Not By Faith Alone

[Redbandito]

I haven’t contradicted myself. The problem is you don’t really understand the distinctions being made. Let me help you. Justification is by faith alone. It is justification, which is our being made right with God that is by faith alone. It is justification that determines our eternal destiny and therefore if this is by grace infused works or any other works one may boast. The good works that are the fruit of the “already justified” has no bearing on our eternal destiny and therefore cannot be used as a basis for boasting in that regard. However, if grace infused works are the basis for you justification then you could boast, because the one who does not go to heaven did not add works to grace like you did.

So you keep saying. It’s one thing to make a claim, it is another to prove it. Simply citing a couple of verses as prooftexts does not help you here. We all do that. The bottomline is that NOWHERE does the Bible say justification is by faith alone. Rather, the Bible says quite the opposite. James states, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” It cannot be any more clear than that.

First, I don’t believe faith is an intellectual assent only. Faith is also based on knowledge, assenting, and a trusting. Second, the same line of logic does not apply to faith because Scripture does not apply it to faith. As I have pointed out in other replies to you faith is always contrasted to works and is on the side of grace. As a matter of fact the Scriptures explicitly say one cannot boast in reference to faith:.

So what’s the difference between “knowledge, assenting” and an “intellectual assent?” So you added “trusting” as another prerequisite. Where does the Bible teach that this is also that goes into faith? Does not James say even the demons believe and tremble? They have knowledge of God, know what He is capable of, and yet reject His love anyway. Are you saying the only difference is “trust?” That’s not what James says the difference is. Furthemore, trust in what? How does this trust manifest itself? Is it merely an intellectual trust, or does it call for action (Or in other words works) on our part?

Romans 3:27
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith.

Boasting is excluded on the principle of faith, because as the Apostle goes on to say in the next chapter of Romans, faith accords with grace!! .

Again, you are clearly ignoring what the verse is saying. Paul specifically contrasts “observing the law” with faith. What problem is Paul addressing here? He tells us specifically not 16 verses later: “Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?” Thus, Paul is talking to Jewish Christians who are trying to exclude Gentiles from the New Covenant. As we saw in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, there were certain Jews who sought to make Gentiles become Jewish in order to follow Christ. Paul simply tells us that it is not by circumcision, or observing these laws, that makes a person just, but rather faith.

Furthermore, as the Catholic position goes, I have no problem with saying that NO WORKS justify us initially. It is faith that initially justifies us. Therefore, even if this verse encompasses more than the ceremonial law (which it doesn’t in context), it would not do damage to the Catholic position. Catholics believe that works only justify after our initial justification and infusion of grace.

The Jews boasted them all. You see this in the parable of the Pharisee:

Luke 18:11
11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

So we see it was much more than the ceremonial law. The same is true for the Apostle Paul when he was a Pharisee:Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? .

No, this does not show anything about Romans 4. This shows that the Pharisees, WHO REJECTED CHRIST, boasted in their works APART FROM GRACE. If they were initially justified, their works would have been the fruit of grace. Their works, however, were not such works.

Furthermore, showing that the concept of boasting about other works does not prove that this is what Paul was talking about in Romans 4.

 

[Redbandito]

Philippians 3: 6-5
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

So we see the Apostle Paul spoke of his reason for having confidence in the flesh. It included circumcision, but it was much more. It also included keeping the moral law…

In Phillipians Paul is discussing something else. He discusses that those who try to come to God in an attempt to contractually obligate Him cannot do so. In Romans 4, this is not what he is talking about. Grace infused works (as you like to call them) are done as the fruit of God’s grace, and therefore the merit in them is God’s not our’s.

The early context of Romans 4 is dealing with Abraham’s justification before the ceremonial law was even established.!! Yet, it still speaks of Abraham not being able to boast based on works. This blows your “works” equal “ceremonial law” position out of the water. However, even Romans 3 refutes your position. Read verses 3:10-18 and it talks about all kinds of moral issues and therefore declares because of the Jew and Gentile failure in keeping this law, they cannot be justified by observing the law(i.e. works)…

What on Earth are you talking about? Paul stated, "We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised."

So Paul makes quite clear what he is talking about. Paul’s reference to works refers SPECIFICALLY to whether Abraham was justified BEFORE his CIRCUMCISION or AFTER his CIRCUMCISION. If you want to talk about the ceremonial law theory being blown out of the water, take it up with Paul. The bottom line is that Paul clearly links “works of the law” with “circumcision.”

Well, this is eisegsis my friend. Futhermore, even Catholics disagree with you that works of law equal ceremonial law.

Says you. I could say the same about your usage of the Scriptures, which you cherry pick to try to prove your point. Yet, you won’t answer anything on Jam 2:24. Why is that?

And show me which Catholics disagree with me. Link them here. Who and where? Are you talking about dbacks? Furthemore, even if certain Catholics possibly disagree with me does not mean I am wrong. I stand with Dr. Hahn on this issue. I trust his exegesis more than anyone on here.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito:

SolaScriptura:

Speaking of confusion. I never said they were the same thing, my point was that they were in accord for our justification whereas works was on the other side of the fence…

Uhhhhh…no confusion here. I quite clearly understood that is what you were saying. I responded by telling you that the Scripture doesn’t teach that.

No you responded by telling me that Faith and Grace are not the same thing as if that is what I was arguing. Here is how you said it:

Redbandito:

No my friend, you are confused about St. Paul’s message. Faith and Grace are not the same thing. Grace is the unmerited free gift of God’s own nature to mankind. Faith is the “(A)assurance of things (B)hoped for, the conviction of (C)things not seen” Heb 11:1).

So who were you arguing against in reference to Faith and Grace not being the same thing?
Rebbandito:

You keep citing verses that talk about it is by grace through faith, not by works that we are justified. I agree. We don’t receive initial justification based on anything work we have done. Thus, we are justified, and ultimately saved by GRACE. The fact that this grace is initially received by faith, does not mean that faith is opposed to works. What Eph 2:8-10 simply tells us is that we cannot work our way into our initial justification. I cannot obligate God to adopt me into His family. This is pure gift, received though faith. Where we seem to be parting is that you then take that, and assume that justification is completed at this point, and there is no way to lose it. Thus, works remain opposed to this grace through faith, rather than being necessary fruits of it.

If grace and faith works together for our initial justification( per you ), and we are told over and over it is not of works doesn’t it logically follow that both grace and faith are opposed works in initial justification? Grace and faith belongs together as he says in Romans 4:16.
Rebbandito:

SolaScriptura:

The rest of it is wrong in that I did make an argument for faith and not only grace. I quoted this verse:

Romans 4:16
16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

This citation strengthens the point I made in the previous paragraph. Through our faith, God gives us grace. I agree!
You are having a hard time following the arguments. My citation above was given to refute your previous argument when you stated the following:
“So when you say Paul set faith apart from works, and use verses that say it is by grace or works, you have not made an argument about faith…
So the citation is refuting one of your argument, but now you ignore the context in which it was given and latch on to a completely different argument.

Redbandito:

Again, we cannot work our way to our initial justification. Divine adoption is the pure gift of mercy and grace by our Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, Paul also assures us we can “fall” from this grace. Thus, AFTER we become children of God, by grace through faith, WE are obligated to “persevere” in this through doing good. So in other words, this verse does not further your argument against mine. I agree completely with Paul’s point here, as does the Catholic Church.

So from the Catholic perspective you would say initial justification is by grace alone through faith alone, right?

Furthermore, in Romans 4, Paul is speaking of works of the law. Thus, circumcision does not justify us is the real point Paul is making here. You have not adequately responded to my points on “works of the law.” At least not to my knowledge. Please address this in your next post.

You are confusing things again. I responded to your ceremonial works of the law argument where you made it here:: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1793301&postcount=516
Not only that, even some of your other Catholics on this board disagree with you on “works/works of the law” being equivalent to ceremonial laws only. As a matter of fact Robert Sungenis vehemently disagree with you here: catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/justification/works1.htm and of course he claims he is teaching the historic Catholic position

Redbandito:

Settle down partner. I have already addressed your misuse of Rom 4. If you want to get anywhere with me, prooftexting will not help. I have addressed this text already. Try responding to that instead.

I have responded to what you said. I think you are getting the posts mixed up. You are forgetting the arguments that are being made or responded to at specific points. But this happens when there are too many posts on the same topic.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito:

You’re not paying attention. I didn’t say that. I said that when Paul does contrast works with faith, it is nearly always in the context of “works of the law,” which you nicely proved for me by these citations. Notice your citation of Gal 3:2. What does he state? “Did you receive the Spirit by OBSERVING THE LAW?” Thus, the works Paul speaks of here, are those of the Mosaic ceremonial law.

Paul says “observing the law” which I’m sure you know the law consisted of much more than the ceremonial law, but you introduce a non sequitur and equate the two out of the blue.

Redbandito:

And again, Eph 2:8-10 is not contrasting faith and works, but grace and works. He states it is by “grace” we are saved, not by works. How we receive that initial grace is by faith. Whether we remain in it or not is by what we do. “10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

If Paul says in other places we are justified by faith and not of works(Romans 3:27,28; 4:5), but in this place we are justified by grace through faith not of works can’t you see he is saying the same thing, but in a bit more detail in Ephesians? Grace and faith are together and both are contrasted to works at different points.

 

[mikeledes]

I have to agree with Sola Scriptura on the “works of the law/ceremonial law” argument. The works of the law is a reference to the Mosaic Law (Ceremonial and Moral). Please read Acts 15 for context. The point that Paul was making was that observance of the Mosaic law could not justify anyone because we have an eternal debt that we could not pay. In other words, none of our finite works done while being under the dominion of sin could pay this debt off and make us righteous before God, hence the absolute necessity for Divine intervention in the form of the Cross of Christ.

The initial reception of righteousness from God (i.e. when we first become righteous) is absolutely dependant on the mercy of God and we cannot merit it. Once we have been made righteous, we have to obligation to live righteously. If we fail to persevere in righteousness, God will withdraw the gift of righteousness. Hence, we remain righteous before God by grace through faith working through love.

God Bless,
michael

 

[Redbandito]

Redbandito:

No you responded by telling me that Faith and Grace are not the same thing as if that is what I was arguing. Here is how you said it:

So who were you arguing against in reference to Faith and Grace not being the same thing?.

Buddy, are you intentionally trying to take me out of context here? This is what I just responded to you about, "You never stated that, but you seem to equate them (perhaps unintentionally) in your posts. When you cite verses that say it is either by grace or works, and then proceed to say that this shows it is by faith alone, your application of your theology tends to disagree with this denial."

In other words, you may not have stated that formally, but it seemed to be implied in your position. If I misunderstood what you were saying, I apologize. But please quit wasting my time with this. It has nothing to do with the conversation we are having. As long as you understand that faith and grace are not the same thing, we are fine.

If grace and faith works together for our initial justification( per you ), and we are told over and over it is not of works doesn’t it logically follow that both grace and faith are opposed works in initial justification? Grace and faith belongs together as he says in Romans 4:16…

Yes! As I have ALREADY stated quite clearly, the Catholic Church REJECTS the idea that we can work for our initial justification. As I stated a couple of posts up, "Works are not needed for our INITIAL justification."

You are having a hard time following the arguments. My citation above was given to refute your previous argument when you stated the following:
“So when you say Paul set faith apart from works, and use verses that say it is by grace or works, you have not made an argument about faith…

So the citation is refuting one of your argument, but now you ignore the context in which it was given and latch on to a completely different argument.

Ummmm…that’s exactly what I responded to. I responded to your citation by stating that you were using verses where Paul says grace…not works as a proof that works were not necessary for our justification. My response was twofold. 1) You are correct that we are not INITIALLY justified by works, but by faith. If we could become adopted children of God, apart from grace and of our own doing, we would have reason to boast. We would also have reason to call ourselves Pelagianists. 2). Once we have received God’s sanctifying grace, our works are necessary to continue in God’s grace. Period. That’s all I have been saying. I will try to be more clear, but I am not having any trouble following the discussion. Thanks.

So from the Catholic perspective you would say initial justification is by grace alone through faith alone, right?.

I stand with Trent:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

Or in other words:

1. Man cannot justify himself (which includes works): contra Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism: Decree on Justification: chapter 5; Canons 1, 2, 3 on Justification.
2. Justification is by GRACE ALONE: Decree on Justification: chapter 8; Canon 10.
3. Initial justification by Grace Alone may be increased through mortification, observing God’s commandments, and works (see James 2:24): Decree on Justification: chapters 7,10, 11.
4. Justification by Faith Alone is false: Decree on Justification: chapter 11; Canons 9, 29.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/12/council-of-trent-canons-on.html.

 

[Redbandito]

[You are confusing things again. I responded to your ceremonial works of the law argument where you made it here:: http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1793301&postcount=516.

Am I? You responded to me, and I have responded to you. I disagree with your point that Paul was not speaking specifically of circumcision when discussing “works of the law.” He clearly links the two. To say is was speaking of more than that begs the question, because Paul makes his point very clearly with circumcision. If you claim he was speaking of more, in this passage, prove it by looking at the context of the passage.

Not only that, even some of your other Catholics on this board disagree with you on “works/works of the law” being equivalent to ceremonial laws only. As a matter of fact Robert Sungenis vehemently disagree with you here: catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/justification/works1.htm and of course he claims he is teaching the historic Catholic position .

Good for Robert Sungenis. I, in fact, have read his book “Not by Faith Alone,” and know for a fact that he did not “vehemently disagree” with me. However, I know that Robert Sungenis does stress that Paul is stating that no works can justify a man prior to his initial justification. Sungenis talks about how we cannot work in an attempt to “contractually obligate” God. I agree with him on these points. I do not agree with him that this is what Paul is talking about in Rom 4. While it is true that any work that is done in an attempt to contractually obligate God does not justify us, Paul uses “circumcision” in an attempt to make an important point to Jewish Christians. That point was that being Jewish is not what justifies us, but faith in Christ. So while Bob’s points are great in these areas, and we must agree with those principles to be Catholic, one need not believe this is what Romans 4 is speaking of to do so.

Furthermore, while I respect Sungenis’ exegetical capacity much more than my own, he is not infallible. I simply think, while his position is plausible, that the more probable point Paul is making is specific to circumcision.

I have responded to what you said. I think you are getting the posts mixed up. You are forgetting the arguments that are being made or responded to at specific points. But this happens when there are too many posts on the same topic.

It could quite possibly be that I am getting your posts confused, although I do not think so. Either way, I do not believe you have gotten the gist of my posts either. It doesn’t really matter. I don’t want to get into “he said, she said.” I have just one final question for you though. I will acknowledge that if Eph 2:8-10, and Romans 4 were to be taken in isolation from the rest of the Scripture, it would be difficult to dispute your claims. However, I would like you to acknowledge that IF you did not already believe justification to be a one-time event, Scriptures like Jam 2:24 would lend themselves to Catholic Soteriology. So, do you acknowledge this? In other words, “Is it plausible to understand Eph 2:8-10 in the way that we cannot work our way into our initial justification, but that AFTER being reborn (regenerate) we must bear works of righteousness?”

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito:

SolaScriptura:

So from the Catholic perspective you would say initial justification is by grace alone through faith alone, right?.

I stand with Trent:

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man’s free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

Or in other words:

1. Man cannot justify himself (which includes works): contra Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism: Decree on Justification: chapter 5; Canons 1, 2, 3 on Justification.
2. Justification is by GRACE ALONE: Decree on Justification: chapter 8; Canon 10.
3. Initial justification by Grace Alone may be increased through mortification, observing God’s commandments, and works (see James 2:24): Decree on Justification: chapters 7,10, 11.
4. Justification by Faith Alone is false: Decree on Justification: chapter 11; Canons 9, 29.

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/…canons-on.html.

Ummm … I know you stand with Trent, but that wasn’t what I asked you. Many Catholics would claim they stand with Trent, but how they may answer the question may not be the same. So I will ask again, from the Catholic perspective would you say initial justification is by grace alone through faith alone, right?.

 

[Redbandito]

Ummm … I know you stand with Trent, but that wasn’t what I asked you. Many Catholics would claim they stand with Trent, but how they may answer the question may not be the same. So I will ask again, from the Catholic perspective would you say initial justification is by grace alone through faith alone, right?.

I would say that I am initially justified by grace alone through faith. I just have a had time with saying faith alone, for two reasons. 1) The Scriptures clearly teach we are not justified by faith alone (Jam 2:24). 2) The Scripture teaches that this faith needs not to be alone, but accompanied by repentance and baptism (Jn 3:5, Acts 2:38).

So, if you were to say faith alone, but say that those two items are incorporated into this faith alone, I could go with it.

 

[Redbandito]

I have to agree with Sola Scriptura on the “works of the law/ceremonial law” argument. The works of the law is a reference to the Mosaic Law (Ceremonial and Moral). Please read Acts 15 for context. The point that Paul was making was that observance of the Mosaic law could not justify anyone because we have an eternal debt that we could not pay. In other words, none of our finite works done while being under the dominion of sin could pay this debt off and make us righteous before God, hence the absolute necessity for Divine intervention in the form of the Cross of Christ.

The initial reception of righteousness from God (i.e. when we first become righteous) is absolutely dependant on the mercy of God and we cannot merit it. Once we have been made righteous, we have to obligation to live righteously. If we fail to persevere in righteousness, God will withdraw the gift of righteousness. Hence, we remain righteous before God by grace through faith working through love.

God Bless,
michael

Well, I agree with those concepts Mike. I agree that neither the ceremonial or moral law justify us, apart from, or opposed to God’s grace. However, I do not think that is what Paul is specifically arguing in Rom 3-4.

 

[Redbandito]

I would also say that, despite the fact faith alone is clearly rejected by James, it really depends on what you mean by faith. Many Evangelicals, in some way, believe “Saving faith” incorporates true Christian charity, which is a constant sacrificial love that acts. Therefore, under the right conditions of how we define faith, faith alone could almost be acceptable phraseology. The problem is that there are multiple uses of the word faith, both Biblically and in today’s common practice that are confusing. Thus, I attempt to avoid confusing terminology that could keep someone from doing what is necessary.

 

[Redbandito]

(sigh). Sola, thanks for the questions. I see that you don’t want to start arguments, you really do seek the truth. I commend you. Red twisted my reasoning. He says that we are saved by Grace Alone. This is false. Sola, Catholics believe there are two forms of grace: Actual and Sanctifying. Actual grace is what God gives us every minute of our day. Sometimes we reject that grace, choosing instead to follow human desires. Other times, we respond to that grace. This grace allows us to love, care, and really show Christ to others. We perform this love by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. After the work is performed, that actual grace is then transformed into sanctifying grace, grace that sanctifies us, saves us. We need this grace to be saved, but not alone. Faith and good works are integral parts to this grace.

Sola, another term I see you always incorreclty defining is works. Works can mean two things in regards to the New Testament. Works of the law, and good works in grace. Good works in grace is the works that I’ve mentioned above. Works of the law, however, refers to Mosaic Law, where it is contractual. A Jew obeys the law, and expects a payment. Through Jesus, we obey through faith, with no expectations of payment. He established a New Covenant where the law is perfected, and now has faith along with it. We have the faith, now we must act on it. That’s where actual grace comes in, and the cycle continues. We have faith, we accept actual grace, act on it, actual grace turns into sanctifying grace, and the process repeats.

Whenever you read passages, please read the surrounding text to make sure the word “work” isn’t refering to the law. The only time works refer to good works is in James. I pray your spiritual journey has many guides to help you!

Dbacks, with all due respect, we are justified by Grace Alone, not by works. Take a look at the Council of Trent.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

Or in other words, "2. Justification is by GRACE ALONE: Decree on Justification: chapter 8; Canon 10.

1. Initial justification by Grace Alone may be increased through mortification, observing God’s commandments, and works (see James 2:24): Decree on Justification: chapters 7,10, 11."

 

[dbacks5439]

Red, I believe you and I may have had a slight communication error. Yes, Grace alone is correct, but faith and good works is how we get there. We agree, I’ve just explained what we need to get that grace. Hope this clears things up.

 

[Redbandito]

Red, I believe you and I may have had a slight communication error. Yes, Grace alone is correct, but faith and good works is how we get there. We agree, I’ve just explained what we need to get that grace. Hope this clears things up.

Ah yes. I gotcha now. My fault. Thank you for clarifying. Sorry I misinterpreted what you were saying. God bless!

 

[SolaScriptura]

I would say that I am initially justified by grace alone through faith. I just have a had time with saying faith alone, for two reasons. 1) The Scriptures clearly teach we are not justified by faith alone (Jam 2:24). 2) The Scripture teaches that this faith needs not to be alone, but accompanied by repentance and baptism (Jn 3:5, Acts 2:38).

So, if you were to say faith alone, but say that those two items are incorporated into this faith alone, I could go with it.

But James is not talking about initial justification, because he is speaking of works and he mentions Abraham’s justification in Genesis 22. We know that Abraham was justified before that. I would say Genesis 15 and you may even say earlier. So James 2:24 should have no bearing on how you answer that question. It is clear that baptism in Jn 3:5 and Acts 2:38 are not required for initial justification because Paul is arguing that Abraham was justified by faith in Romans 4 and there was no baptism. So your objections to saying faith alone doesn’t seem to add up.

Let me also ask you this, when did Abraham receive his initial justification? Genesis 12, 15, 22 or at some other point?

 

[kaycee]

Or in other words, "2. Justification is by GRACE ALONE: Decree on Justification: chapter 8; Canon 10.

1. Initial justification by Grace Alone may be increased through mortification, observing God’s commandments, and works (see James 2:24): Decree on Justification: chapters 7,10, 11."

I think there is a clear misunderstanding of what Grace is. Grace by definition is unmerited favor.

We receive **Grace(unmerited favor) **for Salvation through Gods ordained method of Faith.

How can More “Unmerited Favor” be increased by anything we do?

If WE do anything further, it is merited favor, or payment by obligation and NOT Grace. Rom 4:4

If we did nothing for initial justification/Unmerited Favor(Grace), how can “good works” increase Grace/Unmerited Favor?

We surely are to do good works, but just as surely these works do not increase justification/Grace(Unmerited Favor)

If we need to do ANYTHING it is NO LONGER Grace(Unmerited Favor)

 

[Redbandito]

But James is not talking about initial justification, because he is speaking of works and he mentions Abraham’s justification in Genesis 22. We know that Abraham was justified before that. I would say Genesis 15 and you may even say earlier. So James 2:24 should have no bearing on how you answer that question. It is clear that baptism in Jn 3:5 and Acts 2:38 are not required for initial justification because Paul is arguing that Abraham was justified by faith in Romans 4 and there was no baptism. So your objections to saying faith alone doesn’t seem to add up.

Let me also ask you this, when did Abraham receive his initial justification? Genesis 12, 15, 22 or at some other point?

From the texts we have, it would appear it was in Gen 12.

And while Abraham was not baptized, this is the new covenant. The Jews prior to Christ take part in salvation in a unique way. You rightly say Abraham was baptized. But then again, Abraham also did not know Jesus Christ and have a “personal relationship” with Him in the way we do. So if you say baptism wasn’t a requirement of his justification, therefore it is not one for us, then you could also say that Abraham does not have to know Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to be in Heaven. For it was not yet revealed that God was Trinitarian.

Further, it is not circumcision, or the law of Moses that we follow, but the law of Christ. Baptism IS required for initial justification as the general rule in the New Covenant. Not in a legalistic sense. But rather Christ instituted this physical sign as a means of imparting His sanctifying grace in us, and for us. God created the sacraments, including baptism, for man, not man for the sacraments. Therefore, God is not obligated to save man through the sacraments. He does so for our sake, because we are not merely spiritual beings, but physical ones.

As Jn states, “You must be born of water and the Spirit to enter the kingdom of Heaven.” In other words, through baptism in response to faith, I am justified. I receive the Spirit, and am therefore adopted into God’s family. This is not in opposition to faith. They work together. Baptism is not something I do. It is something God does to me.

This understanding helps me to make sense out of Rom 6:3-4 which states, “Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” The source of our life is Christ Jesus. We receive Christ Jesus through what? Being BAPTIZED. Of course this baptism must be accompanied by faith and repentance as the Scripture clearly teaches. Again, Paul states we must do this to have “new life.” What life is he speaking of, but eternal life?

 

[Redbandito]

I think there is a clear misunderstanding of what Grace is. Grace by definition is unmerited favor.

We receive **Grace(unmerited favor) **for Salvation through Gods ordained method of Faith.

How can More “Unmerited Favor” be increased by anything we do?

If WE do anything further, it is merited favor, or payment by obligation and NOT Grace? Rom 4:4

If we did nothing for initial justification/Unmerited Favor(Grace), how can “good works” increase Grace/Unmerited Favor?

We surely are to do good works, but just as surely these works do not increase justification/Grace(Unmerited Favor)

If we need to do ANYTHING it is NO LONGER Grace(Unmerited Favor)

No, that is what you believe. We believe grace is “unmerited favor,” but we ALSO believe sanctifying grace is God’s own divine life. As 2 Pet 1:4 states, “so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” Thus, Catholics understand grace as being unmerited favor. But we see that in order for God to truly adopt us into His family, we would in some way have to share in His divine nature. This is what we call sanctifying grace. The more we let the sanctifying grace transform us, the more of Christ there is, and the less of us. You don’t think you could adopt your dog as your son, do you? Then how could God rightly call us children without sharing His nature with us? To do so in a legal sense would be a legal fiction.

 

[kaycee]

No, that is what you believe. We believe grace is “unmerited favor,” but we ALSO believe sanctifying grace is God’s own divine life. As 2 Pet 1:4 states, “so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” Thus, Catholics understand grace as being unmerited favor. But we see that in order for God to truly adopt us into His family, we would in some way have to share in His divine nature. This is what we call sanctifying grace. The more we let the sanctifying grace transform us, the more of Christ there is, and the less of us. You don’t think you could adopt your dog as your son, do you? Then how could God rightly call us children without sharing His nature with us? To do so in a legal sense would be a legal fiction.

My comments are in regards to Salvation. The thread topic.

Yes, I understand the Catholic position of Infused Grace vs. Imputed Righteousness

Do you understand sanctifying grace as unmerited? How can it be? If works are needed to obtain, it no longer becomes unmerited.

 

[dbacks5439]

My comments are in regards to Salvation. The thread topic.

Yes, I understand the Catholic position of Infused Grace vs. Imputed Righteousness

Do you understand sanctifying grace as unmerited? How can it be? If works are needed to obtain, it no longer becomes unmerited.

We perform works in a system of grace. Under mosaic law, one tries to obtain grace by doing work. Under the New Covenant, we have what is called a system of grace. Here’s how it works:

1.) Every second of our lives, we get what is called “actual grace” Actual Grace is grace from God that compels us to obey Him, to live as Christ lived. It helps us perform good works, such as feeding the hungry, etc.

2.) In order to perform those works, we must respond to that actual grace. Sometimes we ignore, other times we let it in.

3.) After the good work is completed, Actual Grace is transformed into Sanctifying Grace. This is the grace that remains with us. The more Sanctifying Grace we have, the easier it is to embrace Actual Grace.

 Look at the saints. They lived such holy and pure lives. This was possible because they continuously embraced Actual Grace and therefore, Sanctifying Grace. Mary, the Mother of God, was so full of grace because she embraced the Actual Grace from God. Note that God didn't tell her, rather she accepted it. Free will is still intact because we can choose whether or not to respond to that Actual Grace. 

Grace is unmerited, absolutely. Actual Grace is unmerited, and because we embrace it by performing good works, we therefore receive Sanctifying Grace. Nothing merited about it.