Having trouble reconciling Romans with Catholic teaching

[timeandeternity]

I have been carefully reading through Romans lately, and am really having trouble understanding how passages in Romans can be reconciled with Catholic teaching. I am struck by just how much Paul emphasizes justification through faith. Just as a few examples, Rom. 3:26, the beginning of Rom. 5, and Rom. 10:4 and 10:9 all talk about this. He seems to really be driving this point home throughout the entire chapter. There is so much importance on faith, and faith is constantly being connected with justification; so if baptism is an essential role in our justification, then why are there not passages equally clearly connecting baptism with justification? Can you explain how these passages in Romans do not contradict Catholic teaching?

 

[Spencerian]

I have been carefully reading through Romans lately, and am really having trouble understanding how passages in Romans can be reconciled with Catholic teaching. I am struck by just how much Paul emphasizes justification through faith. Just as a few examples, Rom. 3:26, the beginning of Rom. 5, and Rom. 10:4 and 10:9 all talk about this. He seems to really be driving this point home throughout the entire chapter. There is so much importance on faith, and faith is constantly being connected with justification; so if baptism is an essential role in our justification, then why are there not passages equally clearly connecting baptism with justification? Can you explain how these passages in Romans do not contradict Catholic teaching?

Hi. Could you elaborate more on what specific Catholic teaching seems in conflict with your interpretation?

 

[Bookcat]

Here …read regarding Pope Benedict XVI on “Faith” etc in Paul …

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.h

and an earlier audience…

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061108_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

Paul does talk about baptism…in fact some of the greatest words on baptism are from Paul! (and in Romans! See Chapt 6: 3-5)

Various places in the New Testament…emphasize various aspects…depending on what is being talked about… encouraged or debated etc…

One must understand the whole…and what was intended to be emphasized in each part (which can often deal with a particular problem or question)

There is no contradiction…the Letters of Paul (many things not just faith…), the Letter of James (importance of living ones faith)…the Letters of John (importance of love), the Letters of Peter (Baptism now saves you…), the Acts (repent and be baptized!) and the Gospels etc…are all the Written Word of God…and the Church holds them all together…and teaches them…

Read though the audiences of Pope Benedict XVI above…they are wonderful!

(as are the rest of them…you can read them there online or get the book from Ignatius)

 

[valentino]

I have been carefully reading through Romans lately, and am really having trouble understanding how passages in Romans can be reconciled with Catholic teaching. I am struck by just how much Paul emphasizes justification through faith. Just as a few examples, Rom. 3:26, the beginning of Rom. 5, and Rom. 10:4 and 10:9 all talk about this. He seems to really be driving this point home throughout the entire chapter. There is so much importance on faith, and faith is constantly being connected with justification; so if baptism is an essential role in our justification, then why are there not passages equally clearly connecting baptism with justification? Can you explain how these passages in Romans do not contradict Catholic teaching?

Justification by faith is very important.Remember Abraham was justified through faith.Its says that a terrible sinner can be saved by faith in Jesus Christ.Thank God!The theif on the cross was justified through faith.One has to remember however if one truelly has faith he will change,amend his life,become charitable,become a merciful and forgiving human being,ect.Baptism cleanses us from OS.It isn’t justification.Of course if you were an adult and desired to be baptised naturally you would be believing in Christ and have faith.Therefore you would be justified.

 

[Big_Ro]

I would also like to hear why you feel Romans is not in line with Catholic doctrine. Aside from the Gospels, I have always considered Romans to be the best exposition of what it means to be Catholic. I had always understood that Romans is the most widely studied book in the new testament. Whenever I have had the opportunity to evangelize someone (and I do not feel it’s my particular calling or vocation but feel it’s my duty to be aware when an opportunity presents itself) I always point them first to Romans. At the risk of being rude or uncharitable, which is not my intent, I think you probably are misunderstanding some things about what it means to be Catholic. This is a great place to get some answers. I thought I had a pretty good understanding myself. Then I joined this forum. You’re on the right track.

 

[Barbkw]

It may be important. Wasn’t St. Paul preaching to pagan Rome is these gospels?

Converts to Christianity would need to know that salvation and “justification” (reason) comes through faith in Christ, not in multiple gods and goddesses and not by a combination of both.

Opinions vary as to whether Jewish or Gentile Christians predominated in the house churches (cf Romans 16:5) in the capital city of the empire at the time Paul wrote. Perhaps already by then Gentile Christians were in the majority. Paul speaks in Romans of both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 3:9, 29; see the note on Romans 1:14). The letter also refers to those “weak in faith” (Romans 14:1) and those “who are strong” (Romans 15:1); this terminology may reflect not so much differences between believers of Jewish and of Gentile background, respectively, as an ascetic tendency in some converts (Romans 14:2) combined with Jewish laws about clean and unclean foods (Romans 14:14, 20). The issues were similar to problems that Paul had faced in Corinth (1 Cor 8). If Romans 16 is part of the letter to Rome (see the note on Romans 16:1-23), then Paul had considerable information about conditions in Rome through all these people there whom he knew, and our letter does not just reflect a generalized picture of an earlier situation in Corinth.

usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/intro.htm

Paul’s Letter to the Romans is a powerful exposition of the doctrine of the supremacy of Christ and of faith in Christ as the source of salvation. It is an implicit plea to the Christians at Rome, and to all Christians, to hold fast to that faith. They are to resist any pressure put on them to accept a doctrine of salvation through works of the law (see the note on Romans 10:4). At the same time they are not to exaggerate Christian freedom as an abdication of responsibility for others (Romans 12:1-2) or as a repudiation of God’s law and will (see the notes on Romans 3:9-26; 3:31; 7:7-12, 13-25).

The principal divisions of the Letter to the Romans are the following:

Address (Romans 1:1-15)
Humanity Lost without the Gospel (Romans 1:16-3:20)
Justification through Faith in Christ (Romans 3:21-5:21)
Justification and the Christian Life (Romans 6:1-8:39)
Jews and Gentiles in God’s Plan (Romans 9:1-11:36)
The Duties of Christians (Romans 12:1-15:13)
Conclusion (Romans 15:14-16:27)

As the outline below shows, this gospel of Paul (see Romans 16:25) finds its center in salvation and justification through faith in Christ (Romans 1:16-17). While God’s wrath is revealed against all sin and wickedness of Gentile and Jew alike (Romans 1:18-3:20), God’s power to save by divine righteous or justifying action in Christ is also revealed (Romans 1:16-17; 3:21-5:21). The consequences and implications for those who believe are set forth (Romans 6:1-8:39), as are results for those in Israel (Rom 9-11) who, to Paul’s great sorrow (Romans 9:1-5), disbelieve. The apostle’s hope is that, just as rejection of the gospel by some in Israel has led to a ministry of salvation for non-Jews, so one day, in God’s mercy, “all Israel” will be saved (Romans 11:11-15, 25-29, 30-32). The fuller ethical response of believers is also drawn out, both with reference to life in Christ’s body (Rom 12) and with regard to the world (Romans 13:1-7), on the basis of the eschatological situation (Romans 13:11-14) and conditions in the community (Romans 14:1-15:13).

usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/intro.htm

 

[porthos11]

I have been carefully reading through Romans lately, and am really having trouble understanding how passages in Romans can be reconciled with Catholic teaching. I am struck by just how much Paul emphasizes justification through faith. Just as a few examples, Rom. 3:26, the beginning of Rom. 5, and Rom. 10:4 and 10:9 all talk about this. He seems to really be driving this point home throughout the entire chapter. There is so much importance on faith, and faith is constantly being connected with justification; so if baptism is an essential role in our justification, then why are there not passages equally clearly connecting baptism with justification? Can you explain how these passages in Romans do not contradict Catholic teaching?

First of all, be aware that Romans has authority because the Catholic Church herself declared it as canonical. Let us therefore not think for a second that we can play gotcha with the Catholic Church regarding Scripture.

That said, Romans is a well-developed treatise against the Judaizing heresy, that which stated that one had to follow the Law of Moses to be saved. Paul strongly refutes this saying that no, faith in Christ is what justifies, not the Law. In short: Justification Grace Through Faith is Catholic teaching!

Further, the common mistake many make is to take a book alone and not consider the rest of the Bible. How about Paul’s writings that in Baptism, we are made new (Rom 6:3; Col. 2:11)? Or Christ’s words that unless one is born of water and the Spirit, we cannot see the Kingdom (John 3:5)? Or of the Apostles requiring baptism along with repentance for salvation (cf. Acts 2:38)? Or St. Peter saying in no uncertain terms that Baptism saves you? (1 Peter 3:21)?

We can only properly understand the Bible if it is read as a whole.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Justification by faith is very important.Remember Abraham was justified through faith.Its says that a terrible sinner can be saved by faith in Jesus Christ.Thank God!The theif on the cross was justified through faith.One has to remember however if one truelly has faith he will change,amend his life,become charitable,become a merciful and forgiving human being,ect.Baptism cleanses us from OS.It isn’t justification.Of course if you were an adult and desired to be baptised naturally you would be believing in Christ and have faith.Therefore you would be justified.

Justification by faith is essential rather than important…It is the building block of our faith…Your right about change, rebirth and indwelling by the Holy Spirit empowers that growth…Water baptism after repentance leads to growth and maturity as the young soul yields to the work of the Lord in h their life…Think about the process if you do infant baptism…Galatians brings light of this issue also…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have been carefully reading through Romans lately, and am really having trouble understanding how passages in Romans can be reconciled with Catholic teaching. I am struck by just how much Paul emphasizes justification through faith. Just as a few examples, Rom. 3:26, the beginning of Rom. 5, and Rom. 10:4 and 10:9 all talk about this. He seems to really be driving this point home throughout the entire chapter. There is so much importance on faith, and faith is constantly being connected with justification; so if baptism is an essential role in our justification, then why are there not passages equally clearly connecting baptism with justification? Can you explain how these passages in Romans do not contradict Catholic teaching?

Because he is talking to a people of works, he wants them to develop faith. Had he been talking to people of no faith or works he would have responded as you asked.

 

[FCEGM]

I have been carefully reading through Romans lately, and am really having trouble understanding how passages in Romans can be reconciled with Catholic teaching. I am struck by just how much Paul emphasizes justification through faith. Just as a few examples, Rom. 3:26, the beginning of Rom. 5, and Rom. 10:4 and 10:9 all talk about this. He seems to really be driving this point home throughout the entire chapter. There is so much importance on faith, and faith is constantly being connected with justification; so if baptism is an essential role in our justification, then why are there not passages equally clearly connecting baptism with justification? Can you explain how these passages in Romans do not contradict Catholic teaching?

This study of Romans with commentary by Scott Hahn should be helpful to you:

ignatius.com/IProducts/23077/the-letter-of-st-paul-to-the-romans.aspx

 

[TimothyH]

When I was leaning toward Evangelical Christianity a few years ago, I spent much time in the Book of Romans as did many of the Christians I studied and fellowshipped with. Taken by itself, it does speak very clearly about salvation and justification as a result of our faith.

As other’s have stated, the Book of Romans was a letter written by Paul to a community of Jews who lived in Rome. These Jews were attempting to force a minority population of Gentile Christians to live according to the mosaic law, telling them that they had to adhere to strict dietary regulations, undergo circumcision, etc. Paul’s emphasis of faith over “works of the law” makes perfect sense given the situation. Catholics however, are taught to interpret Scripture, among other things, based on how what we are reading fits into the Bible as a whole. We cannot read Romans in the absence of the rest of the Bible, which is exactly what I was taught to do by my Evangelical friends. It sounds lik you may have a little of this going on in your own heart as well.

Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. (James 2:20-22)

Consider the book of James, which teaches us that our works activate our faith and complete our faith. It eaches that our works are the means by which our faith ceases to be strictly internalized, becoming externalized and thereby touching God’s creation in a substantial way. Our works are a means by which our faith is completed - by which we become holy. James - and remember this is the word of God - calls those who don’t believe that their faith is completed by their works “Ignoramuses”!

Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord. (Hebrews 12:14)
Contrast Romans with Hebrews, which by the way, were both written by Paul. The same author tells us that we must be Holy to enter heaven, that without holiness we will not see God. Faith is required, and is a great first step for thos who are operating under the mosaic law but later, after they have faith, they will activate and complete that faith through their works, becoming holy and enabling them to enter heaven.

Based on my experience, I would recommend that the OP take a break from Romans for a short while and then come back to it fresh.

-Tim-

 

[timeandeternity]

I don’t see a contradiction between faith and works at all–that’s not what I have a problem with. I guess it’s just that if we are truly justified by grace through faith, why exactly is Baptism necessary? Let me be clear that I do not doubt that it is necessary; I just have not been able to get a satisfactory grasp on this issue.
TimothyH, Romans was written to a primarily Gentile audience. There was, however, an important section of Jewish Christians to which he was also writing. (Check the Catholic Encyclopedia–very helpful!)

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I don’t see a contradiction between faith and works at all–that’s not what I have a problem with. I guess it’s just that if we are truly justified by grace through faith, why exactly is Baptism necessary? Let me be clear that I do not doubt that it is necessary; I just have not been able to get a satisfactory grasp on this issue.
TimothyH, Romans was written to a primarily Gentile audience. There was, however, an important section of Jewish Christians to which he was also writing. (Check the Catholic Encyclopedia–very helpful!)

You do know that baptism occurs in 3 forms? In all forms the person comes to Christ. One cannot have faith in Christ and be void of baptism of desire. So maybe you are confusing baptism of desire, with no baptism, or refusal to follow Christ’s teachings of baptism by water (such would be a form of the sin of presumption)?

hope that helps

 

[Ignatius]

I have been carefully reading through Romans lately, and am really having trouble understanding how passages in Romans can be reconciled with Catholic teaching. I am struck by just how much Paul emphasizes justification through faith. Just as a few examples, Rom. 3:26, the beginning of Rom. 5, and Rom. 10:4 and 10:9 all talk about this. He seems to really be driving this point home throughout the entire chapter. There is so much importance on faith, and faith is constantly being connected with justification; so if baptism is an essential role in our justification, then why are there not passages equally clearly connecting baptism with justification?

How about “baptism now saves you”?
The biggest problem with the Protestant approach to scripture is that they select certain verses to focus on and ignore the rest. This will inevitably lead to erroneous interpretations. The Bible does not simply consist of 5 or 6 chapters from Romans. To properly interpret Sacred Scripture, it must be understood as those who wrote it understood it and in context of the entirety of Scripture.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t see a contradiction between faith and works at all–that’s not what I have a problem with. I guess it’s just that if we are truly justified by grace through faith, why exactly is Baptism necessary? Let me be clear that I do not doubt that it is necessary; I just have not been able to get a satisfactory grasp on this issue.
TimothyH, Romans was written to a primarily Gentile audience. There was, however, an important section of Jewish Christians to which he was also writing. (Check the Catholic Encyclopedia–very helpful!)

Paul was addressing the question of Faith and the works of the Law here…

So he was opposing “Faith” (which is given even to Gentiles…) to “Works of the Torah” (of the Jews…) …Salvation does not require “the works of the Torah”…we are instead saved by Faith! Which includes the Gentiles…

By saying that one is saved by Faith…Paul is not saying…one does not need to “remain living in Christ” or that one does not need to “repent and be baptized” as Peter says on Pentecost…

If I say to some one : I am saved by Jesus Christ not by giving $1000 to a poor person… it would be true…(other aspects are implicit)…and I will have made my point. But this is not excluding the working of the Holy Spirit etc…

But if someone were to take my saying that…to mean that I do not need the Holy Spirit or Baptism …or that I can continue to live in mortal sin…they would be wrong.

Paul is not opposing Faith to baptism here (he talks about it glowingly in Romans) but rather Faith to the works of the Torah. He is addressing a particular problem that had presented itself…

You ask " if we are truly justified by grace through faith, why exactly is Baptism necessary?"

One could ask too “If we are saved by Faith through grace, why is repentance necessary”.

They are all part of a whole

(make sure you read the links to Pope Benedict XVI I posted above)