Not By Faith Alone

[Randy_Carson]

Covenant theology? This is an assertion without any evidence. What advance research has he done in this area? What scholarly works on Covenant theology has interacted with? What scholarly journal or book has he written in this area? I did a search and all I came up with was a few audio tapes and a book that seemed more like an introductory book on covenant which wouldn’t come close to qualifying him as a scholar in that field. Also I found this description of Dr. Hahn with the book, ” Hahn, a master apologist and Roman Catholic theologian …” A master apologist? Like I said Dr Hahn is more of an apologist than a scholar, unless you deliver some goods.

You mean other than his doctoral dissertation presented at Marquette University?

“Kinship by Covenant: A Biblical Theological Analysis of Covenant Types and Texts in the Old and New Testaments” Ph.D. Diss, Marquette Univ (Ann Arbor: UMI, 1995; revision to be published by T&T Clark, forthcoming 2001).

You can review his Curriculum Vitae at www.scotthahn.com under the “Speaking Schedule and Information” section.

He may not spend his full time working as a scholar in this one area, but it appears that he has more than a passing understanding of covenant theology.

At least, more than anyone on this board.

 

[apophasis]

Paul tells us: “For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality” (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).

Romans two is so often misinterpreted by taking Paul completely out of context. In the first two chapters Paul is simply presenting the principles of God’s judgment as Judge of all (Jew and Gentile). He concludes in 3:9 that ALL are “under sin” and then procedes to describe humanity in its natural state “under sin” (vss. 10-18). Paul is not telling his readers in Rom. 2:6-11how to be justified before God. This he formulates in 3:19ff, stating emphatically:"…for ALL sinned and are falling short of the the glory of God, being justified AS A GIFT by HIS GRACE (through our “grace fueled” good works? No!) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:23-24).IOW, justification is “gifted” to men based entirely on the redemptive work of Another, the man Christ Jesus. There could be no other way since ALL men are “under” sin according to divine revelation, divine decree.

In the second century, the technical Latin term for “merit” was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for “reward.” Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin.

Thank you for pointing out that “merit” is a second century term and not a first century, Aposotlic concept. The two sided coin of merit and reward, according to Pauline theology, is not legal tender for divine justification - only the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking that Catholics believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved.

Then why did you quote Rom. 2:6-11 in the meritorious way in which you did???

This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: “[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace” (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot* (Catechism* *of the Catholic Church *2007).

The Council of Trent and the CCC are notorious for contradicting themselves. For instance:

The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God’s grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10).

And what is this “reward” that is “condignly” merited Randy? Justification (see Rom. 3:24)? Salvation (see Eph. 2:8-9)? Eternal life (see Rom. 6:23)?

According to Scripture none are “rewarded” based on any human merit whatsoever (not even “condign”). All are said to be strictly “gifted” based on the finished work of Another. And ALL are said to be gifts a believer possesses now, not something to be “rewarded” at some future time, which would be the case if based on meritorious “works” (even so-called “condign”).

As you rightly pointed out, the whole concept of “merit” is second century, not Apostolic. Paul clearly refutes this two-sided coin of yours when he writes:Rom 4:4-5 "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,Paul is very clear and consistent throughout his Epistles.

 

[mikeledes]

Romans two is so often misinterpreted by taking Paul completely out of context. In the first two chapters Paul is simply presenting the principles of God’s judgment as Judge of all (Jew and Gentile). He concludes in 3:9 that ALL are “under sin” and then procedes to describe humanity in its natural state “under sin” (vss. 10-18). Paul is not telling his readers in Rom. 2:6-11how to be justified before God. This he formulates in 3:19ff, stating emphatically:"…for ALL sinned and are falling short of the the glory of God, being justified AS A GIFT by HIS GRACE (through our “grace fueled” good works? No!) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:23-24).IOW, justification is “gifted” to men based entirely on the redemptive work of Another, the man Christ Jesus. There could be no other way since ALL men are “under” sin according to divine revelation, divine decree.Thank you for pointing out that “merit” is a second century term and not a first century, Aposotlic concept. The two sided coin of merit and reward, according to Pauline theology, is not legal tender for divine justification - only the shed blood of Jesus Christ.Then why did you quote Rom. 2:6-11 in the meritorious way in which you did???The Council of Trent and the CCC are notorious for contradicting themselves. For instance:And what is this “reward” that is “condignly” merited Randy? Justification (see Rom. 3:24)? Salvation (see Eph. 2:8-9)? Eternal life (see Rom. 6:23)?

According to Scripture none are “rewarded” based on any human merit whatsoever (not even “condign”). All are said to be strictly “gifted” based on the finished work of Another. And ALL are said to be gifts a believer possesses now, not something to be “rewarded” at some future time, which would be the case if based on meritorious “works” (even so-called “condign”).

As you rightly pointed out, the whole concept of “merit” is second century, not Apostolic. Paul clearly refutes this two-sided coin of yours when he writes:Rom 4:4-5 "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,Paul is very clear and consistent throughout his Epistles.

Hi Apophasis :tiphat: Romans 2 is a general principle constantly reaffrimed in the Bible:

John 5:28-29

**28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment. **

Galatians 6:7-9

**7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.

8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary**

Compare with Proverbs 11:18

18The wicked earns deceptive wages,
But he who sows righteousness gets a true reward.

Also read:

home.nyc.rr.com/mysticalrose/grace2.html

The justified person must not resist the Spirit. Rather, he must not grieve the Spirit and allow it to manisfest Himself in his life through righteous living. If he fails to do that, he will not enjoy ultimate salvation (i.e. actual entrance into eternal life).

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Any reward from God is based on a promise, not on debt. We do not and cannot obligate God to give us anything by our works. God freely gives the gift of righteosness and then promises to give eternal life in the age to come to those of the justified who persevere to the end.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

You mean other than his doctoral dissertation presented at Marquette University?

“Kinship by Covenant: A Biblical Theological Analysis of Covenant Types and Texts in the Old and New Testaments” Ph.D. Diss, Marquette Univ (Ann Arbor: UMI, 1995; revision to be published by T&T Clark, forthcoming 2001).

You can review his Curriculum Vitae at www.scotthahn.com under the “Speaking Schedule and Information” section.

He may not spend his full time working as a scholar in this one area, but it appears that he has more than a passing understanding of covenant theology.

At least, more than anyone on this board.

I know I’m supposed to be ignoring your posts, but just in case Rebandito would think this is a sufficient answer I will respond to it.

Everyone with a Ph.D. has to write a dissertation. Writing a dissertation does not make one a scholar, nor does speaking at different conferences help to qualify one as a scholar, unless it is scholarly conference. I looked at Dr Hahn’s speaking engagement and they don’t seem to qualify. If what you are offering above determines that one is a scholar the Redbandito argument doesn’t make sense, because he differentated Dr Hahn from individuals( e.g. Robert Sungenis) who has the same requirements. As a matter of fact the evidence you gave above is so extremely common amongst those with a Ph D.

As I said before if you use the term scholar in a very generic sense this maybe appropriate, but otherwise you haven’t shown me anything to take back my original assertion. If Dr Hahn is anything it is an apologist.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hi Redbandito,

I was able to find Chrysostom commentary online. This is good because it gives a lot of context to the quote you initially provided. I quote from the commentary extensively so this will be divided into 3 posts. The link for the commentary is here:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.x.html

Here is the beginning of Chrysostom commentary on Romans 4.

Chrysostom:

He had said, that the world had become guilty before God, and that all had sinned, and that boasting was excluded and that it was impossible to be saved otherwise than by faith. He is now intent upon showing that this salvation, so far from being matter of shame, was even the cause of a bright glory, and a greater than that through works. For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. **And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but “righteousness. Therein” (he says) “is the righteousness of God revealed.” (Rom. i. 17.) **For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. And he calls it not “righteousness” only, but also the setting forth of the righteousness of God. But God is set forth in things which are glorious and shining, and great.

Chrysostom starts off saying it is impossible to be saved, otherwise than by faith. He then states what he believes is the point the Apostle is making. Salvation by faith is not a matter of shame but a cause for brighter glory than salvation by works. Chrysostom believes the Apostle is making this point because he knows a gift of salvation by just having faith maybe considered inferior to working and earning a reward. This is definitely true in our culture today. This drives the rest of his interpretation. In Chrysostom interpretation it is not just salvation that makes this way so superior, but also because there is “righteousness” and that is the righteousness of God revealed per Romans 1:17. Now if we briefly look at what he says about Romans 1:17 we find the following:
Chrysostom on Romans 1:17:

For since it is possible to be saved, yet not without shame (as many are saved of those, who by the royal humanity are released from punishment), that no one may suspect this upon hearing of safety, he adds also righteousness; and righteousness, not thine own, but that of God; hinting also the abundance of it and the facility. For you do not achieve it by toilings and labors, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only from your own store, “believing.”

So Chrysostom makes it clear that when he speaks of believer being made he just he is speaking in reference to the gift of righteous from God and not their own righteousness. You received this righteousness as a gift by believing. This is important to keep in mind as we read the rest of his thoughts on Romans 4.
We continue with Chrysostom on Romans 4:

Chrysostom:

Now since the Jews kept turning over and over the fact, that the Patriarch, and friend of God, was the first to receive circumcision, he wishes to show, that it was by faith that he too was justified. And this was quite a vantage ground to insist upon. For for a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.

Now notice his point in the above. It was nothing unlikely for a person who had “no works” to be justified by faith, but it puts faith in such great light and causes wonder, “ that a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just” by them. So even though Abraham was richly adorned with great works he was not made just because of them. Of course this show he is thinking of more than the ceremonial law at this point, because he talks of Abraham being adorned with good works that play not part in his justification.

continued with 2 of 3​

 

[SolaScriptura]

2 of 3​

A little later he then states:

Chrysostom:

For “if Abraham,” he says, “was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory: but not before God.” What is here said is not plain, and so one must make it plainer. For there are two “gloryings,” one of works, and one of faith. After saying then, “if he was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God;” he points out that he might have whereof to glory from faith also,4 mss. that he that is of faith might also have whereof to glory. yea and much greater reason for it. For the great power of Paul is especially displayed in this, that he turns what is objected to the other side, and shows that what seemed rather to be on the side of salvation by works, viz. glorying or boldness of claim belonged much more truly to that by faith. For he that glorieth in his works has his own labors to put forward: but he that finds his honor in having faith in God, has a much greater ground for glorying to show, in that it is God that he glorifieth and magnifieth.

Notice now that Chrysostom speaks of two forms of glorying, one of works, and one of faith. Again he mentions how the one who has faith has much greater reason to glory, even though this is objected to on the other side, because they place greater glory on works, but this glory really belongs to faith. He states it is faith that glorifies and magnifies God.

Chrysostom:

For to abstain from stealing and murdering is trifling sort of acquirement, but to believe that it is possible for God to do things impossible requires a soul of no mean stature, and earnestly affected towards Him; for this is a sign of sincere love. **For he indeed honors God, who fulfils the commandments, but he doth so in a much greater degree who thus followeth wisdom (φιλοσοφὥν) by his faith. The former obeys Him, but the latter receives that opinion of Him which is fitting, and glorifies Him, and feels wonder at Him more than that evinced by works. For that glorying pertains to him that does aright, but this glorifieth God, and lieth wholly in Him. **

Again we see Chrysostom is thinking of much more than the ceremonial law. He mentions ”abstaining from stealing and murdering”. He also speaks of honoring God through fulfilling the commandment, but God is honored to a “much greater degree” if followeth wisdom by faith. Works glorify the person who does them, but faith glorifies God and lies wholly in Him as he says.

Chrysostom continues …

Chrysostom:

for he who is a believer glorieth again, not only because he loveth God in sincerity, but also because he hath enjoyed great honor and love from him. For as he shows his love to Him by having great thoughts about Him, (for this is a proof of love), so doth God also love him, though deserving to suffer for countless sins, not in freeing him from punishment only, but even by making him righteous. He then hath whereof to glory, as having been counted worthy of mighty love.

Chrysostom now speaks of the believer glorying again, not only because he loves God, but because God loves him. The believers love is shown by his faith and God’s love is shown by freeing him from sin and making him righteous. Now, as we have seen above when Chrysostom speaks of making the believer righteous he is speaking of God giving him God’s righteousness as a gift. This is perfectly consistent with the Protestant position. And the point of the believer loving God does not go against the Protestant position either. Justification by faith alone does not mean one has faith in God but does not love Him. On the contrary, one can only love this God in whom they have put their faith. However, what it does mean is that the love is not the means for justification, but as Chrysostom says ,it is only faith. Once again justification by faith alone is in perfect agreement with this.

continued with 3 of 3​

 

[SolaScriptura]

3 of 3​

Now this is the context that precedes our debated text. Here is the text again that you presented:

Chrysostom:

“For to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”

Then is not this last the greatest? he means. By no means: for it is to the believer that it is reckoned. But it would not have been reckoned, unless there were something that he contributed himself. And so he too hath God for his debtor, and debtor too for no common things, but great and high ones. For to show his high-mindedness and spiritual understanding, he does not say “to him that believeth” merely, but

“To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly.”

For reflect how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have full confidence that God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only, but even to make him just, and to count him worthy of those immortal honors.

Chrysostom asks the question is the debt/works paradigm the greatest? He has already answered that question above and he answers again here with, “By no means: for it is reckoned to the believer”. He also states it would not be reckoned unless the believer contributed something and this makes God his debtor. Furthermore, he states this is not a common thing, because it is greater than God just giving this to those who believe, God gives it to the ungodly one who believes in Him! This is the amazing point that Chrysostom is bringing out. God takes a person who has lived an impious life and not only frees him from punishment, but also makes him just by giving him the gift of God’s righteousness. Now, if you remember this was one of the points I mentioned when I read James Akins article. In initial justification he was speaking of the believer being at a state purity, but not having the good works yet. Chrysostom is saying, not only is there a removal of punishment because sins are removed(purity), but there is also a positive righteousness, which is God’s righteousness. The believer actually has righteousness at initial justification.

So, even though Chrysostom uses the phrase “makes just” it doesn’t contradict justification by faith alone, because we also believe we are made just at justification. Otherwise, God would not declare us just. The point is we are made just because God righteousness is given to us and therefore it is truly and really ours.

The only quibble I would have with what Chrysostom has said above is that I don’t agree with the language that the believer is making God his debtor in this context, because it seems clear the Apostle is making the opposite point. That is, God is not our debtor because we receive His righteousness as a gift. But the meaning behind what Chrysostom is saying is totally in line with justification by faith alone.

Now just to give a little context of what he says after that quote.

Chrysostom:

Do not then suppose that this one is lowered in that it is not reckoned unto the former of grace. For this is the very thing that makes the believer glorious; the fact of his enjoying so great grace, of his displaying so great faith. And note too that the recompense is greater. For to the former a reward is given, to the latter righteousness. Now righteousness is much greater than a reward. For righteousness is a recompense which most fully comprehends several rewards.

So he continues his thought by stating how superior it is to receive righteousness by grace through faith then to receive a reward by works.

Finally, what have we learned from this?

• Chrysostom believes Paul is arguing against more than just ceremonial laws but all works.
• Chrysostom believes God justifies the ungodly and impious by not holding their sins against them and giving them God’s own righteousness
• Chrysostom believes the means by which all this happens is only faith.

This is justification by faith alone.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Any reward from God is based on a promise, not on debt. We do not and cannot obligate God to give us anything by our works. God freely gives the gift of righteosness and then promises to give eternal life in the age to come to those of the justified who persevere to the end.

God Bless,
Michael

Wow, this is pretty good. I would have one small quibble with this sentence:
*
“God freely gives the gift of righteosness and then promises to give eternal life in the age to come to those of the justified who persevere to the end.”*

God not only promises to give eternal life in the future age to come, but the future age to come invades the present age and we have it now in part as a down payment.

 

[mikeledes]

**27"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. **

And how does the Son of Man repay according to works?

Matthew 25:31-46

**31"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.

32"All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats;

33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.

35’For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;

36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’

37"Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink?

38’And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You?

39’When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’

40"The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;

42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;

43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’

44"Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’

45"Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." **

Verse 46 reminds me of Proverbs 10:16

16The wages of the righteous is life,
The income of the wicked, punishment.

Matthew 25:31-46 clearly explains what Jesus mean by repaying everyone according to their deeds. This is reaffirmed by Romans 2:6-8 and other passages.

Since we are to be judged according to our works, we must conform our lives to the free gift of righteousness by pursuing the “sanctification without which no one will see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14)” 1 Peter 1:13-17 states:

**14As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance,

15but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;

16because it is written, “YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.”

17If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth;**

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Wow, this is pretty good. I would have one small quibble with this sentence:
*
“God freely gives the gift of righteosness and then promises to give eternal life in the age to come to those of the justified who persevere to the end.”*

God not only promises to give eternal life in the future age to come, but the future age to come invades the present age and we have it now in part as a down payment.

I agree! We presently enjoy a participation in the life of God (i.e. eternal life) through our incorporation into Christ. But continued enjoyment of this life - and enjoyment of it in its fullest degree - in the age to come is promised to those of the justified who persevere in conforming their lives to the gift of righteousness:

Matthew 19:16-17, 29
**16And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”
17And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” **

29"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.

A variant of verse 29 is found in Luke 18:29-30:

**29And He said to them, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God,
30who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life.” **

Luke 10:25-28

**25 And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”

26And He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?”

27And he answered, “(C)YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND; AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”

28And He said to him, “You have answered correctly;DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.” **

Ironically, when asked by the rich young man and the teacher what must they do to inherit eternal life, He gives a very un-Protestant response.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Sola Scrptura So, even though Chrysostom uses the phrase “makes just” it doesn’t contradict justification by faith alone, because we also believe we are made just at justification. Otherwise, God would not declare us just. The point is we are made just because God righteousness is given to us and therefore it is truly and really ours

.

We are not transferred from an ungodly state to righteousness before God by our works. That is purely by the grace of God and I think this is what Chrysostom is trying to say. The issue is what happens after we have been transferred and are now righteous before God? Are we free from any obligations that will affect our salvation? Based on the previous verses I cited, I don’t think so.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

.

We are not transferred from an ungodly state to righteousness before God by our works. That is purely by the grace of God and I think this is what Chrysostom is trying to say.

Yes, I agree. Tell that to Redbandito However, he does say we are transferred to a righteous state because God gives us His righteousness. Here is what he says:

"For since it is possible to be saved, yet not without shame (as many are saved of those, who by the royal humanity are released from punishment), that no one may suspect this upon hearing of safety, he adds also righteousness; and righteousness, not thine own, but that of God; hinting also the abundance of it and the facility. For you do not achieve it by toilings and labors, but you receive it by a gift from above, contributing one thing only from your own store, “believing.”( John Chrysostom)

The issue is what happens after we have been transferred and are now righteous before God? Are we free from any obligations that will affect our salvation? Based on the previous verses I cited, I don’t think so.

But that is not the issue for Chrysostom in his homily of Romans 4 and that is what Redbandito and I have been discussing.

Of course we have many obligations. What child doesn’t have obligations as far as what they can and cannot do. By the way, which verse are you talking about?

 

[apophasis]

The justified person must not resist the Spirit. Rather, he must not grieve the Spirit and allow it to manisfest Himself in his life through righteous living. If he fails to do that, he will not enjoy ultimate salvation (i.e. actual entrance into eternal life).

God Bless,
Michael

Whatever happened to your argument of “condigned merits.” Your statement above demonstrates the inconsistency of Catholicism. “If he fails to do that, he will not enjoy ultimate salvation” is a salvation based on personal merits (nothing “condigned” about it) - which is an anti-biblical, anti-Pauline concept.

 

[Reformed1]

Yes, I agree. Tell that to Redbandito However, he does say we are transferred to a righteous state because God gives us His righteousness.

Isn’t that the definition of “infused righteousness”?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Sola Scriptura:

Yes, I agree. Tell that to Redbandito However, he does say we are transferred to a righteous state because God gives us His righteousness.

Isn’t that the definition of “infused righteousness”?

No, not necessarily. He says nothing about the righteousness being infused or imputed. With imputation we truly believe we receive righteousness as it is credited to our account and our status is changed. The common example is the bank account. If you give me the gift of a million dollars and you credit it to my bank account it is truly my money. I have been transferred from state of a broke man to millionaire, even though I didn’t earn a penny of it.

If you really want to see if this works send me a million dollars and watch me become a millionaire

 

[mikeledes]

No, not necessarily. He says nothing about the righteousness being infused or imputed. With imputation we truly believe we receive righteousness as it is credited to our account and our status is changed. The common example is the bank account. If you give me the gift of a million dollars and you credit it to my bank account it is truly my money. I have been transferred from state of a broke man to millionaire, even though I didn’t earn a penny of it.

If you really want to see if this works send me a million dollars and watch me become a millionaire

While you’re at it, you can transfer some to my account as well.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Reformed1]

While you’re at it, you can transfer some to my account as well.

God Bless,
Michael

You and sola probably deserve it.

Just e-mail me your account information…

 

[mikeledes]

Whatever happened to your argument of “condigned merits.” Your statement above demonstrates the inconsistency of Catholicism. “If he fails to do that, he will not enjoy ultimate salvation” is a salvation based on personal merits (nothing “condigned” about it) - which is an anti-biblical, anti-Pauline concept.

… Who does God promise eternal life to in the age to come?

Romans 2:6-7

6God “will give to each person according to what he has done.”[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

1 Timothy 6:18-19

**18Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share,

19storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.**

Those of the justified who persevere in doing good to the end will enjoy final salvation (entrance into eternal life). Doing good is the fruit of divine grace and perseverance is also impossible without grace. Therefore, we cannot boast before God. Our good works have their origin not in the human will, but in the Holy Spirit freely given to us. It is the Holy Spirit that inspires Christians to do good, and we must respond to His promptings by actually doing it.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

You and sola probably deserve it.

Just e-mail me your account information…

LOL … Michael, you first