justification by faith alone in Early Fathers

[Erick_Ybarra]

But protestants have always taught that true faith is always accompanied with good fruit toward God. However catholics still have an issue with that.

Protestants say we are justified in this life immediately upon conversion by means of faith. Catholics want to teach that it is not hy means of faith but faith and works.

The burden is on the catholic to make sense of why Paul grounds our justification in the death of Jesus and faith apart from works, as a free grace gift.

Paul says Abraham was justified by faith apart from works.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Paul says we are justified from faith to faith.

It is faithfulness to God not ritual works

You need to quote chapter and verse because that statement you cite above appears nowhere in my Bible.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

But protestants have always taught that true faith is always accompanied with good fruit toward God. However catholics still have an issue with that.

Protestants say we are justified in this life immediately upon conversion by means of faith. Catholics want to teach that it is not hy means of faith but faith and works.

The burden is on the catholic to make sense of why Paul grounds our justification in the death of Jesus and faith apart from works, as a free grace gift.

Paul says Abraham was justified by faith apart from works.

“Works of the Law” i.e. the 600+ sacrificial commandemnts of the Mosaic Law.

Not works of love, especially those commanded by Christ, because “love fulfills the law.” We are justified by “grace alone”, by “faith working through love.”

Therefore, not “faith alone.”

Your reiteration of Paul’s explaination is based on confusion of terms. Paul and James do not contradict when you properly understand what they were saying.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

In the beginning of Paul’s letter to the Romans he gets excited about preaching the Gospel to the church at Rome. He argues that the gospel holds gods power into salvation because the gospel, when preached, unveils Gods righteousness from faith to faith. Meaning, the gospel reveals or shows or manifests a righteosunsss which is of God and it comes from faith into (eis) faith. For Paul the scriptures testify that the righteousness of God has always been the life of faith, Habakkuk says it ‘‘the righteous will live by faith’’. For Paul this faith was one in which Christ and his sacrifice of love is its object. The life he lived in the flesh, he lived by faith in the son of god who loved him and gave himself up in death for him.

This righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus christ. It is a gift (rom 5:17) therefore it goes from the giver to the receiver. And faith has been taught as the means of receiving it.

Paul grounds this justification in the death of Jesus. His redemptive sacrifice purchases the remission of our sins. This is justification.

We are justified by his blood (rom 5;9)

So if we are justified, like Abraham, by faith apart from works because of Christs work on the cross, then where do works come in for justification???

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

“Works of the Law” i.e. the 600+ sacrificial commandemnts of the Mosaic Law.

Not works of love, especially those commanded by Christ, because “love fulfills the law.” We are justified by “grace alone”, by “faith working through love.”

Therefore, not “faith alone.”

Your reiteration of Paul’s explaination is based on confusion of terms. Paul and James do not contradict when you properly understand what they were saying.

Love fulfills the law, so you better believe that love is included in the ‘‘works of the law’’.

Even Robert sungenis teaches this.

It is faith that justifies but true saving faith always works and loves. Faith is the only stated means. Otherwise Paul should have said ‘’ we are justified by faith and love apart from works’’

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

Love fulfills the law, so you better believe that love is included in the ‘‘works of the law’’.

Even Robert sungenis teaches this.

It is faith that justifies but true saving faith always works and loves. Faith is the only stated means. Otherwise Paul should have said ‘’ we are justified by faith and love apart from works’’

Robert Sugenis is an apologist, not a Bishop, so, giving you the benefit of the doubt, if what you say is true then either he is wrong, or you misunderstood what he said.

Either way, the “love” that Christ commands of us is not a “Work of the Law” in the terms Paul was using but our answer to God’s grace and necessary for our final justification. You’re simply trying to muddy the waters and cause confusion to prove your point.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

So we are justified before God by faith and love, which is keeping the 10 commandments. Understand that Paul is referring to justification as a gift given at conversion and hat we can look back upon (rom 5:1). So what your saying is that we have to keep the 10 commandments in order to then be converted and be considered just.

Whereas the Scripture says once we are converted we are justified (past tense) by Christs blood. Explain that.

 

[Pax]

Erick in Christ,

You have responded to most of my posts in an indirect fashion. Let me try posing my points and former questions as new questions that may hopefully get you to appreciate our position.

1. Did we not already agree that Eph 2:8-10 indicates that when we are in unbelief and dead in our sins that God brings us into a state of justification by grace through faith, and that none of that is our own doing? No works that we have done cause that to happen right? That is justification by faith without works, and that is what Paul is referring to in arguing against the Judaizers…right?
2. Nevertheless, scripture also says that we are justified by works and I gave you numerous scriptural passages to prove that. Isn’t that true?
3. Scripture indicates that Abraham was justified on three different occasions…right?
4. Not everyone of those instances was by faith alone was it?
5. James indicates that a man is justified by faith and by works and not by faith alone…right?
6. Faith without works is dead…right?
7. Do you agree that works justify? Afterall, that is what scripture says isn’t it?
8. Was Phinehas justified by works or not? Scripture says that he was.

Now, think about those questions and points carefully and thoughtfully. Clearly, there is something wrong with non-Catholic teaching when it says that only faith justifies. Catholic teaching properly incorporates all of scripture on this issue.

We do not deny that we are gratuitously brought into a state of justification. We affirm it. What we refuse to deny is that there is also justification that comes with works as evidenced by the witness of scripture. Moreover, we affirm that faith that justifies is completed by works, and that without those works faith is barren.

Now let’s go back to all that I said about Abraham and the promise as articulated by Paul for making his point that Abraham did nothing by way of the OT law to be justified, but that he was gratuitously justified through his faith. Catholics agree with that. The problem is that one must then look past that and see what else Paul says that ties in with what James says about faith being completed by works.

Notice that the promise is of descendents even though Abraham and Sarah were already long past the age of begetting children. Moreover, scripture delicately suggests that they were so very old (Paul says Abraham’s body was as good as dead) that they probably had no sex life. Nevertheless, the promise was fulfilled and their off spring/descendents were incredibly numerous as God had promised.

Now answer a crucial question:

Once Abraham was gratuitously justified by his faith in the promise made by God, was it necessary for Abraham to have relations with Sarah even though she was barren and his body was as good as dead?

The answer to that question is “yes” and that action/work completed Abraham’s faith and thus the promise of God was fulfilled in Abraham and Sarah.

Now answer these questions:

What if, after Abraham was gratuitously justified, he failed/refused to have relations with Sarah? What would have become of the promise and what would have become of his faith? His faith would have been barren(pun intended), and he would no longer have been justified. His faith would not have been “completed” by works and he would have been at enmity with God for essentially disobeying God(…remember the obedience of faith?).

Does this start to get the picture across concerning faith and works, and how works do in fact justify a person even though they are also gratuitously justified?

God bless.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

But again, Paul says that Abraham was justified by faith, right? Apart from works? Yes. And we know the works here are moral and ceremonial, and we know that faith is distinct from works since it is possible to have it like a demon with no work.

How then do we not understand Abraham being justified by faith alone?

Of course works flow from faith when it is saving and alive. But justification cokes apart from works, by faith without anything else

I think you are stuck on that passage.

How about what Paul says here:

[bibledrb]Romans 2:13-15[/bibledrb]

and here:

[bibledrb]Romans 3:23-24[/bibledrb]

and here:

[bibledrb]Romans 5:9[/bibledrb]

Faith is a combination of things

[bibledrb]Hebrews 11:1[/bibledrb]

It is never alone. When we single out all the things that are with Faith we inevitably hurt it.

If there appears to be contradictory passages in the Bible it means that it is a mystery outside our understanding. We can neither add or take away from the mystery.

 

[Odell]

But protestants have always taught that true faith is always accompanied with good fruit toward God. However catholics still have an issue with that.

Catholic have a problem because faith cannot be qualified in any manner without falling into a salvation by works!

Protestants say we are justified in this life immediately upon conversion by means of faith. Catholics want to teach that it is not hy means of faith but faith and works.

Faith= repentance its not some ontological belief in God.

Paul equates salvation with obedience to those who claim faith. This is the faith to faith your were referring to.

The burden is on the catholic to make sense of why Paul grounds our justification in the death of Jesus and faith apart from works, as a free grace gift.

Actually the burdon is on you to prove how is it a free gift if your faith has to be a qualified faith? How is a christian to know when his faith has met this quality? Do you have to wait till you have accumulated enough works for determining if you have “saving faith”?

If justification is a one time act dependent soley on faith, then there is no theological room for “good fruit” to enter into a description of the moment of faith. In reality you could spend your whole life wondering if your faith has met this condition. If you sin and fall away you will be told you never were Christian and possessed this “saving faith.” what a terrible predicament in a system that boast of giving the individual assurance of salvation.

Paul says Abraham was justified by faith apart from works.

“Of the law” Paul condemns living under the system of law for salvation, he does not condemn living by the principles of the law for salvation.

Paul always has the quality of faith in mind. If faith is the mere instrument to attain salvation, why is it necessary for Abraham to have such an extremely high quality of faith, a faith that is tested again and again, a faith to faith?

This righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus christ. It is a gift (rom 5:17) therefore it goes from the giver to the receiver. And faith has been taught as the means of receiving it.

Trent “none of those things which precede justification, whether faith, or works, merit the grace of justification.”

That’s what truly makes the death of Jesus the grounds for our justification.*

So if we are justified, like Abraham, by faith apart from works because of Christs work on the cross, then where do works come in for justification???

Well for one you apparently*don’t believe that the Church is truly the Body of Christ and since you fail to appreciate the significance of Christ’s Incarnation (and how the Church is an extension of that Incarnation), you do not recognize the truth of this. Our works are His works our faith is His faith it’s all by the grace of God see Trent above.

Also if you want to ask a question along this line, I will repeat what I asked also above. When do works come in for a qualitative saving faith that makes one justified?

So we are justified before God by faith and love, which is keeping the 10 commandments. Understand that Paul is referring to justification as a gift given at conversion and hat we can look back upon (rom 5:1). So what your saying is that we have to keep the 10 commandments in order to then be converted and be considered just.

Well yes one is not considered just with out actually being just. What is just in that?

Whereas the Scripture says once we are converted we are justified (past tense) by Christs blood. Explain that.

We are constantly being converted and constantly being justified and constantly conforming more and more towards our goal; unity with Christ.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

It would normally be unjust to forgive sinners. This is why Paul says “for in former times he passed over sins that were previously committed” (Rom 3:25).

Understand, the word “justification” has a juridicial meaning, a forensic meaning, one in which is used in the context of judgement.

For instance, when Abraham obeyed God by offering up Isaac on the altar, Abraham was justified by this, he was obtaining merit before God which passes him through the receive salvation.

When we are said to be “justified by His blood” (Rom 5:9) what it meant is that we have been given acquittal from all guilt and reason for condemnation. This gift, only being a part of the salvation process, is by faith in the act of conversion.

The conversion process can be put into a formula

1. Repentance & Faith
2. Baptism
3. Reception of the Holy Spirit

through this process, we are put to death with Jesus and raised from the dead with Jesus, and because we participate in this death/resurrection, our sins also are judged and washed away. This issues the gift of justification.

Is this all that is done? Of course not. In and through this the person is also made a new creation and lives in accordance with the will of God. ’

You think it is evil to justify the ungodly? Well, St. Paul says that God justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:4-6).

It is because of Christ’s cross-work that such remission of sin is made valid

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I guess if someone can interpret this passage and come out with a justification by works and then show me how, then I will understand.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified (acquitted- it retains that forensic meaning) in His sight (harking back to the same words in Romans 2:13 which says that only the doers of the law will be justified in His sight retaining the imagery of judgement/forensic), for by the law is the knowledge of sin (sin is the barrier between mankind being justified by works). But now, the righteousness of God without law has been revealed, being witnessed by the law and prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ, for all and on all who believe, for there is no difference between jew and greek, for all have sinned and have fallen short of God’s glory, and are being* justified as a free gift of grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by his blood to be received by faith**- This was to show God’s justice, for in His forbearance He had passed over sins which were previously committed, that at the present time He might be just and the justifier (ac-quitter) of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:21-26)*

To be “justified” in this context is to have one’s sin dealt with so that the legal debt no longer remains on the person. This is not all of salvation, it is what the preachers in Acts call the forgiveness of sin.

 

[Koineman]

I guess if someone can interpret this passage and come out with a justification by works and then show me how, then I will understand.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified (acquitted- it retains that forensic meaning)

How do you know this? Many interpret the word dikaiow as meaning “make righteous,” not just “declare righteous,” thus going beyond mere acquittal.

in His sight (harking back to the same words in Romans 2:13 which says that only the doers of the law will be justified in His sight retaining the imagery of judgement/forensic

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

In Romans 2:13 it also means acquittal. It its based off of being righteous in doing the law. The meaning ‘‘make righteous’’ can’t possibly be retained at the last judgement.

Notice also in Romans 3:20 Paul says ‘‘no flesh will be justified in His sight’’ as also in Romans 2:13 ‘’ only those who do the law are just in his sight’’. When the word ‘‘sight’’ is used it clearly denotes judgement, hence the forensic meaning. Do you know what forensic means? It means before the forum. It denotes that an examination is complete and a final decision is being made with respect to the examination of the object.

Thus when Paul says we will not be justified by the works of the law in God’s sight, it denotes the idea of being judged, not transformed.

Therefore only 3 verses later when St. Paul says we are ‘‘justified’’ by a gift of grace by the blood sacrifice of Jesus christ, we cannot be intellectually consistent by changing the meaning of the word to be that of a transformation. It still denotes a forensic judgement based on the sacrifice of christ.

If our sins are washed clean in Gods sight, this is an act of justification. Acquittal.

Justification is dealing with our guilt. Sanctification deals with making us holy. Both are necessary for salvation

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

And if being justified in Romans 3:24 is being made righteous in the behavioral sense, why so much emphasis on the work of Jesus christ?

 

[Koineman]

The burden is on the catholic to make sense of why Paul grounds our justification in the death of Jesus and faith apart from works, as a free grace gift.

No, the burden is on all of us to harmonize James with Paul. You are pitting Paul against James, and that is always an incorrect hermeneutical approach.

Until that is done, these kinds of discussions will just go back and forth, around and around, without end.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

James in no way contradicts Paul. Paul also believed that if a believer sins he will not inherit the kingdom of God. He says that if we do not put to death the deeds of the body, we will face eternal death. And that we must all appear before the judgement of God to have ones life examined. If someone fell out of obedience, they fall from grace, and having once been justified, are now condemned.

James is not suggesting that Abraham was lost and condemned prior to offering Isaac. Where for Paul, anyone not justified yet is condemned.

 

[Koineman]

In Romans 2:13 it also means acquittal. It its based off of being righteous in doing the law. The meaning ‘‘make righteous’’ can’t possibly be retained at the last judgement.

Yes, I’d agree that in that passage it refers to an acquittal.

Notice also in Romans 3:20 Paul says ‘‘no flesh will be justified in His sight’’ as also in Romans 2:13 ‘’ only those who do the law are just in his sight’’. When the word ‘‘sight’’ is used it clearly denotes judgement, hence the forensic meaning.

I’m not sure I agree with that. I think you might be reading too much into the phrase “in his sight” to make it imply “final judgment” which I am not sure is intended in 3:20. “In his sight” simply means “in His view,” or “the way God sees us.” That need not be restricted to the time of final judgment.

Do you know what forensic means? It means before the forum. It denotes that an examination is complete and a final decision is being made with respect to the examination of the object.

You’re giving the definition the idea of finality, but that’s not what forensic necessarily means. From Merriam-Webster: “1 belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate 2 ARGUMENTATIVE, RHETORICAL 3 relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems”

At any rate, let me ask you: Are you arguing for the view that justification happens through the righteousness of Christ being imputed to a person, as opposed to a person being justified through righteousness being infused into a person?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

In Romans 2:13 there is the idea of judgement. However, Romans 3:21 is referring to the present view if god, nonetheless a judgement after examination

 

[Koineman]

James in no way contradicts Paul.

There is definitely tension between the two passages, as evidenced by threads like this one. James says we are not justified by faith alone, yet Paul says we are justified by faith apart from works of law.

The Council of Trent, in my opinion, harmonized the two when it said:

“The causes of this justification are:
the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31] gratuitously, signing and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance,[32] the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] merited for us justification by His most holy passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one’s disposition and cooperation.” (Session VI, Chapter VII)

Note the boldfaced portions. Christ alone, and nobody else, was the one who merited justification for us. Neither Paul nor James goes against this. Note also that the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism–something we do. Finally, the formal cause (meaning the “stuff” out of which justification is made, just as paint and canvas are the formal cause of a painting) is the righteousness (justice) of God infused into a person. That lines up with what Paul wrote, too, saying that “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). Faith does not work through love unless that person has been renewed inwardly.

In other words, when we distinguish between these causes, it’s easier to harmonize James with Paul because then we’ll see that both taught that justification was by faith plus works, but only in an instrumental sense, not a meritorious sense. Paul would have never taught that the sinner’s works merit justification, and that is what I believe he meant when he said that we are justified by faith apart from works of the law. There is nothing we can do to merit justification. That is what Paul is getting at. And James does not go against that either. But that does NOT mean that works are not necessary instrumentally. Faith and works are both necessary as instrumental causes, but not as meritorious causes. Does that make sense?

Paul also believed that if a believer sins he will not inherit the kingdom of God. He says that if we do not put to death the deeds of the body, we will face eternal death. And that we must all appear before the judgement of God to have ones life examined. If someone fell out of obedience, they fall from grace, and having once been justified, are now condemned.

James is not suggesting that Abraham was lost and condemned prior to offering Isaac. Where for Paul, anyone not justified yet is condemned.

That’s right. Unless I’m mistaken, the Catholic view is that Abraham’s justification increased when he offered up Isaac on the altar.

At any rate, you’re going a bit off topic. I say that because you’re talking about things that could happen after justification. I think it would keep things clearer if you stuck with what happens at the time of justification: faith alone or faith plus works?