Dear friends in Christ [a WORKS Question]

[Tommy999]

Friend what is your understanding and position on Catholics and WORKS regarding one meriting salvation?

God Bless you,

Patrick aka PJM

Hi Patrick,
As a young adult, it was suggested to me that a Christian is “saved by faith through God’s grace, not of works lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8-9). However, if you have faith in Jesus and He is your Lord and Savior, this faith will produce good works, which is the fruit of our faith.

For example:
In the Good Samaritan example, the evangelical protestant might say that the Samaritan’s good works flowed out of his faith in God and were the fruit of his faith, but they did not merit his salvation. Christ’s work on the cross alone accomplished that and that the Samaritan’s good works flowed out of his love for God and his fellow man that came after he was saved.

My limited understanding of what I perceive Catholic salvation to be is that the Samaritan’s good deeds were credited toward his salvation along with his faith. In other words, both faith and good works are needed to acquire salvation in Catholicism. If that is the case, it makes me wonder how many good works are enough?

Perhaps my perception of Catholic salvation is incorrect or skewed. Please correct me if that is the case.

 

[MT1926]

For example:
In the Good Samaritan example, the evangelical protestant might say that the Samaritan’s good works flowed out of his faith in God and were the fruit of his faith, but they did not merit his salvation. Christ’s work on the cross alone accomplished that and that the Samaritan’s good works flowed out of his love for God and his fellow man that came after he was saved.

My limited understanding of what I perceive Catholic salvation to be is that the Samaritan’s good deeds were credited toward his salvation along with his faith. In other words, both faith and good works are needed to acquire salvation in Catholicism.

Actually the first one is correct for the Catholic as well. God’s Grace is a free gift, there is absolutely nothing we could ever do to deserve his Grace. We Catholics do not have a debit card that we load up with good works and swipe upon entry into heaven. Salvation is not faith plus works, if by works you mean purely human efforts to win God’s favor.
Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, yet grace must not be resisted, either before justification (by remaining in unbelief) or after (by engaging in serious sin).

A lot of this information can be found directly on this site. (Emphasis mine) The Church teaches in agreement with Scripture that Christians:

"have been saved" through faith and baptism:

Mark 16:16
16*He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

Ephesians 2:8-9
8*For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—9not because of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 6:3-4
3*Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?4We were buried[a]*therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

we’re “being saved” through cooperation with grace:

1 Corinthians 1:18
Christ the Power and Wisdom of God
18*For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 15:1-3
The Resurrection of Christ
15Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,2by which you are saved, if you hold it fast—unless you believed in vain.
3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,

2 Corinthians 6:1
6*Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.

and that they "shall be saved" if they persevere in the Faith:

Matthew 10:22
22*and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

Romans 2:6-7
6*For he will render to every man according to his works:7to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Galatians 6:7-9
7Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.8For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but **he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.**9And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

If that is the case, it makes me wonder how many good works are enough?

How much did Jesus have to give for our sins?
I personally believe without good works how can we ever know if we truly have Faith in Christ our Lord?
James 2:18
18*But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
So my answer to your question is, we will find out on the day that we die if our Good works through God’s Grace was even a fraction of what he did for us.
Matthew 25:40
40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’

 

[Tommy999]

…
How much did Jesus have to give for our sins?
I personally believe without good works how can we ever know if we truly have Faith in Christ our Lord?

So my answer to your question is, we will find out on the day that we die if our Good works through God’s Grace was even a fraction of what he did for us.
.’

Hi MT1926,
Thanks for your post. I wanted to zero in on a few differences if that is ok.

I agree that Christians should do good works. I would maintain that our good works are the by-product of our faith and not part of earning our salvation.

I John 5:13 says, “13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life”. (emphasis mine).

I believe that is proof that a Christian who loves God, believe in and follows our Lord’s teachings and God’s commandments, confesses his sins with a contrite heart and loves his neighbor as himself can be confident that he will be with our Lord in heaven when he dies.

I don’t think God wants us to be paranoid or scrupulous about our status with Him. That would be like our dear father telling us before we take a long trip to see him, “I might be there to pick you up at the airport, but then again I might not. You’ll know when you get there”. I don’t think our Lord is like that.

 

[MT1926]

Hi MT1926,
Thanks for your post. I wanted to zero in on a few differences if that is ok.

I agree that Christians should do good works. I would maintain that our good works are the by-product of our faith and not part of earning our salvation.

Tommy thank you for your response.

I just want to let you know that as a Catholic I totally agree with you. As I stated in my post:
“God’s Grace is a free gift, there is absolutely nothing we could ever do to deserve his Grace.”
“Salvation is not faith plus works, if by works you mean purely human efforts to win God’s favor.”

I John 5:13 says, “13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life”. (emphasis mine).

I think this is a great verse on salvation. Did you bold the word “know” to get a point across that we have “absolute certainty?”

I don’t think this verse states absolute. The Greek word for knowledge (Gk.*eideitei) in 1 John 5:13 does not necessarily equate to absolute certainty. We use the verb “know” the same way in English. To indicate is that I have “confidence”. Like if I were to say I know Denver is going to win the Super Bowl. This is what know means in the context of John.

If you jump to the top of the Chapter John states.
1 John 5:1-3
Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God, and every one who loves the parent loves the child. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

This lets us know that to love God is to keep his commandments. Therefore, if we believe, we will keep his commandments, but if we do not keep the commandments, then we do not believe in him and can’t know that we are saved.

I believe that is proof that a Christian who loves God, believe in and follows our Lord’s teachings and God’s commandments, confesses his sins with a contrite heart and loves his neighbor as himself can be confident that he will be with our Lord in heaven when he dies.

I think this is a great statement and I as a Catholic agree with you. For a while now I have been an onlooker and think I have discovered that a lot of the fighting between Catholics and Evangelicals is just a matter of not understanding the others definitions.

So let us reaffirm.
I stated:
God’s Grace is a free gift, there is absolutely nothing we could ever do to deserve his Grace. Salvation is not faith plus works, if by works you mean purely human efforts to win God’s favor.
You Stated:
I would maintain that our good works are the by-product of our faith and not part of earning our salvation.

I am pretty sure we are on the same page here. I believe, as I think you do also, in what James says “faith apart from works is dead.” Obviously the works that are a “by-product” of our faith. As an onlooker I think I discovered the hang up is:
It seems Evangelicals believe Catholics think they can work their way into heaven. Which I already stated is not taught by the Catholic church.
It seems Catholics believe Evangelicals think they don’t have to move a finger to get into heaven. So let’s set the record straight can you get into heaven without moving a finger?

Now before you answer let’s define moving a finger. I think the other hangup is defining your statement. From the Catholics definition of works, which might not be your definition, the Catholic works from your statement would be:
to love God
to believe
following our Lord’s teachings
following God’s commandments
confessing our his sins
loving our neighbors

Now you might not consider these to be works, but to set the record straight this is what a Catholic means when we say works.

So would you be so kind as to answer the question: can you get into heaven without moving a finger? By either using the Catholic definition of works I gave you or by defining further what is considered a work from an Evangelical perspective.

I don’t think God wants us to be paranoid or scrupulous about our status with Him. That would be like our dear father telling us before we take a long trip to see him, “I might be there to pick you up at the airport, but then again I might not. You’ll know when you get there”. I don’t think our Lord is like that.

In my opinion this is the perfect example of works flowing from our faith. Your statement speaks to me about our personal doubt and disbelief making us paranoid and scrupulous, not the Lord putting this on us. I believe all of the work I have done for others (and the work I will continue to do) all of the trials, the pain and the suffering the good Lord has set before me in my life, has brought me closer to him. I have complete faith that he will be waiting for me in the end because my good works flow from my faith.

I think the person who’s works don’t flow from their faith or that don’t perform “Good Works” are the ones that feel paranoid.

God Bless

 

[PJM]

There wasn’t one.

The ability to have faith, and to exercies faith is a natural human function that is part of our human nature. We can put our faith in all kinds of things like power, money, etc.

In order to place our faith in God we need His supernatural grace.

I don’t like the formulation “faith plus works” I prefer “faith that works”.

No issues with anything you shared here

 

[PJM]

Hi Patrick,
As a young adult, it was suggested to me that a Christian is “saved by faith through God’s grace, not of works lest any man should boast” (Eph 2:8-9). However, if you have faith in Jesus and He is your Lord and Savior, this faith will produce good works, which is the fruit of our faith.

For example:
In the Good Samaritan example, the evangelical protestant might say that the Samaritan’s good works flowed out of his faith in God and were the fruit of his faith, but they did not merit his salvation. Christ’s work on the cross alone accomplished that and that the Samaritan’s good works flowed out of his love for God and his fellow man that came after he was saved.

My limited understanding of what I perceive Catholic salvation to be is that the Samaritan’s good deeds were credited toward his salvation along with his faith. In other words, both faith and good works are needed to acquire salvation in Catholicism. If that is the case, it makes me wonder how many good works are enough?

Perhaps my perception of Catholic salvation is incorrect or skewed. Please correct me if that is the case.

Thank you for you articulate and kind response

The RCC has never taught that anyone CAN “work” their way into heaven; as IF “works” were the only consideration.

Salvation is a process; one where the Catholic understanding of the term “WORKS” means acts of charity; without which no one [a subjective term] who has reached the age of reason, without doing a great deal of…

John 13:34
A new commandment I give unto you: That you love one another, as I have loved you, that you also love one another

.John 15:12
This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you

Romans 13:8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour, hath fulfilled the law.

1 Thessalonians 4:9
But as touching the charity of brotherhood, we have no need to write to you: for yourselves have learned of God to love one another

1 Peter 1:22
Purifying your souls in the obedience of charity, with a brotherly love, from a sincere heart love one another earnestly

1 John 3:23
And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us.

1 John 4:7
Dearly beloved, let us love one another, for charity is of God. And every one that loveth, is born of God, and knoweth God.

Now then, please read James chapter 2 which explains precisely WHY this is an essential condition of the salvation-process.

As for Jesus having already DONE everything [a could have but not chosen by Jesus] position. … How do you explain this?

Take Up your Cross and Follow Me

** Phil.2: 8** “And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross Luke.9 :23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.**Mark.8: 34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. Luke.9: 23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. Luke.14: 7 Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” ** Meaning of course that one MUST do this in order to attain the Beatific Vision.

God Bless you friend,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Hi MT1926,
Thanks for your post. I wanted to zero in on a few differences if that is ok.

I agree that Christians should do good works. I would maintain that our good works are the by-product of our faith and not part of earning our salvation.

We Catholics & God disagree.]

James 2:13-20

“For judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy. And mercy exalteth itself above judgment. What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 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. Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?”

You [meaning Protestants] presume that charity is a “natural” OPTION** flowing out of Faith. BUT clearly all of the above passages indicate it’s an expectation of God and therefore an expectation of GOD"S plan for man’s salvation efforts**

I John 5:13 says, “13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life”. (emphasis mine)

Are you my friend aware of this infallible rule?.

My friend have you ever been exposed to the One Infallible Rule for right understanding of the Bible? Which BTW is a Catholic Book.

Never Ever; can, may or DOES
One verse, passage or teaching have the power or authority to
Invalidate, make void or override another
Verse, passage or teaching:
Were this even the slightest possibility;[it’s NOT!] it would render the entire Bible useless to teach or lean Christ Faith”

2Peter 1: 19-21
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

[Douay explanation]

[20] No prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation: This shews plainly that the scriptures are not to be expounded by any one’s private judgment or private spirit, because every part of the holy scriptures were written by men inspired by the Holy Ghost, and declared as such by the Church; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the Spirit of God, which he hath left, and promised to remain with his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Some may tell us, that many of our divines interpret the scriptures: they may do so, but they do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, and not otherwise. End Quotes

I believe that is proof that a Christian who loves God, believe in and follows our Lord’s teachings and God’s commandments, confesses his sins with a contrite heart and loves his neighbor as himself can be confident that he will be with our Lord in heaven when he dies

** Agreed conditionally**

.

BUT can one actually “know God” without doing GOD"S WILL?

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven"

I don’t think God wants us to be paranoid or scrupulous about our status with Him. That would be like our dear father telling us before we take a long trip to see him, “I might be there to pick you up at the airport, but then again I might not. You’ll know when you get there”. I don’t think our Lord is like that.

NOR is one to be presumptuous!

** Isaiah 43:6-9**
"Seek ye the Lord, while he may be found: call upon him, while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unjust man his thoughts, and let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God: for he is bountiful to forgive. For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts

What you [again Protestants] presume to believe in the doctrine of “Jesus has already done it ALL” ; all one has to do is “believe”; confuses what Jesus COULD have done with what Jesus ACTUALLY did choose to do.

This position is a very human; post reformation position introduced by Luther [through Wycliffe] more than 1,000 years AFTER Christ chosen method had been known, accepted and approved by the Holy Spirit. [Mt 16:18-19; Jn 17:17-20 & Mt 28: 19-20]

We Catholics are not confused; we’re bewildered

Pray much my friend,

Patrick

 

[guanophore]

Nice to see you got the old login back. Wow 11k posts , I can see why it was important to get that login working again.

Matthew19:26

He is quite a yeoman, that Patrick!

 

[guanophore]

If I’m understanding you correctly? The Protestant position is that that Faith comes BEFORE grace?

This is difficult, since there are so many different soteriologies within protestantism. Those who espouse Calvanism (most Baptists) will cling to the TULIP. They embrace the heresies of Calvin, in that humanity is “totally depraved” (a position not taught by the Apostles). As such, humans are totally “dead in sin” and turned against God, so that we cannot seek, search, or yearn for God without grace. Pure Calvanism teaches that we are saved by grace BEFORE we believe, and that the saving grace is what causes us to believe. God only saves those he has predestined to save, and the rest are hellbound.

While we Catholic claim logically, morally and theologically as well that it is GOD who acts before we do. It is GOD’S grace that makes Faith a possibility; a reality, which explains how faith can be at so many variant levels of right understanding.

Yes, Catholics accept that human nature is wounded, but not destroyed by original sin. God created mankind in His image and likeness. God created us to seek and search for Him. Calvanists believe that this desire God placed in us “died” because of original sin. The Apostles taught that the image and likeness of God remains, though it is wounded, and that we yearn for God, but lack the ability to connect and return to right relationship without grace.

This topic cannot be discussed without also tying into it your of your understanding of Justification by imputation which really needs to be a separate topic, as this too in when actually understanding the bible; a false position.

While I agree with your statement,we must be careful not to deny the words of Scripture.

James 2:23 Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.

The “reckoned” is an accounting term, meaning that a deposit was made into an account. It is also rendered “imputed” or “credited”.

The difference is that Catholics do not believe that Jesus just “doctored the books” by declaring a deposit occurrred when one actually did not (the Protestant position).

On the contrary, we embrace the apostolic teaching that we are infused with grace (God pours His grace into us at baptism) to make us truly righteous (not just declaring us so , while we remain snow covered dunghills).

I know you know all this already, but I am saying it because some Catholics, in wishing to contradict the Calvanistic heresy, throw out the concept of “imputed”. What we need to understand, like many other theological concepts that were “redefined” during the Reformation, is that the Apostles taught imputation means an actual “crediting”, rather than just a declaration that there is a positive balance. Calvin was a lawyer, and his entire theology is laced with legalism

In its most basic form Catholics proclaim that salvation is a process; while many [most] Protestants claim it’s a single act, which denies God’s Sovereignty and also denies man his absolute right to make use of the attributes gifted to him, precisely because it is a process.

It can also be said that salvation happens in one moment in time. Baptism forgives all sins, original and temporal. Reconciliation does the same. A little known fact is that the Sacrament of Anointing does the same. A person who leaves this earthly life immediately after any of these sacraments, or a perfect confession will be saved at that moment in time, for all time.

Good for you, studying your original languages.

 

[PJM]

If I’m understanding you correctly? The Protestant position is that that Faith comes BEFORE grace?

This is difficult, since there are so many different soteriologies within protestantism. Those who espouse Calvanism (most Baptists) will cling to the TULIP. They embrace the heresies of Calvin, in that humanity is “totally depraved” (a position not taught by the Apostles). As such, humans are totally “dead in sin” and turned against God, so that we cannot seek, search, or yearn for God without grace. Pure Calvanism teaches that we are saved by grace BEFORE we believe, and that the saving grace is what causes us to believe. God only saves those he has predestined to save, and the rest are hellbound.

Yes, Catholics accept that human nature is wounded, but not destroyed by original sin. God created mankind in His image and likeness. God created us to seek and search for Him. Calvanists believe that this desire God placed in us “died” because of original sin. The Apostles taught that the image and likeness of God remains, though it is wounded, and that we yearn for God, but lack the ability to connect and return to right relationship without grace.

While I agree with your statement,we must be careful not to deny the words of Scripture.

James 2:23 Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.

The “reckoned” is an accounting term, meaning that a deposit was made into an account. It is also rendered “imputed” or “credited”.

The difference is that Catholics do not believe that Jesus just “doctored the books” by declaring a deposit occurrred when one actually did not (the Protestant position).

On the contrary, we embrace the apostolic teaching that we are infused with grace (God pours His grace into us at baptism) to make us truly righteous (not just declaring us so , while we remain snow covered dunghills).

I know you know all this already, but I am saying it because some Catholics, in wishing to contradict the Calvanistic heresy, throw out the concept of “imputed”. What we need to understand, like many other theological concepts that were “redefined” during the Reformation, is that the Apostles taught imputation means an actual “crediting”, rather than just a declaration that there is a positive balance. Calvin was a lawyer, and his entire theology is laced with legalism

It can also be said that salvation happens in one moment in time. Baptism forgives all sins, original and temporal. Reconciliation does the same. A little known fact is that the Sacrament of Anointing does the same. A person who leaves this earthly life immediately after any of these sacraments, or a perfect confession will be saved at that moment in time, for all time.

Good for you, studying your original languages.

EXCELLENT POST & great clairification:thumbsup:

Continued Blessings,

Patrick

 

[badnewsbarrett]

The simple definition of justification is: the action of declaring or making righteous in the sight of God.

Could you please expand on the:

“lexical tool to show you that it can mean any of three different things depending on context, and then attempt to show you that it’s being used one way here and a different way there, in service of harmonizing passages that say otherwise contradictory things about faith and justification.”

Or point me somewhere that can explain this further.

Hey there, I let this go by for a little too long, almost didn’t get back to it. These are the three different ways in which lexical tools that I’ve seen describe the range of what “justify” can mean.

Source: biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/dikaioo.html

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

The source doesn’t look like much of a fancy or official webpage, but I assure you, that exact same thing can be found word for word in the dusty lexicons that Protestants pull off of shelves in seminary libraries when they need to do some work.

The general rule is that if Dikaioo (justify) comes up in a passage, we must then pick one, just one, of those definitions under the heading and apply it to where the word is being used. Number two is of particular importance for the book of James, as this allows us to understand the word in the sense that a Christian is shown, exhibited, or evinced to be righteous, rather than declared righteous or rendered righteous. More importantly, it allows us to interpret the various uses of Dikaioo in ways that do not contradict each other, and this is exactly the sort of translation/interpretation tool that allows us to say we’re not just making up new meanings of words, we’re pulling them out of actual lexicons and making use of the full range of something that is already known.

Could you give an example of this please? I am not disagreeing with you because it is hard to follow the point without an example. However, I think I a heard a great response on CAL the other day as to why Catholics sometimes read several different things into a phrase. Basically, back at the turn of the century they didn’t have distractions like we do now a days (TV, radio, movies, iphones, internet, etc.). All they had was the old testament. They lived it, knew many of it’s stories by heart, and when they were working in the fields they quite often filled their minds with those stories, instead of their facebook posts. Anyway, the point he was making was all it took was a word or a phrase for the new testament writers to get their point across. So the people could relate to and understand an entire passage or story from the old testament. Kind of like if I were to say: “Let the force be with you”, allows you to think of the Star Wars saga without me having to write out the entire story all over again.

Not sure if this is what you were talking about?

God Bless

No, not exactly. The fourfold method of interpretation is mostly credited to Origen in its early development, although not entirely. The four “senses” of Scripture are described as Literal, Typological, Tropological (or Moral), and Anagogical. The way it was described to me in an Old Testament class, however, was Literal, Allegorical (sub for Typological), Moral, and Eschatalogical (which is very similar to Anagogical but not exactly the same in every instance). The main purpose of the change was the opportunity to spell out L-A-M-E. Then he chuckled a little bit and I said, “Oh, I see what you did there.”

The general criticism that Protestants have for the method is that it seems an awful lot like you can use to to just make up whatever you want, and it almost seems like the method was intentionally designed to be impenetrable to critical interaction. It’s not a process that lends itself to being verified and agreed upon. The more particular forms of criticism center on the really messed-up conclusions that Origen in particular came up with, and these are conclusions that are definitively rejected by the Catholic Church and everyone else. (Pre-existence of souls, final reconciliation of all creatures possibly including Satan, the subordination of the Son to the Father; these are main reasons why he’s not a saint). As for us, we have a tendency to blame the process. If he hadn’t used a process that basically allows you to make up what you want at every stage, he would not have made things up that were so far afield from any version of orthodoxy. I’m not sure exactly what Catholics have to say about it, but from what little I know, it seems like the shortcomings of the method are downplayed as if it’s not that big a deal, and the method still has some value that can continue to enrich us. I personally think we’re better off without it though, and it’s disappointing that the method was relied on to any extent by so many people and for so long.

To his credit, Origen in particular and in general anyone else after him who used the Fourfold Method did have a high view of Scripture and (Origen at least) made a point of citing Scripture at all times in the midst of anything that he had to say about anything. With that being said though, Origen was always looking for the deeper meaning beyond the words themselves. Yes they say this, but what are three or four other things that they “really” say? This is the exact place where Protestants shake their heads and say “You’re making stuff up” and “I can’t believe this guy.”

 

[Michael68]

James 2:14-26. This explains works for me

 

[MT1926]

Source: biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/dikaioo.html

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

The general rule is that if Dikaioo (justify) comes up in a passage, we must then pick one, just one, of those definitions under the heading and apply it to where the word is being used. Number two is of particular importance for the book of James, as this allows us to understand the word in the sense that a Christian is shown, exhibited, or evinced to be righteous, rather than declared righteous or rendered righteous. More importantly, it allows us to interpret the various uses of Dikaioo in ways that do not contradict each other, and this is exactly the sort of translation/interpretation tool that allows us to say we’re not just making up new meanings of words, we’re pulling them out of actual lexicons and making use of the full range of something that is already known.

Hey thanks for getting back to me. I was afraid I offended you or something.

Ok. I see where you are coming from with this and understand the 3 different meanings. However, this leads me to a level of uncertainty or insecurity in the verse.

So my follow up question would be, how can I ever know which definition I want to use, without already having a preconceived notion of what I want the verse to actually say?

No, not exactly. The fourfold method of interpretation is mostly credited to Origen in its early development, although not entirely.

The general criticism that Protestants have for the method is that it seems an awful lot like you can use to to just make up whatever you want

It’s not a process that lends itself to being verified and agreed upon.
The more particular forms of criticism center on the really messed-up conclusions that Origen in particular came up with, and these are conclusions that are definitively rejected by the Catholic Church and everyone else.
I’m not sure exactly what Catholics have to say about it, but from what little I know, it seems like the shortcomings of the method are downplayed as if it’s not that big a deal, and the method still has some value that can continue to enrich us. I personally think we’re better off without it though, and it’s disappointing that the method was relied on to any extent by so many people and for so long.

Thanks for clearing that up. I am not the guy that can answer all of this for you. However, on a side note I just started an Ignatius Bible study on John’s Gospel last night and I think this is what you are talking about. Here is some highlights of what it had to say about the Catholic reasoning:
Catholic tradition recognizes three spiritual senses that stand upon the foundation of the literal sense of Scripture.
Allegorical sense:
Unveils the spiritual and prophetic meaning of biblical history.
Reveals how the mystery of Christ in the New Covenant was once hidden in the Old, and how the full significance of the Old Covenant was finally made manifest in the New.
What was accomplished in Christ the Head during his earthly life prefigures what he continually produces in his members through grace.
Tropological or moral sense:
Reveals how the actions of God’s people and Jesus prompt us to form virtuoues habits in our own lives.
The moral sense is intended to build up virtue of charity.
Anagogical sense:
Points upward to heavenly glory
Shows us how countless events in the Bible prefigure our final union with God in eternity.

I can see what they are getting at and the importance of this. There is a pretty extensive definition of this in the beginning of the Ignatius study Bible but those are the highlights of it.

thanks Again

 

[guanophore]

Hey there, I let this go by for a little too long, almost didn’t get back to it. These are the three different ways in which lexical tools that I’ve seen describe the range of what “justify” can mean.

Source: biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/dikaioo.html

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

The source doesn’t look like much of a fancy or official webpage, but I assure you, that exact same thing can be found word for word in the dusty lexicons that Protestants pull off of shelves in seminary libraries when they need to do some work.

The general rule is that if Dikaioo (justify) comes up in a passage, we must then pick one, just one, of those definitions under the heading and apply it to where the word is being used. Number two is of particular importance for the book of James, as this allows us to understand the word in the sense that a Christian is shown, exhibited, or evinced to be righteous, rather than declared righteous or rendered righteous. More importantly, it allows us to interpret the various uses of Dikaioo in ways that do not contradict each other, and this is exactly the sort of translation/interpretation tool that allows us to say we’re not just making up new meanings of words, we’re pulling them out of actual lexicons and making use of the full range of something that is already known.

No, not exactly. The fourfold method of interpretation is mostly credited to Origen in its early development, although not entirely. The four “senses” of Scripture are described as Literal, Typological, Tropological (or Moral), and Anagogical. The way it was described to me in an Old Testament class, however, was Literal, Allegorical (sub for Typological), Moral, and Eschatalogical (which is very similar to Anagogical but not exactly the same in every instance). The main purpose of the change was the opportunity to spell out L-A-M-E. Then he chuckled a little bit and I said, “Oh, I see what you did there.”

The general criticism that Protestants have for the method is that it seems an awful lot like you can use to to just make up whatever you want, and it almost seems like the method was intentionally designed to be impenetrable to critical interaction. It’s not a process that lends itself to being verified and agreed upon. The more particular forms of criticism center on the really messed-up conclusions that Origen in particular came up with, and these are conclusions that are definitively rejected by the Catholic Church and everyone else. (Pre-existence of souls, final reconciliation of all creatures possibly including Satan, the subordination of the Son to the Father; these are main reasons why he’s not a saint). As for us, we have a tendency to blame the process. If he hadn’t used a process that basically allows you to make up what you want at every stage, he would not have made things up that were so far afield from any version of orthodoxy. I’m not sure exactly what Catholics have to say about it, but from what little I know, it seems like the shortcomings of the method are downplayed as if it’s not that big a deal, and the method still has some value that can continue to enrich us. I personally think we’re better off without it though, and it’s disappointing that the method was relied on to any extent by so many people and for so long.

To his credit, Origen in particular and in general anyone else after him who used the Fourfold Method did have a high view of Scripture and (Origen at least) made a point of citing Scripture at all times in the midst of anything that he had to say about anything. With that being said though, Origen was always looking for the deeper meaning beyond the words themselves. Yes they say this, but what are three or four other things that they “really” say? This is the exact place where Protestants shake their heads and say “You’re making stuff up” and “I can’t believe this guy.”

 

[PJM]

Hey there, I let this go by for a little too long, almost didn’t get back to it. These are the three different ways in which lexical tools that I’ve seen describe the range of what “justify” can mean.

Source: biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/dikaioo.html

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

The source doesn’t look like much of a fancy or official webpage, but I assure you, that exact same thing can be found word for word in the dusty lexicons that Protestants pull off of shelves in seminary libraries when they need to do some work.

The general rule is that if Dikaioo (justify) comes up in a passage, we must then pick one, just one, of those definitions under the heading and apply it to where the word is being used. Number two is of particular importance for the book of James, as this allows us to understand the word in the sense that a Christian is shown, exhibited, or evinced to be righteous, rather than declared righteous or rendered righteous. More importantly, it allows us to interpret the various uses of Dikaioo in ways that do not contradict each other, and this is exactly the sort of translation/interpretation tool that allows us to say we’re not just making up new meanings of words, we’re pulling them out of actual lexicons and making use of the full range of something that is already known.

No, not exactly. The fourfold method of interpretation is mostly credited to Origen in its early development, although not entirely. The four “senses” of Scripture are described as Literal, Typological, Tropological (or Moral), and Anagogical. The way it was described to me in an Old Testament class, however, was Literal, Allegorical (sub for Typological), Moral, and Eschatalogical (which is very similar to Anagogical but not exactly the same in every instance). The main purpose of the change was the opportunity to spell out L-A-M-E. Then he chuckled a little bit and I said, “Oh, I see what you did there.”

The general criticism that Protestants have for the method is that it seems an awful lot like you can use to to just make up whatever you want, and it almost seems like the method was intentionally designed to be impenetrable to critical interaction. It’s not a process that lends itself to being verified and agreed upon. The more particular forms of criticism center on the really messed-up conclusions that Origen in particular came up with, and these are conclusions that are definitively rejected by the Catholic Church and everyone else. (Pre-existence of souls, final reconciliation of all creatures possibly including Satan, the subordination of the Son to the Father; these are main reasons why he’s not a saint). As for us, we have a tendency to blame the process. If he hadn’t used a process that basically allows you to make up what you want at every stage, he would not have made things up that were so far afield from any version of orthodoxy. I’m not sure exactly what Catholics have to say about it, but from what little I know, it seems like the shortcomings of the method are downplayed as if it’s not that big a deal, and the method still has some value that can continue to enrich us. I personally think we’re better off without it though, and it’s disappointing that the method was relied on to any extent by so many people and for so long.

To his credit, Origen in particular and in general anyone else after him who used the Fourfold Method did have a high view of Scripture and (Origen at least) made a point of citing Scripture at all times in the midst of anything that he had to say about anything. With that being said though, Origen was always looking for the deeper meaning beyond the words themselves. Yes they say this, but what are three or four other things that they “really” say? This is the exact place where Protestants shake their heads and say “You’re making stuff up” and “I can’t believe this guy.”

The REAL issue though is "IMPUTED Righteousness" In the practice of Protestant salvation-faith-beliefs; for those who may not know. This means that Jesus has already DONE all of the hard and painful work; Catholics connect to ones personal salvation.

Here’s where it is wrong

[1] It confuses what Jesus COULD have chosen with what Jesus ACTUALLY DID choose. The RESULT of this is literally mortal men attempting to DICTATE to God what He God MUST do to save them.

[2] It denies God’s Sovereign RIGHT to Be God!

[3] It denies the indisputable facts that:

TRUTH must absolutely be singular per defined issue: Pope Benedict XVI explains it thus:

"There cannot be your TRUTH and my TRUTH or there would be no TRUTH’

[4] It overlooks [by necessity to support their [the reformers] man-made innovative invention of “salvation-history” rewritten by them] God has ALWAYS demanded ONGOING PROOF of our love for Him.

[5] This then leads to:

what amounts to a SINGLE -step to their [hoped for] salvation.

Denial of a salvation-TRUTH LONG held and taught by the CC & KNOWN by Luther & Calvin: both Apostate catholics.

Salvation is by God’s Standard a process

& it overlooks the motivation for their theology of salvation; which HAD TO in great part be motivated by the absolute necessity for them to have a:

Less Complex
Less demanding
Faster
EASIER path to salvation in order to be able to not just compete with Catholicism; but to as is its aim; to denounce and REPLACE it as the “one true” faith

In order to have even a chance to accomplish this goal; ALL of the above 4 points had to exist.

The then added by some OSAS theology was later added and accepted by many. And it is clearly NOT biblical.

God Bless you,

PJM

.

 

[PJM]

After taking another look through the argumentation of Cajetan on this very subject, I am noticing a couple of interesting things.

First- and I’ve noticed this for quite some time- Protestants have a tendency to say it is “by grace” you have been saved “through faith,” which is certainly the more familiar wording for me just based on Bible passage familiarity. I notice however that Catholics (including Cajetan, which is what just now made me think of it) have more of a tendency to say it is “by faith” and “through grace,” presumably because this affords more of an opportunity to start talking about the sacramental grace through which (or by whose instrumentality) one is supposedly saved.

Were Luther who inserted “ALONE” into Romans alive today; even he would retract that position of “faith alone”

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God

Lets not let TRUTH get in the way here.

As I have previously & factually noted:

Cajetan was NOT empowered to SPEAK officially on behalf of the RCC

Secondly in the evidence I provided was the STAEMENT that he Cf. was a LIBERAL who often spoke CONTRARY to the RCC Teachings…

Oh, by the way, I should probably mention that my general impression is that Catholics, at this time, are probably most directly indebted to Cajetan’s work in opposing Luther for the specific language that tends to be used in unraveling this particular issue. Please note how carefully I selected my words; I did not imply that doctrine changed or anything as silly as that. I said that the specific language currently used by Catholics is most directly (although not exclusively) attributable to the work of Cajetan in opposing Luther. This, at least, is my understanding.

To which WE Catholics aREPLY

Third- the Catholic underpinnings of the debate seem to partially hinge on different ways in which “faith” might possibly be used while Protestants don’t go as much in that direction, and then Catholics seem to camp out on “grace” as if the sacramental sense of the word is the only one worth talking about in this particular conversation. Protestants, on the other hand, can go on all day about several different kinds of grace, sometimes describing several in great detail within the Order of Salvation. It’s a curious study in contrasts

OK:shrug: So we;ll just ignore TRUTH for what it HAS to be?.

By the way, I first noticed the “by faith, through grace” thing on my first read-through of the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration on Justification. I immediately thought it looked a bit odd.

Fourth, one final point- when it comes to key passages on justification, I have noticed that the Catholic perspective typically takes it for granted that “justification” means the same thing every time the word is used, whereas a Protestant is more likely to use a lexical tool to show you that it can mean any of three different things depending on context, and then attempt to show you that it’s being used one way here and a different way there, in service of harmonizing passages that say otherwise contradictory things about faith and justification. I also observe a tendency in Catholic interpretation to allow for a “fourfold method” by which a passage, word, or phrase can mean several different things at the same time, whereas Protestants tend to look at this part of Origen’s work as something that ought to be set aside and left in the past. That particular piece of information has little to do with the overall point in question, except perhaps briefly when the various meanings of “justify” are being brought to your attention.

So then my friend, PLEASE articulate for US you’r position; your, explaintion for Justification.

God Bless you,

PJM

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Hey thanks for getting back to me. I was afraid I offended you or something.

Ok. I see where you are coming from with this and understand the 3 different meanings. However, this leads me to a level of uncertainty or insecurity in the verse.

So my follow up question would be, how can I ever know which definition I want to use, without already having a preconceived notion of what I want the verse to actually say?

Hi, thanks for replying back, and that is a very good question. I will start by saying there is a pretty reliable way to know which sense of the word is supposed to be used, and I will come right back to that initial statement. I will continue by saying that if this verse were taken entirely on its own, there would be no really good way of knowing and it would be anyone’s guess. But this verse isn’t taken entirely on its own, at least it shouldn’t be.

The reason for this can probably be found in the footnotes of your Bible and pretty easily found through a series of cross references. The reason is that for this passage in particular, a rather important passage from the Old Testament is being quoted in the New Testament. The OT passage is the single most important OT passage having to do with Abraham, with God, and with righteousness. This passage is quoted three times in the New Testament, and all three of them apply the righteousness of Abraham to the concept of righteousness as it applies to Christians.

So you don’t take James 2 all on its own. It is one passage of three that should be considered together. The other passages are in Galatians 3 and Romans 4, and when you look at these passages, I do believe you’ll find that things are a bit more straightforward. If you engage in a process of elimination in an attempt to find out which linguistic sense of the word “righteous” ought to apply in the other two passages, you’ll find that the surrounding words in those passages literally tell you, straight out, some of the options that you can immediately eliminate.

Galatians 3- “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer** so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 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— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Know then that it is those 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 of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.”

I know that the instinct of an amateur Catholic apologist is to immediately launch into a detailed distinction between “works of the law” and true works of charity, or something along those lines. Let’s set that aside for a moment though, and focus on the three different senses of what “righteous” can mean so we can properly line up the correct sense of the word with each of the passages in question.

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

Again, we look at how “righteous” is used here, and we attempt to line up the correct sense of the word with how it’s used in this passage. It’s easier to narrow things down here than it is in James 2.

Finally, you try to do the same thing in James 2, but you (or perhaps we, if we were to work together on this) would reach an impasse because it’s not totally clear one way or the other. So in order to resolve the issue, we line up all the things that are definitely said about righteousness in Galatians 3 and Romans 4, we add to that the things that could potentially be said about righteousness in James 2 depending on which sense of the word is used, and we examine the different possibilities for discrepancies and contradictions.

I will argue that when you look at all three passages together, there is only one possible sense of the word “righteous” that can be used in James 2 that does not contradict what’s said in the other two passages which reference the same Abrahamic passage from Genesis. But if you want to take a look and form a compelling argument for why a different alignment of righteousness-meanings can make sense in a non-contradictory fashion, I will :tiphat: to you.

And then I ran out of room, so I’ll wait 20 seconds to post the rest of my response.**

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Thanks for clearing that up. I am not the guy that can answer all of this for you. However, on a side note I just started an Ignatius Bible study on John’s Gospel last night and I think this is what you are talking about. Here is some highlights of what it had to say about the Catholic reasoning:
Catholic tradition recognizes three spiritual senses that stand upon the foundation of the literal sense of Scripture.
Allegorical sense:
Unveils the spiritual and prophetic meaning of biblical history.
Reveals how the mystery of Christ in the New Covenant was once hidden in the Old, and how the full significance of the Old Covenant was finally made manifest in the New.
What was accomplished in Christ the Head during his earthly life prefigures what he continually produces in his members through grace.
Tropological or moral sense:
Reveals how the actions of God’s people and Jesus prompt us to form virtuoues habits in our own lives.
The moral sense is intended to build up virtue of charity.
Anagogical sense:
Points upward to heavenly glory
Shows us how countless events in the Bible prefigure our final union with God in eternity.

I can see what they are getting at and the importance of this. There is a pretty extensive definition of this in the beginning of the Ignatius study Bible but those are the highlights of it.

thanks Again

Thank you very much for that, it’s actually quite helpful. It looks to me as if the use of these interpretive methods is worded in a way that is more situational and targeted than it has been in the hands of some previous interpreters of Scripture, and I would say the main reason for the criticism I originally talked about is that in the hands of some, it has seemed to be a set of tools that was (sometimes dubiously) applied to just about every passage of Scripture.

 

[MT1926]

The reason for this can probably be found in the footnotes of your Bible and pretty easily found through a series of cross references. The reason is that for this passage in particular, a rather important passage from the Old Testament is being quoted in the New Testament. The OT passage is the single most important OT passage having to do with Abraham, with God, and with righteousness. This passage is quoted three times in the New Testament, and all three of them apply the righteousness of Abraham to the concept of righteousness as it applies to Christians.

I will have to do a little more research on this answer. I would think the footnotes of a Catholic bible would be different than the footnotes of a Protestant bible. The footnotes of the version I use at biblegateway.com are:
Footnotes:
2.14 Good works are necessary besides faith.

I am sure there are quite a few Protestants that would disagree with that one. So that still doesn’t answer the question:

So my follow up question would be, how can I ever know which definition I want to use, without already having a preconceived notion of what I want the verse to actually say?

I think the footnotes of ones particular bible would give you a preconceived notion depending on which version it is. However, on this particular passage I can agree with you that Genesis 15:6 needs to be considered for us to define righteousness.

So you don’t take James 2 all on its own. It is one passage of three that should be considered together. The other passages are in Galatians 3 and Romans 4,

I have no objection to this

I know that the instinct of an amateur Catholic apologist is to immediately launch into a detailed distinction between “works of the law” and true works of charity, or something along those lines. Let’s set that aside for a moment though, and focus on the three different senses of what “righteous” can mean so we can properly line up the correct sense of the word with each of the passages in question.

The distinction of the two did enter my mind, but I do agree we should set that aside since we are currently discussing righteousness.

Again, we look at how “righteous” is used here, and we attempt to line up the correct sense of the word with how it’s used in this passage. It’s easier to narrow things down here than it is in James 2.

Finally, you try to do the same thing in James 2, but you (or perhaps we, if we were to work together on this) would reach an impasse because it’s not totally clear one way or the other. So in order to resolve the issue, we line up all the things that are definitely said about righteousness in Galatians 3 and Romans 4, we add to that the things that could potentially be said about righteousness in James 2 depending on which sense of the word is used, and we examine the different possibilities for discrepancies and contradictions.

I will argue that when you look at all three passages together, there is only one possible sense of the word “righteous” that can be used in James 2 that does not contradict what’s said in the other two passages which reference the same Abrahamic passage from Genesis. But if you want to take a look and form a compelling argument for why a different alignment of righteousness-meanings can make sense in a non-contradictory fashion, I will :tiphat: to you.

I follow you but am not sure if we are totally on the same page with this. So let me tell you what I see with regards to righteousness in James 2:14-26 and you can follow up, then we can go from there.
First off James 24 is not saying it is not faith it is works (so any Catholic that uses this verse to say “see it is not by faith alone it is by works” is not seeing the whole picture.)

I would interpret this as James is not speaking of the event when we first come to God and are justified. Instead he is speaking of our ongoing growth in righteousness. Which I think is what #2 is saying…to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered. I think we mean the same thing but the definition in #2 is kind of wordy and I don’t fully follow it.

Now if we are on the same page I would like to move forward.

When I read James 2:14-26 I see James trying to bring more than one point across. James opening statement tells us faith without works is dead. Although Galatians 3 and Romans 4 help us define what James means when he says “righteousness” I don’t think they define James opening statement.

So how would we go about answering what James is talking about when he says faith without works is dead?

From Galatians 3 Paul is speaking of works of the law, so I would jump on that and say we can not use that here. If you would like to give me a reason why it still applies to James opening statement I will consider it. However, Romans 4 does state “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.” If I just take that line I can say ok sounds good, but when I read further Paul starts speaking of circumcision again so we are back on works of the law. Which brings me right back to these 2 verses can not answer what James is speaking of when he says “faith without works is dead”

Since I have a preconceived notion of what James is talking about I would line this up with something like the word of our Lord in Matthew 25:34-46.
However, if I didn’t have a preconceived definition where would I go to line up what James is trying to tell us from his opening statement in this passage?

Thanks again

 

[MT1926]

Thank you very much for that, it’s actually quite helpful. It looks to me as if the use of these interpretive methods is worded in a way that is more situational and targeted than it has been in the hands of some previous interpreters of Scripture, and I would say the main reason for the criticism I originally talked about is that in the hands of some, it has seemed to be a set of tools that was (sometimes dubiously) applied to just about every passage of Scripture.

You are welcome. Let me know if you would like to read the detailed description. I just started to get into typology and really enjoy how it intertwines the old and new testaments. Haven’t done a lot with it yet but can see how it could be taken farther than it was meant to be taken.