Galatians, Faith and Works

[Melchior]

I was reading in Galatians last night and, thinking in the context of all I have been reading in Catholicism, I was struck by one thing. When Galatians is talking about Faith in Christ and the law it seems abundantly clear from the context that it is talking about THE Law as in the Ten Commandements. It makes almost no sense if Paul is referring only to the ceremonial laws. Is the only Catholic Answer (pun intended ) that Paul must be talking about ceremonial laws whenever he refers to the law? In the context of several NT passages this seems more than unlikely. I know that some verses are talking about circumcision etc., but others are clearly speaking about the law in a very broad sense.

How does a Catholic explain this? This is one of those issues where scripture seems pretty clear that Paul is emphasizing the obedience of faith as primary since the Law will kill us since we will fail to perfectly obey it (Galatians 3:11).

Given the context of Galatians, particularly chapter 3, I am having trouble reconciling the idea of Works in Catholicism with the way faith and law are portrayed here. Respectfully, I know what James says so I would like to keep this focused on Galatians. It seems like it would be confusing to a Catholic. Faith apart from works (which is what is meant by “faith alone”), seems to be unambigously Paul’s point here. I am interested in a Catholic explanation.

A request before anyone responds: Please stick with the topic. Please no tangents about faith alone, or OSAS etc. That is not what I am asking about. I want to know what the Catholic Answer to Galatians portrayal of Faith vs. works of the Law as it relates to Justification. Particularly Paul’s exposition in chapter 3.

Thanks,

Mel

 

[Mijoy2]

I certainly do not feel qualified to answer this however, your question peaked my curiousity and I read the passage, hopefully in enought context, around Galatians 3:11, to make a judgement.

This topic (faith alone)seems like a chicken or egg topic to me.

Galatians 3:14 14He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

Might the “might” here imply maybe? What I am implying is, Jesus’s death on the cross redeemed us yes. Meaning we held no such Grace prior. If one prior or after held to the Law, they’d be redeemed. However nobody can hold to the Law. Nobody other then Jesus and Mary are without sin.

It would seem to me that this is where the Sacrement of Reconciliation enters the picture. Now that we have been redeemed through the sacrifice of our Lord, we **might **receive the promise of the spirit. So long as we repent.

A non-scholarly understanding. Sure hope one doesn’t have to be a scholar to be redeemed. :ehh:

 

[mercygate]

Here’s the key question. Does the Catholic Church teach that salvation comes by observing the Law?

No.

Paul is saying that the Law cannot justify us; it can only condemn us because it is just that: the Law. “Works righteousness” refers to a belief that if you do what you are told, that is good enough to get you to heaven. If that were true, we wouldn’t need Jesus, would we?

The works in which Christians are engaged, and which James applauds, are the works of justice and charity which flow from the grace of Christ. Quite a different thing from works of the Law. There is no conflict between Paul and James.

My own take on this is that through the Body and Blood of Christ, God, by his gratuitous mercy, receives our works done in Faith and joins them to the redemptive act.

 

[Chesster]

Melchior:

Is the only Catholic Answer (pun intended ) that Paul must be talking about ceremonial laws whenever he refers to the law?
Mel

When St. Paul talks about “the law” he is referring to the 10 Commandments; when he talks about “works of the law” he is referring to the works of the Mosaic Law like circumcision. Don’t confuse “works of the law” with “good works performed by Christians”.

 

[JimG]

After Paul had preached in Galatia, some Judaic Christians from Jerusalem came there and tried to convince the Galatian Christians that it would be a worthy practice to adopt all the practices and works of the Mosaic Law. It was just these practices that the Council of Jerusalem had effectively freed them from. That Council had apparently taken place before this Epistle was written.

 

[Vincent]

Melchior:

When Galatians is talking about Faith in Christ and the law it seems abundantly clear from the context that it is talking about THE Law as in the Ten Commandements. It makes almost no sense if Paul is referring only to the ceremonial laws.

Your interpretation sounds compatible with what was taught at the Council of Trent:"…[N]ot the Gentiles only by the force of nature, but not even the Jews by the very letter itself of the law of Moses, were able to be liberated…"

(Chapter I, emphasis added)

“If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”
(Canon I, emphasis added)​

 

[JPrejean]

If one prior or after held to the Law, they’d be redeemed. However nobody can hold to the Law.

I think that this is exactly the sort of thing that Paul is trying to answer. In fact, you would not be redeemed even if you held to the Law, because salvation does not come by works. Even if you obeyed the Law in its entirety, you would still be guilty of original sin, and you would still rely on God’s mercy for your salvation. You can never be in the position in which God somehow owes you salvation, as wages to a worker. Nothing that you do of yourself can make you righteous in God’s eyes; only Christ’s infused righteousness, Christ at work in you, can do that. You are Christ’s instrument, a member of Christ’s Body, a branch of the vine, and without Him, you are nothing.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mel,

I believe Robert Sungenis’ book *Not by Faith Alone *describes the difference as one of attempting to obligate God through obedience to the law (Judaism) in contrast to obedience to the law because of faith.

I understand this as an attempt to merit condignly for ourselves that which we can only merit congruously. Christ alone merited condignly the salvation of mankind. Catholic theology insists that we can only merit congruously.

See here: [CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Merit (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm&e=42)

Ethics and theology clearly distinguish two kinds of merit:

• Condign merit or merit in the strict sense of the word (meritum adœquatum sive de condigno), and
• congruous or quasi-merit (meritum inadœquatum sive de congruo).

Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity.

… The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice (as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honour for reasons of equity (ex œquitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations. From an ethical point of view the difference practically amounts to this that, if the reward due to condign merit be withheld, there is a violation of right and justice and the consequent obligation in conscience to make restitution, while, in the case of congruous merit, to withhold the reward involves no violation of right and no obligation to restore, it being merely an offence against what is fitting or a matter of personal discrimination (acceptio personarum).

We do not merit condignly. That’s what I think St. Paul is saying. If we try, as the Jewish viewpoint at that time seemed to oblige God through the works of the Law (via commutative justice), to merit our salvation condignly, we will fail.

We do however, merit congruously (reward is not based upon commutative justice). This is testified to throughout Scripture. That’s why St. James emphasizes works, and what St. Paul seems to be referring to in his epistle to the Romans when he opens and closes his epistle emphasizing the “obedience of faith.”

With the Mosaic Law, it was a merit of deservedness (which nobody deserved). With Christianity, it is a merit of underservedness (gratuitous), based upon faith that God loves and blesses those who are faithful. We are not free from the law (the error of Antinomianism newadvent.org/cathen/01564b.htm), but instead obey the law because of the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, not in an attempt to obligate God.