Grappling with Justification and James 2 (1 of 2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Koineman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Catechism and other creeds surely get into exacting detail when it comes to words and definitions, so if they thought it important to do so, we should, too, as I see it. Also, if we rely on only vague definitions our understanding of spiritual matters could become clouded and lead us into error–perhaps dangerous error. I think it’s wrong to play fast and loose with definitions when it comes to matters that are so important
Fair enough.
I did not intend to belittle those who get very precise…I simply wished to convey that for me, who likes to keep things simple…getting too technical becomes even more confusing - but that is just me.
I wholeheartedly agree that playing “fast and loose” with definitions is a bad thing.
I’m not sure your conclusion follows. God does not always carry out His will in all matters. For example, it is surely against His will that anyone sins at all, yet He allows that to happen, contrary to His will. So, to say that God necessarily gives grace to everyone because He wills that all be saved is not a necessary conclusion. It could be that God wills all to be saved but allows–for some reason–for some not to receive that special grace whereby they receive and believe the gospel.
God Wills that we have free will and that we come to Him. These other things flow from that. So God DOES always carry out His will. This is why he grants to everyone the grace to believe if they so choose.
Personally - I don’t see a conflict in this…

Peace
James
 
God does not always carry out His will in all matters. For example, it is surely against His will that anyone sins at all, yet He allows that to happen, contrary to His will. So, to say that God necessarily gives grace to everyone because He wills that all be saved is not a necessary conclusion. It could be that God wills all to be saved but allows–for some reason–for some not to receive that special grace whereby they receive and believe the gospel.
Does God will the salvation of all? Yes.

But as you infer there are different kinds of willing involved…permissive will etc.

Such can be a rather deep subject and not easily discussed on a limited forum…

One such that Theologians (and Schools of Theology) have been up all night for weeks on end – with lots of coffee going back and forth on the questions involved…

And in some things the Pope has had to step in tell em to keep the noise down 😉
 
"In the first place, Paul helps us to understand the absolutely basic and irreplaceable value of faith. This is what he wrote in his Letter to the Romans: “We hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (3: 28).

This is what he also wrote in his Letter to the Galatians: “[M]an is not justified by works of the law but only through faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (2: 16).

“Being justified” means being made righteous, that is, being accepted by God’s merciful justice to enter into communion with him and, consequently, to be able to establish a far more genuine relationship with all our brethren: and this takes place on the basis of the complete forgiveness of our sins.

Well, Paul states with absolute clarity that this condition of life does not depend on our possible good works but on the pure grace of God: “[We] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3: 24). With these words St Paul expressed the fundamental content of his conversion, the new direction his life took as a result of his encounter with the Risen Christ." (the fuller quote)
 
Does anyone know of an authoratative commentary on Romans or Galatians?
There are various good ones out there: Navarre, Ignatius, the upcoming vol of the “Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture” (they all go well together --not really in competion for the come from differing approaches --so good to have all).
 
"In the first place, Paul helps us to understand the absolutely basic and irreplaceable value of faith. This is what he wrote in his Letter to the Romans: “We hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (3: 28).

This is what he also wrote in his Letter to the Galatians: “[M]an is not justified by works of the law but only through faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (2: 16).

“Being justified” means being made righteous, that is, being accepted by God’s merciful justice to enter into communion with him and, consequently, to be able to establish a far more genuine relationship with all our brethren: and this takes place on the basis of the complete forgiveness of our sins.

Well, Paul states with absolute clarity that this condition of life does not depend on our possible good works but on the pure grace of God: “[We] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3: 24). With these words St Paul expressed the fundamental content of his conversion, the new direction his life took as a result of his encounter with the Risen Christ." (the fuller quote there may be of help)
 
Fair enough.
I did not intend to belittle those who get very precise…I simply wished to convey that for me, who likes to keep things simple…getting too technical becomes even more confusing - but that is just me.
I wholeheartedly agree that playing “fast and loose” with definitions is a bad thing.

God Wills that we have free will and that we come to Him. These other things flow from that. So God DOES always carry out His will.
This is off topic, so I won’t pursue this side issue much more, but I still find your conclusion to be questionable. If God always carries out His will, and His will is that we not commit sin, then why do people commit sin? Obviously in those cases He has not carried out His will.

Think of it another way. It is not God’s will that anyone perishes but that all come to repentance. Nevertheless, there will be people in hell. So obviously God does not carry out His will in those cases. You see, if I followed your reasoning to its conclusion, I’d have to conclude–as do universalists–that God will save everyone and nobody will suffer eternal punishment.

So I think the issue of God’s will is more complicated than you’re making it out to be. This is just another reason why getting specific and defining terms is vital.
 
This is off topic, so I won’t pursue this side issue much more, but I still find your conclusion to be questionable.
Yes this does get a bit off topic…
If God always carries out His will, and His will is that we not commit sin, then why do people commit sin? Obviously in those cases He has not carried out His will.
Think of it another way. It is not God’s will that anyone perishes but that all come to repentance. Nevertheless, there will be people in hell. So obviously God does not carry out His will in those cases.
This works if you ignore God’s will that we have free will. That is where the difference comes in. In order for these other things to come into play God would have to remove our free will.
You see, if I followed your reasoning to its conclusion, I’d have to conclude–as do universalists–that God will save everyone and nobody will suffer eternal punishment.
This is not the conclusion that I come to following this reasoning.
So I think the issue of God’s will is more complicated than you’re making it out to be. This is just another reason why getting specific and defining terms is vital.
You see - I think just the opposite…I think it is far simpler than many make it out to be…
But I do agree that being careful in how we communicate, the use and understanding of terms etc is vital…

Peace
James
 
"In the first place, Paul helps us to understand the absolutely basic and irreplaceable value of faith. This is what he wrote in his Letter to the Romans: “We hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law” (3: 28).

This is what he also wrote in his Letter to the Galatians: “[M]an is not justified by works of the law but only through faith in Jesus Christ; even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified” (2: 16).

“Being justified” means being made righteous, that is, being accepted by God’s merciful justice to enter into communion with him and, consequently, to be able to establish a far more genuine relationship with all our brethren: and this takes place on the basis of the complete forgiveness of our sins.

Well, Paul states with absolute clarity that this condition of life does not depend on our possible good works but on the pure grace of God: “[We] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3: 24). With these words St Paul expressed the fundamental content of his conversion, the new direction his life took as a result of his encounter with the Risen Christ." (the fuller quote there may be of help)
 
The issue here is how to reconcile this with paul who says we are justified by faith at the momeqnt of conversion without doing any works because of Christs death.
Paul and James are not speaking in the same context. Paul is speaking of the initial justifying faith of the convert, which leads one to Baptism. There is no longer any “justice” with the Mosaic Law (see Romans 10:5). We can only seek justice through Jesus Christ. James affirms this, but he is speaking in the context of believers putting their faith into action – living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

:bible1:
 
See your thread on “works of the Law”

starting here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9801560&postcount=29 and following…(for it gets into the question of this thread)

…ending with this one:

“Seen in this perspective, the centrality of justification without works, the primary object of Paul’s preaching, does not clash with faith that works through love; indeed, it demands that our faith itself be expressed in a life in accordance with the Spirit. Often there is seen an unfounded opposition between St Paul’s theology and that of St James, who writes in his Letter: “as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead”(2: 26). In reality, while Paul is primarily concerned to show that faith in Christ is necessary and sufficient, James accentuates the consequential relations between faith and works (cf. Jas 2: 24). Therefore, for both Paul and James, faith that is active in love testifies to the freely given gift of justification in Christ. Salvation received in Christ needs to be preserved and witnessed to “with fear and trembling. For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure… Do all things without grumbling or questioning… holding fast the word of life”, St Paul was to say further, to the Christians of Philippi (cf. Phil 2: 12-14, 16).”
 
What I mean is a commentary on the text of Romans or Galatians written by someone which is reflecting the catholic church
The above links --are basically commentary by Pope Benedict XVI on the question…and yes he gets into those letters.
 
=Melchior_;9799092]You just said three times that you can’t do it with faith alone, and that works are necessary.
Yes, I did, though myeyes are good enough to see it in the font I used. 😃
The issue is what does it mean when we say through faith alone we are justified, and what role do works play.
The Lutheran confessions, in the Epitome of the Formula of Concord distinguish that justification is by faith alone, meaning there is no other source of justification than by grace through faith. The alone in faith alone refers to just that, and is not meant to be an exclusion of works in terms of how we act, what we do, how we respond as regenerate Christians to grace.
Faith alone means I don’t need to do a single thing, I just need faith, and the grace provided by said faith. I do not need to do anything. As soon as you add conditions to this, it is no longer “faith alone”, it’s “faith and XYZ”.
The first sentence is correct. Not only is there nothing we need to do, there is nothing we can do. It is by grace, a free gift, through faith, also a gift, that we access justification. By saying that justification is by grace alone through faith alone, but faith never is alone, we are not adding a qualifier or conditions. what we are saying is that, once justified, we respond to grace by beng obedient to Christ’s commands. The confessions call it the “new obedience”, not based in fear of the law, but based is joyful trust in Christ’s promise of salvation.
Unless faith alone means “faith alone and a bunch of other stuff but don’t worry because all you need is faith…and other things! But only faith. And other items”.
Again, the alone is specific to justification, so there are no other things we do or can do in this regard. But there is sanctification that must follow, a growth in grace, an obedience to Christ’s commands, that we do good works. Failure to do good the good works prepare for us to do is a rejection of grace - sin. And sin, unrepented and repeated leads to a loss of faith.
I think we agree more than most Lutheran and Catholic layman are willing to acknowledge, particularly in apoloegetics foums. So, as I’ve said before here at CAF, when a Catholic says we are justified by a faith that works through love, I say Amen, even though I know we view the notion of infused or imputed righteousness differently. And just like Catholics are unable to say faith alone, I have the same reluctant to say “faith and works”.

Jon
 
:D:D

I Love this - especially coming from a “protestant”…no offense intended…😉
Erick - I know you are a true, serious and honest inquirer.

I thought that in “protestant” theology Romans and Galatians WERE the authoritative commentary…(Sola Scriptura)…on the matters they contain.

Your question here points directly at the argument that Catholics make for the existence of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. The need for authoritative teaching…

In answer to your question I would offer that the authoritative commentary is the Catechism of the Catholic Church…in particular the section on Justification.

Peace
James
Hi James,
the scriptures certainly are the authoritative norm, but that does not exclude the need of hermeunetics, which is of the Church, not the individual Christian. So, it isn’t inconsistent for a sola scripturist (I mean a real one, not a solo scripturist) to ask this question. Lutherans look to the ECF’s, the early councils, and our confessions as these kinds of interpretive sources.

Jon
 
Hi James,
the scriptures certainly are the authoritative norm, but that does not exclude the need of hermeunetics, which is of the Church, not the individual Christian. So, it isn’t inconsistent for a sola scripturist (I mean a real one, not a solo scripturist) to ask this question. Lutherans look to the ECF’s, the early councils, and our confessions as these kinds of interpretive sources.

Jon
Boy this is another place where we could jump tracks…😃

And I started to…But I won’t…:whistle:

But I’ll still get my chuckle from the idea…:aok:

Peace my friend
James
 
Boy this is another place where we could jump tracks…😃

And I started to…But I won’t…:whistle:

But I’ll still get my chuckle from the idea…:aok:

Peace my friend
James
James,
Glad I could bring a chuckle to your day. 😃
Might be a fun thread, though. 😉

Jon
 
Could someone from a catholic understanding interpret
What ‘‘justified’’ means in thus verse:

‘’ therefore having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through HIM’’ (ROM 5:9)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top