Grace: Protestant vs Catholic understanding

[sandusky]

teachccd:

I find that to be a great analogy. Martin Luther stated that we are “cow dung covered with snow”. Well all I can say is that I am not cow dung and I can be sanctified through infused grace.

Can you substantiate Luther having said we are “cow dung covered with snow?”

 

[Grace_Seeker]

And both grace AND works are necessary for salvation unless part of what is necessary in living a Christian life has no soteriological relevance…and if that’s the case, why bother?? Jesus said, " They will know that you are my disciples by your love." Without our actions (love) one cannot be a disciple of Jesus which with common sense only means no salvation.

Sounds as if you are still trying your hardest to put a Protestant twist on Catholic teachings. Maybe, unlike the other posters here, I find this quite unusual and interesting. But then isn’t that what Martin Luther did?? I’m not so sure about A.W. Pink though. I’m still waiting for SyCarl’s pre-reformation references that mirror his writings. Maybe it’s taking him a little more time to find that for me. That’s o.k. I have the time…God Bless…teachccd

As far as what is necessary, that is easy. The only thing that is necessary for salvation is for God to will to save us. Since we cannot save ourselves, not on our own, we need God’s involvement. And if God wanted to do it without our participation, then mostly certainly God has the ability to do that as well.

My guess is that people will argue with my position pointing out verses that show the improtance of faith or works or stewed tomatoes even. (Don’t laugh, right now someone, somewhere is thumbing through a concordance to look that up.) But those verses tell us how it is that God has chosen to save. My point is that given God’s sovereignty, God could have made other choices. And I don’t know that we can say with assurance that he never has, I think of the thief on the cross as an example of God saving without much participation from the human side. Was that infused or imputed grace?

As far as me trying to put a Protestant spin on Catholic teaching, I can assure you that I could care less one way or the other if a teaching is historically considered either Protestant or Catholic. I look first to the scriptures. But I don’t look there exclusively, I also look to see how those passages appear to have been understand and applied by the church in the past, especially by the New Testament church. And doing my best to use reason more than emotion I also tryu to understand them in light of my own experience prayerfully guided by the Holy Spirit. That puts me at odds with most Catholics because I don’t consider the teaching magestrium of the Catholic church to be any more guided by the Holy Spirit than any other Christian interpreter of scripture. But it also puts me at odds with many (but certainly not all) Protestants who don’t even understand that their own practice of “sola scriptura” depends on using more than scripture to understand and make sense of what scripture itself says or how it applies.

As far as the infused vs imputed “discussion” going on here, it doesn’t seem to have much give and take to it, but rather a mere proclamation and posturing of dogma. I’m not really interested in that, as I don’t think I would learn much from reading the regurgitated positions of those who have written of them much better for themselves. I was hoping to see how people experienced these forms of grace at work in their own lives, or perhaps even reflections that showed a willingness to ruminate of other points of view. But absent that, I’ve already made my own dogmatic statements and have little more to add.

 

[sandusky]

I am looking. Don’t know that there are any on imputed righteousness or infused righteousness for that matter. There are quite a few referring to faith alone though. I gave A.W. Pink as an example of a Calvinist explanation, although I do find some of what he wrote interesting. I don’t agree with everything he says anymore than I agree with everything I have read by Catholic authors. For example I am a paedobaptist unlike Pink who was Baptist. I guess I would be closer to Arminianism than Calvinism.

You don’t need to demonstrate pre-reformation references to support Pink, for these folks, SyCarl.

Use the pre-formation writers just as the Catholic does; if he agrees with the church, he’s a good source; if he disagrees with the church, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Same with the Church Fathers and scripture.

If they agree with scripture fine; if they contradict scripture, don’t pay them any mind.

The Church Fathers are extra-biblical writings, and are NOT scripture; they are neither infallible, nor absolutely authoritative— as scripture is.

A.W. Pink’s writings carry as much authority as any post-apostolic writer.

 

[sandusky]

Grace Seeker:

As far as the infused vs imputed “discussion” going on here, it doesn’t seem to have much give and take to it, but rather a mere proclamation and posturing of dogma.

True; however, the OP’s error and misrepresentation concerning imputation must be corrected, and imputation must be defined by one who holds the position before any “give and take” discussion can happen; otherwise, the whole discussion would be based upon the OP’s
false premise.

Once things have been correctly defined, then the discussion can move on.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

True; however, the OP’s error and misrepresentation concerning imputation must be corrected, and imputation must be defined by one who holds the position before any “give and take” discussion can happen; otherwise, the whole discussion would be based upon the OP’s
false premise.

Once things have been correctly defined, then the discussion can move on.

Which you appear to have done adequately enough in posts #29 and #39. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for a real interchange of ideas.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Not so fast.

That is exactly how YOU see it, but you are wrong.

As I said in my first post to you, you need to change your “pretend” story, because it is a misrepresentation.

Here’s why: DEBT, in your “pretend” story = SIN

From the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 11, paragraph III:Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real and full satisfaction to His Father’s justice in their behalf.Notice, ”Christ did fully discharge the debt [SIN] of all those that are justified.”

The imputation of the penalty for sin is wiped clean; it is forgiven (non-imputation; cf 2 Cor 5:19): Romans 4:7-8

…
Psalm 103:12
…
Colossians 1:14

…
Colossians 2:13-14

… Let’s recap.

The position of the WCF, and the position of reformed theology, is that, the DEBT of sin is completely forgiven, and finally canceled.

Maybe we should start from square one:

1)When the WCF says in 11:1 “not by infusing righteousness into them,” what does that mean?

2)If your own account has been made debt-free, then why is your own account not considered.

3)Dont you believe sanctification follows Justification? If so, then how can “discharging a debt” not be seen as sanctification?

In your last post, you introduced this statement from Calvin:
… On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
That is another ingredient—imputation of righteousness; this is another one of your beefs, along with the non-imputation, or forgiveness of debt/sin; correct?Galatians 3:27

…Now, you are on the right track to continue your polemic; however, your real beef is with Paul, (and…you know who).

Again, the reformed position is that the **DEBT OF SIN is canceled, completely forgiven, gone, wiped out, forgotten **(cf verses cited above).

In the above passage Calvin is saying You appear in the sight of God AS IF you were righteous, implying you are not actually righteous. If the debt of sin is erased how can you not actually be righteous?

Actually, it’s At the same time justified and SINNER. But hey, I think accuracy is over-rated.

Well, according to this article on Monergism.com:
In Latin we call it simul iustus et peccator: simul, simultaneously; iustus, just; et, and; peccator, sinful. That is me – simultaneously righteous and sinful.
I have seen both terms used, if the term is actually “sinner” then I will take note in my future posts.

Sorry, but it’s not obvious to me; why are you repulsed by this view?

Because God is calling someone righteous who is in fact not righteous, it is against His very being to do such a thing because its very essence is a lie.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

… … My point is that given God’s sovereignty, God could have made other choices. And I don’t know that we can say with assurance that he never has, I think of the thief on the cross as an example of God saving without much participation from the human side. Was that infused or imputed grace?

… …

As far as the infused vs imputed “discussion” going on here, it doesn’t seem to have much give and take to it, but rather a mere proclamation and posturing of dogma. I’m not really interested in that, as I don’t think I would learn much from reading the regurgitated positions of those who have written of them much better for themselves. I was hoping to see how people experienced these forms of grace at work in their own lives, or perhaps even reflections that showed a willingness to ruminate of other points of view. But absent that, I’ve already made my own dogmatic statements and have little more to add.

If you are not interested in the difference between infused and imputed grace, then you wont understand either side. Your comments above regarding the “without much participation” and linking that to infused/imputed shows you dont know what you are talking about. Catholics say God’s grace made the thief righteous.

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

When the WCF says in 11:1 “not by infusing righteousness into them,” what does that mean?

It means that righteousness is not infused into them.
Catholic Dude:

If your own account has been made debt-free, then why is your own account not considered.

My account has not been made debt-free.

My account no longer exists, because I’m dead, and in my death, I’m united with Christ—my account ***is Christ:*****Romans 6:4-6

4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Galatians 2:20

20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.

Colossians 3:1-3

1 Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.
2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.
3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.**For a fuller treatment, if you are interested, read the book, Who am I? by Dr. Robert L. Thomas, (and if you are not interested, then don’t read it).
Catholic Dude:

Dont you believe sanctification follows Justification? If so, then how can “discharging a debt” not be seen as sanctification?

Sanctification has to do with “holiness,” sanctification is not about debt; the believer
has no debt.

The literal meaning of “sanctification,” is to be “set apart.”

Set apart from what? From sin, and the world, to holiness.

The believer is completely sanctified, in the strict sense, when he believes; at that time, the “practical” aspect of sanctification begins, and holiness is worked out, and at, and over, and under, IOW, continuously until the believer dies physically.

Sanctification is not “discharging a debt,” as you state, at least it is not that, according to scripture; sanctification is the working toward practical holiness; the believer’s righteousness is not in himself, but it is in Christ:**Philippians 3:8-9

8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,
9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith**
Catholic Dude:

In the above passage Calvin is saying You appear in the sight of God AS IF you were righteous, implying you are not actually righteous. If the debt of sin is erased how can you not actually be righteous?

Answered that above, and will include again:**Galatians 3:27

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves
with Christ.**Again, my old man is dead—and good riddance to him.
Catholic Dude:

Because God is calling someone righteous who is in fact not righteous, it is against His very being to do such a thing because its very essence is a lie.

Again, the believer in Christ is dead; Christ is the believer’s righteousness; it is a positional righteousness; a righteousness that is not the believer’s, but a righteousness that is Christ’s, and a righteousness that can be found only in Christ, and nowhere else (cf Php 3:8-9 above).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It means that righteousness is not infused into them.

Care to expand? Why is it not infused, and why is infused wrong?

My account has not been made debt-free.

My account no longer exists, because I’m dead, and in my death, I’m united with Christ—my account ***is Christ:***Romans 6:4-6

4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Galatians 2:20

20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God…

Colossians 3:1-3

1 …
2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth.
3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
… …

Your account is your soul. You should be righteous if your account no longer exist and are united to Christ (ie joint account). Then again, what is there to be sanctified?

Sanctification has to do with “holiness,” sanctification is not about debt; the believer has no debt.

If they have no debt, they have no sin, thus they must be holy.

The literal meaning of “sanctification,” is to be “set apart.”Set apart from what? From sin, and the world, to holiness.

If the debt/sin is GONE, they are “set apart from sin” by your definition.

The believer is completely sanctified, in the strict sense, when he believes; at that time, the “practical” aspect of sanctification begins, and holiness is worked out, and at, and over, and under, IOW, continuously until the believer dies physically.

And what happens if he dies immediately after he believes (ie immediately after Justification)?

Sanctification is not “discharging a debt,” as you state, at least it is not that, according to scripture; sanctification is the working toward practical holiness; the believer’s righteousness is not in himself, but it is in Christ:Philippians 3:8-9

8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,
9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.**]
**

Paul is saying he himself has attained righteousness, from God, this is infused grace. It doesnt mean Christ is his (external) righteousness.

Answered that above, and will include again:Galatians 3:27

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.Again, my old man is dead—and good riddance to him.

What you describe is impossible. You cant appear AS IF you were righteous if your old self is dead.
Paul is using figurative language, you are not literally clothed, it is your soul that is renewed and purified by grace. Jesus condemned the notion you could be considered clean based on externals when it is the condition of your soul that counts:Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. -Lk 11:39
Jesus is not acting a sheet covering our sins from the eyes of the Father.

Again, the believer in Christ is dead; Christ is the believer’s righteousness; it is a positional righteousness; a righteousness that is not the believer’s, but a righteousness that is Christ’s, and a righteousness that can be found only in Christ, and nowhere else (cf Php 3:8-9 above).

You are “dead to sin” in the sense your life has a new beginning. You can tarnish that new life through sin.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

If you are not interested in the difference between infused and imputed grace, then you wont understand either side. Your comments above regarding the “without much participation” and linking that to infused/imputed shows you dont know what you are talking about.

Thank you for the edifying words.

Catholics say God’s grace made the thief righteous.

Well if that is what Catholics say, then that must be exactly what happened.

 

[SyCarl]

Because God is calling someone righteous who is in fact not righteous, it is against His very being to do such a thing because its very essence is a lie.

Then why did Christ die since He never sinned? It would not be “righteous” for God to punish Jesus in our stead. But God is just. Chirist “became sin” for us. Our sin was imputed to Him. He never actually sinned but He was punished because He put on our sin. In the same way His righteousness is imputed to us. We died through Adam, our first represntaive, and live through Christ, the new Adam and our representaive who obeyed perfectly on our behalf. We did not and do not obey perfectly but we “put on” Christ. Our sins “are covered”, “hid” in Him.

 

[mark_a]

Is it a Protestant view that glorification is accomplished by dying?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Then why did Christ die since He never sinned?

He could die because he was human.

It would not be “righteous” for God to punish Jesus in our stead.

You are exactly right, that is why Catholics reject the notion the Father punished the Son. It is the Protestant understanding that the Father had to unleash His anger, and that He unloaded it on His Son. The Catholic understanding is that Jesus was a spotless Lamb, never worthy of punishment, nor could the Father do such a thing, rather it was the display of love by offering Himself up was a fragrant aroma to the Father (Eph 5:2).

But God is just. Chirist “became sin” for us. Our sin was imputed to Him. He never actually sinned but He was punished because He put on our sin. In the same way His righteousness is imputed to us. We died through Adam, our first represntaive, and live through Christ, the new Adam and our representaive who obeyed perfectly on our behalf. We did not and do not obey perfectly but we “put on” Christ. Our sins “are covered”, “hid” in Him.

He didnt become sin in the literal sense, He was a spotless Lamb from start to finish. The Father cannot treat, nor did He treat Jesus as a sinner. That is figurative language for “a sin offering” (ie sacrifice).

Here is an example to show how each side understands Christ’s suffering and death:
Lets say a group of kids crash the family car, the Father is upset about this and needs to spank the kids…but the mother steps in…

-Protestants would say the mother would have to receive the equivalent beating that the children deserved and thus the Father would be satisfied.

-Catholics on the other hand reject that notion because the Father could never act in such a way towards His wife. Rather, the wife stepped in and spent all day in a hot-sweaty kitchen to prepare the Father a nice multi-course home cooked meal. The Father was so pleased at this act that He in turn decided not to discipline the children.

I hope you see the difference and why the Catholics hold the position they do.

Now, in regards to imputed vs infused, here is what the situation would look like:
-Protestants: The Father no longer holds the children guilty, not because He dropped the charges, but because someone else took their punishment.

-Catholics: The Father no longer holds the children guilty because He dropped the charges at the intercession of His wife.

Protestants believe the Father played an active role in the suffering and death of Jesus (imputation means the Father treated Jesus like a sinner). Catholics believe the Father stood by while wicked humans, not realizing what they were doing, tortured and murdered Jesus.

Please, consider the stark differences in how each side understands this, and how Catholics strive to keep God free from anything that would make Him look bad (eg “punishing” the Son).

 

[sandusky]

Catholic Dude:

Care to expand? Why is it not infused, and why is infused wrong?

Because neither righteousness, nor grace, is a “substance”

God takes out the heart of stone, and the old spirit, and puts in a heart of flesh, and a new spirit; God doesn’t inoculate a believer; He doesn’t promise to **”inject your soul with some sweet rock ‘n roll, and shoot you full of rhythm and blues;” “rhythm and blues” being, “righteousness and grace.”Ezekiel 36:26

“Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.**

Grace is an attitude, a disposition of God toward all of His creation; righteousness, with respect to imputation, is a “position” that the believer occupies:**2 Corinthians 5:21

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, SO THAT we might become the righteousness of God in Him [Christ].**Notice that believer does not become ”the righteousness of God in himself; rather the believer becomes “the righteousness of God” because his position is IN CHRIST.

As Paul said, “that I may be found IN HIM, not having a righteousness OF MY OWN, but a RIGHTEOUSNESS WHICH IS IN CHRIST, THROUGH FAITH.
Catholic Dude:

Your account is your soul. You should be righteous if your account no longer exist and are united to Christ (ie joint account). Then again, what is there to be sanctified?

My account is not my soul, my account is my debt of sin, acquired on the basis of having been IN ADAM, and living for the world; but now I am dead, and live IN CHRIST; rather, He lives in me (cf Gal 2:20).
Catholic Dude:

If they have no debt, they have no sin, thus they must be holy.

One would think so; however, that is not what scripture tells us.

As with “righteousness,” so too with sanctification: the believer is completely sanctified “positionally,” but practically, he is not; the practical side of sanctification begins at belief, and continues to physical death; however, the regenerate believer still contends with sin:**Romans 7:21-23

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.**The believer’s desires are conflicted; his mind joyfully loves God’s law, but within him there still dwells the residual principle, or law, of evil—sin (cf Rom 8:22-23).

Thus Paul’s warning:**Galatians 5:16-18

6 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, SO THAT you may not do the things that you please.
18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.**

(continued)

 

[sandusky]

(continued from post #54)
Catholic Dude:

And what happens if he dies immediately after he believes (ie immediately after Justification)?

Instantly with the Lord.
Catholic Dude:

Paul is saying he himself has attained righteousness, from God, this is infused grace. It doesnt mean Christ is his (external) righteousness.

Paul says his righteousness is not his own, but that the righteousness that he has is in Christ, through faith.

**What you describe is impossible. You cant appear AS IF you were righteous if your old self is dead.

Paul is using figurative language, you are not literally clothed, it is your soul that is renewed and purified by grace. Jesus condemned the notion you could be considered clean based on externals when it is the condition of your soul that counts:

Then the Lord said to him, "Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. -Lk 11:39**

Jesus is talking to the Pharisees in that verse.**John 13:10

Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean…**Jesus is talking to a believer in that one—a believer who is “in Him.”
Catholic Dude:

Jesus is not acting a sheet covering our sins from the eyes of the Father.

Correct, our sins have been removed “as far as the east is from the west” (Ps 103:12), and God, for His own sake, remembers the sinner’s sin “no more” (Is 43:25; cf Heb 9:26), because the believer’s old self is dead, and his new self is safely “hidden in Christ” (Col 3:3), who is his refuge.
Catholic Dude:

You are “dead to sin” in the sense your life has a new beginning. You can tarnish that new life through sin.

:nope:

 

[Jake1975]

Hmm, you have hit on a very controversial subject in Protestantism! Are you debating with a Calvinist or an Arminian? Although the analogy above is a good attempt to put our belief of justification in a box, it does come up short- although, to your credit, it was a worthy try.

Quoting Martin Luther as THE AUTHORITY of evangelicals, protestants, whoever, is risky business. Most see his doctrines as a first move away from Catholicism during the Reformation. Most agree he didn’t go far enough in most of his positions.

I am very interested in responding to this as a Protestant. I will have to give it some thought to articulate our view as precisely as I can. Of course, denominations are different, whether they are Calvinist, Arminian, somewhere in between (or just plain heretical)- so others may disagree. Although I hate denominational labels, I will be writing as a Baptist who challenges the “once saved always saved” position (many do when questioned thoroughly).

 

[mark_a]

Is it a Protestant view that glorification is accomplished by dying?

Still no takers? I have no way or intention of disproving whatever answer I might get.

 

[SyCarl]

Is it a Protestant view that glorification is accomplished by dying?

Sanctification is not complete in this life. Glorification comes with the ressurection when our bodies are raised and changed.

 

[Jake1975]

Ahh! I can’t keep up with all the comments. My head is swimming. I think GraceSeeker said it best (see below- sorry, couldn’t find the “quote” button)- in a simple format that hit the foundation of the discussion. I’m out… Sorry- it is fascinating, though!

“My debt is paid, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
How this done, is by God grace, for the debt I owed he took my place.
Infuse, imputed, we can debate, finding the answer won’t change the slate.
It takes Christ’s blood to set me free and make me fit for eternity.”

 

[truthnlight]

Romans 3:10, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.”
Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8,9 KJV

Romans11: 6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Romans 4:5 “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”

When James spoke of being justified by “works,” he was clearly speaking about being justified in the eyes of MEN … “I will shew thee my faith by my works” (James 2:18). Also, James was writing to believers; not the unsaved (James 2:1, “My Brethren…”). With God we are justified by faith; but with men by works, because men cannot see our heart as God can (1st Samuel 16:7). Here is PROOF that James wasn’t teaching works salvation … “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” (James 2:21). Isaac? We read in Genesis 15:6, “And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” Isaac wasn’t even born until Genesis 21:3. Clearly, James is referring to two different types of justification here. In Genesis 15, Abraham is justified with God by faith ALONE; BUT in Genesis 22, Abraham’s faith is justified by works in the eyes of men.