace in his lifetime. Otherwise, he too would have gone straight to heaven.

Why didn’t he go straight to heaven? Because he was still afflicted by Original Sin. Until that Original Sin was washed away and only the Sanctifying grace released by Jesus Christ on the Cross could do that, until that Original Sin was removed from his soul, he would remain in Limbo.

And yes, Abraham was justified multiple times, because Justification is a process. I would imagine God didn’t take too kindly to Abe yielding his wife up to the Egyptian pharaoh for his harem, or Amalek for that matter.

Agreed.

After my last post, it occurred to me that we can examine the circumstances behind Abraham’s justification of faith from Genesis Chapter 15 (the one mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 4) and the Good Thief and compare them to the Sacraments.

In Abraham’s justification by faith, we find that the Word of God says:

Genesis 15:6
Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.

St. Paul puts it like this:
Romans 4:3
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.

Now we know that Abraham worked before and after he was reputed just. But it is God who thus proclaimed him just and He who with but one word created the universe, with one word justified Abraham.

So, although Abraham worked, it was not by his works that he was justified. It was by the word that God spoke. And God spoke that word because Abraham believed Him.

I think we can assume that if Abraham had NOT believed God, God would not have reputed him just.

So, next we move to the Good Thief. The Good Thief, on the Cross, put his faith in Christ. And Christ said to him:
Luke 23:43
And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Christ is God the Second Person of the Trinity and therefore His word is all powerful and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that St. Dismas was in paradise that very day with Jesus Christ. Obviously, the Good Thief could not have taken himself anywhere. He was on a cross.

So again, it is God alone whose word is completely efficacious. What He says happens, happens.

Now to compare to the Sacraments. Again, taking Baptism because it is the easiest. The Church repeats the words which Jesus declared, “baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” and immediately WE BELIEVE that the Holy Spirit washes our souls clean. Why do we believe that? Because this is what Jesus’ taught us through the Apostles.

There is no work which we can accomplish which will remove from our soul Original Sin nor is there any work which will make us children of God. God alone can do that for us. And He does so in Baptism, IF WE BELIEVE.

And I suspect, this is what St. Paul meant everytime he mentioned justification by faith apart from works.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[fhansen]

The Council of Trent (l. c. cap. vii), moreover, did not neglect to enumerate in detail the other causes of justification: …** the reception of the Sacraments cause (causa instrumentalis**). …
newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

Trent teaches that Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification…and in any case went on to say that faith alone does not justify-that other dispositions and acts were necessary such as contrition/sorrow for sin, love for God, hope in His promises, keeping the commandments. Trent also says that faith, without also hope and charity, cannot bestow eternal life.

St Augustine says, “Without love faith can indeed exist but can be of no avail”.
In Corinthians Paul says that without love a faith that can move mountains is worthless and in Galatians 5:6 he says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”

It seems that St James is referring to these works of love when he says that we are not justified by faith but rather by works and Paul would never deny this but was emphasizing that mechanical obedience to the Law of Moses certainly did not justify.

If we look at it this way, then all acts following faith are-or at least should be- in some manner an act of love, including Baptism, reception of other Sacraments, feeding the poor, etc.

In any case the truly just man has the three virtues of faith, hope, and love, with love being the highest, containing the other two, i.e. we can have faith and hope without love but we cannot love God without having faith and hope in Him. And these virtues were lost by Adam, rendering him unjust because the act of disobeying God is an assault against faith in Him, hope in Him, and love for Him. And this, I believe, also relates to why our actions are always key-what we do counts-in spite of the Reformed position of justification by faith alone/imputed righteousness.

In the end, the fully justified man should be the one who fulfills the commandment to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind and strength and his neighbor as himself.

 

[twinc]

as I heard it simply put and simply accepted is that we will not be rewarded with heaven because of good works but in heaven and so “seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all these shall be added unto you” said Jesus - btw it seems the road to hell is paved with good works and it seems those who performed them will also be rewarded in hell so that the heat or flames will be turned down according to good works performed - twinc

 

[De_Maria]

Trent teaches that Baptism is the instrumental cause of justification…and in any case went on to say that faith alone does not justify-that other dispositions and acts were necessary such as contrition/sorrow for sin, love for God, hope in His promises, keeping the commandments. Trent also says that faith, without also hope and charity, cannot bestow eternal life.

St Augustine says, “Without love faith can indeed exist but can be of no avail”.
In Corinthians Paul says that without love a faith that can move mountains is worthless and in Galatians 5:6 he says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”

It seems that St James is referring to these works of love when he says that we are not justified by faith but rather by works and Paul would never deny this but was emphasizing that mechanical obedience to the Law of Moses certainly did not justify.

If we look at it this way, then all acts following faith are-or at least should be- in some manner an act of love, including Baptism, reception of other Sacraments, feeding the poor, etc.

In any case the truly just man has the three virtues of faith, hope, and love, with love being the highest, containing the other two, i.e. we can have faith and hope without love but we cannot love God without having faith and hope in Him. And these virtues were lost by Adam, rendering him unjust because the act of disobeying God is an assault against faith in Him, hope in Him, and love for Him. And this, I believe, also relates to why our actions are always key-what we do counts-in spite of the Reformed position of justification by faith alone/imputed righteousness.

In the end, the fully justified man should be the one who fulfills the commandment to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind and strength and his neighbor as himself.

I don’t think you’ve understood the opening post at all.

1. I’m NOT defending the Protestant teaching of FAITH ALONE.
2. I’m explaining the APPARENT discretion between St. Paul and St. James. A discrepancy which had not ever been explained to my satisfaction.
3. The fact is that the CATHOLIC CHURCH teaches that we are JUSTIFIED in the Sacraments.
4. And, again, in point of fact, She teaches that in the Sacraments all we do is BELIEVE. No other works are involved on our part.
5. Obviously, then, St. James is not explaining Sacramental justification. Or the Catholic Church would be contradicting him. St. James is explaining something else.
6. That something else is Justification “extra nos”. Outside of us. The justification by works which the Jews had to attain in order to enter paradise and await the coming of the Messiah before they could enter heaven with us.
7. If you feel I’ve misjudged your response, let me know. I’m not a Protestant. I’m a Catholic. And I’m suddenly realizing that there are two types of justification and this means that justification of faith apart from works and justification by faith and works are not mutually exclusive, because they describe two different types of justification which MUST be present in the Christian. They were not present in the Jew because Sacramental justification was introduced by Jesus Christ. They did not have recourse to the Sacraments.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

as I heard it simply put and simply accepted is that we will not be rewarded with heaven because of good works but in heaven and so “seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all these shall be added unto you” said Jesus - btw it seems the road to hell is paved with good works and it seems those who performed them will also be rewarded in hell so that the heat or flames will be turned down according to good works performed - twinc

I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the Scripture. You seem to have entered the discussion in defense of my stance and so I mean no disrespect in contradicting your statements. However, I don’t believe quite as you do. Permit me to break down your response:

1st. as I heard it simply put and simply accepted is that we will not be rewarded with heaven because of good works but in heaven

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that entry into heaven is not a reward. But that we will receive rewards after we enter heaven.

Please point to this Scripture or since you’re Catholic, to a Catholic teaching on this matter from the Fathers.

As I see it, we will be rewarded with heaven:
Romans 2:
[5] But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God. [6] Who will render to every man according to his works. [7] To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life:

Eternal life is heaven, is it not? This says that those who are patient in good works will receive ETERNAL LIFE. Not other rewards in eternal life.

But please provide your evidence for the rewards in eternal life (i.e. heaven).

You also said:
and so "seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all these shall be added unto you"

That says, “seek ye first”. Seeking the Kingdom of Heaven, one must work. It doesn’t say, “once you are in the Kingdom of Heaven other rewards will be added unto you”. Do you see the difference?

In addition, what are the things which will be added unto you? If we read a few verses before, they are:
[29] And seek not you what you shall eat, or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high. [30] For all these things do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things.

Eating and drinking. Hardly things you’ll need in heaven. Therefore these are not rewards you will receive after you’ve received the reward of heaven for your good works.

btw it seems the road to hell is paved with good works and it seems those who performed them will also be rewarded in hell so that the heat or flames will be turned down according to good works performed - twinc

You’ve got it all wrong. The road to ETERNAL LIFE is paved with good works. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.(James 2:18)

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[twinc]

I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the Scripture. You seem to have entered the discussion in defense of my stance and so I mean no disrespect in contradicting your statements. However, I don’t believe quite as you do. Permit me to break down your response:

1st. as I heard it simply put and simply accepted is that we will not be rewarded with heaven because of good works but in heaven

If I understand this correctly, you are saying that entry into heaven is not a reward. But that we will receive rewards after we enter heaven.

Please point to this Scripture or since you’re Catholic, to a Catholic teaching on this matter from the Fathers.

As I see it, we will be rewarded with heaven:
Romans 2:
[5] But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God. [6] Who will render to every man according to his works. [7] To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life:

Eternal life is heaven, is it not? This says that those who are patient in good works will receive ETERNAL LIFE. Not other rewards in eternal life.

But please provide your evidence for the rewards in eternal life (i.e. heaven).

You also said:
and so "seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all these shall be added unto you"

That says, “seek ye first”. Seeking the Kingdom of Heaven, one must work. It doesn’t say, “once you are in the Kingdom of Heaven other rewards will be added unto you”. Do you see the difference?

In addition, what are the things which will be added unto you? If we read a few verses before, they are:
[29] And seek not you what you shall eat, or what you shall drink: and be not lifted up on high. [30] For all these things do the nations of the world seek. But your Father knoweth that you have need of these things.

Eating and drinking. Hardly things you’ll need in heaven. Therefore these are not rewards you will receive after you’ve received the reward of heaven for your good works.

btw it seems the road to hell is paved with good works and it seems those who performed them will also be rewarded in hell so that the heat or flames will be turned down according to good works performed - twinc

You’ve got it all wrong. The road to ETERNAL LIFE is paved with good works. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. **But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my **faith.(James 2:18)

Sincerely,

De Maria

confusion upon confusion and error upon error as I see it and imho - rewards in heaven viz *in my Father’s house are many mansions,not just one glorious mansion with everyone equally rewarded - As there are different types of angels and even archangels,so imho there will be saints and saints and arch saints - btw it seems good works in the eyes and estimation of men,like trying to buy their way into heaven and finishing up in hell - btw since it was simply put and some just do not seem to simply understand lets try and make it even simpler as the really good news “Heaven is not a reward,it is a gift”- for those who will simply accept it which seems impossible for many - twinc

 

[twinc]

confusion upon confusion and error upon error as I see it and imho - rewards in heaven viz *in my Father’s house are many mansions,not just one glorious mansion with everyone equally rewarded - As there are different types of angels and even archangels,so imho there will be saints and saints and arch saints - btw it seems good works in the eyes and estimation of men,like trying to buy their way into heaven and finishing up in hell - btw since it was simply put and some just do not seem to simply understand lets try and make it even simpler as the really good news “Heaven is not a reward,it is a gift”- for those who will simply accept it which seems impossible for many - twinc

if the wise men sought by their gifts to gain heaven and did not accept the greatest Christmas gift they wasted their wealth,time and journey and were not really so wise after all - twinc

 

[De_Maria]

confusion upon confusion and error upon error as I see it

That is what you are doing. I have bolstered my own arguments with Scripture and I even turned your own Scripture against you.

and imho - rewards in heaven viz *in my Father’s house are many mansions,not just one glorious mansion with everyone equally rewarded -

Who said everyone was equally rewarded? You might want to read my response again.

You seem to be confusing the arguments. You objected to the reward one receives for obedience to God. Eternal life. Heaven.

Whether one receives other rewards, such as crowns, thrones, sitting at the right hand of Christ etc. etc. that’s another question all together which no one had addressed.

As there are different types of angels and even archangels,so imho there will be saints and saints and arch saints -

Still no connection between your objection to our receiving a reward for our behaviour, for our works and the status of angels and archangels. Different question all together.

btw it seems good works in the eyes and estimation of men,

Still a totally different question. Catholics, and you are supposedly Catholic, I looked at your public profile, Catholics don’t do works to be seen by men but for the love of God. Therefore God is our judge:
1 Corinthians 4:3
[3] But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you, or by man’s day; but neither do I judge my own self. [4] For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord. **[5] Therefore judge not before the time; until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise from God. **

like trying to buy their way into heaven

You really need to get back to your catechism. Do you have children? If you don’t, you do have a mom. In any case, you ought to know that children obey their parents, not to buy their way into their parents’ hearts but because they love them.

And we who obey God aren’t trying to buy our way into His heart. We obey Him and perform His works because we love Him.
John 14:21
**He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me. **And he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father: and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

and finishing up in hell -

As the Apostle said above, I will await God’s judgement.

btw since it was simply put

Just because your words are simple doesn’t mean they are true.

and some just do not seem to simply understand lets try and make it even simpler as the really good news “Heaven is not a reward,it is a gift”- for those who will simply accept it which seems impossible for many - twinc

Yes, it is a gift, but a gift which will be given only to those who obey God:
Hebrews 5:9
And being consummated, he became, to all that obey him, the cause of eternal salvation.

Let me give you a very simple example from the human sphere. Have you ever heard of a “graduation” gift? When do you give people GRADUATION gifts? When they graduate not before. Therefore it is a gift which must be merited.

We merit heaven by our obedience which is expressed by good works in response to our love of God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

if the wise men sought by their gifts to gain heaven and did not accept the greatest Christmas gift they wasted their wealth,time and journey and were not really so wise after all - twinc

I wholeheartedly agree. Again, you seem to be totally disconnected from the question at hand.

1st. The Catholic Church through Scripture teaches that one must persevere in good works, to the end of their life. I already posted Romans 2:

Romans 2:
[6] Who will render to every man according to his works. [7] To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life:

But there are many verses which speak of persevering to the end.

Mark 13:13
And you shall be hated by all men for my name’s sake. But he that shall endure unto the end, he shall be saved.

Sincerely,

De Maria