Not By Faith Alone

[Philthy]

Just so everyone can have a format to understand your perspective of the “traditional Protestant understanding of Justification by Faith Alone”, here is the London 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith from vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc00.html

Chapter 11: Of Justification

1._____ Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing Christ’s active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness by faith, which faith they have not of themselves; it is the gift of God.
2._____ Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.
3._____ Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are justified; and did, by the sacrifice of himself in the blood of his cross, undergoing in their stead the penalty due unto them, make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in their behalf; yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for anything in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.
4._____ God did from all eternity decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did in the fullness of time die for their sins, and rise again for their justification; nevertheless, they are not justified personally, until the Holy Spirit doth in time due actually apply Christ unto them.
5._____ God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified, and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God’s fatherly displeasure; and in that condition they have not usually the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.
6._____ The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.

It is hardly a comprehensive treatment of the topic IMHO and there would seem to be plenty of room for theological ambiguity - which would seem to validate Dave’s point somewhat. I think you were overly critical of his posts and his intentions. I could be wrong, of course…

 

[Philthy]

Before I answer the rest of your post, answer this question. Do you believe God is a debtor to us for justification in anyway?

Which question would you like answered?

Is God in debt to Humanity?

Is God in debt to the Body of Christ?

Is God in debt to Christ?

Is God in debt to Himself?

My guess is that no one is answering because the question seems ridiculous - certainly I am of the opinion that God owes me nothing…and I havent seen anything that would lead you to believe that others feel differently.
That much being said, however, I will offer this:

If God has bound(obligated) himself - by himself - to reward others in a contingent manner and those others satisfy the contigency, then He is bound(obligated) to reward them. Im sure that doesnt clarify anything…

 

[mikeledes]

Normally I get pounded, but now everyone has went silent? Can I get a few answers to my question?

We can never obligate God to show mercy towards us by our works. We receive the gift of righteousness on the basis of God’s mercy and grace. But we must continue to cooperate with his gift of righteousness and conform our lives to this gift.

Any reward God gives is on the basis of a freely given promise, not the obligatory payment of a debt owed.

Proverbs 19:17

17 He who is kind to the poor lends to the LORD, and he will reward him for what he has done.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

No one responded to my question before.

Romans 4:4
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Is it standard Catholic teaching to say the reward is reckoned because God is in debt to us? Or is it heretical salvation by works?

God rewards works because he chooses to - not because he is obligated to.

 

[mikeledes]

Everyone should check out this article:

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

It’s on this topic.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Redbandito]

Josh, you are right I understand the Catholic position and that is why I’m making the point that your interpretation of Chrysostom is not the Catholic position and neither is it Chrysostom’s position. You are misreading him. In context Chrysostom is providing a commentary on Romans 4:4 where it makes the point of righteousness being reckoned of works and therefore it is debt, or not of works and it is reckoned because of grace. You said Chrysostom was arguing it was a debt and this was the Catholic position. Do you affirm based on Romans 4:4 that God is our debtor? Yes or No.

I am glad we are on the same page then about the Catholic position. Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree that this is not what Chrysostom is saying. In fact, you are misreading him.

Again, here is the quote: *Ver. 4. “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
Ver. 5. "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. NPNF1: Vol. XI, **Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans,**Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2., p. 386

Again, John is making the point that God not only saves a man from punishment, but literally makes “him worthy of those immortal honors.” John is clearly describing the Catholic concept of infusion. He talks about our inward change in the terms of “punishment” vs. “immortal honors.” Thus, this cannot merely be talking sanctification, but has to be referring to justification. Thus, I re-state that you are misreading John. I stand with “the greatest expositor” on this matter.

 

[Redbandito]

God rewards works because he chooses to - not because he is obligated to.

This is correct. However, as the thread has discussed, God can obligate Himself. God’s word is binding. Thus, if God promises something, He obligates Himself out of His perfect nature. Therefore, when we work from the love granted to us in sanctifying grace (in other words, God’s works), we “merit,” in a condign sense, God’s reward. This merit is not a strict payment for our work done, but rather a reward by God for the works He has done in us, based in His promise to reward these works.

Thus, we rightly say that “merit” does not mean we earn anything. For just as Protestants acknowledge that faith is the gift of God through grace, and therefore does not earn grace (but rather that God rewards the individual’s response to the grace of faith based on His own promise), we say this applies to works as well. It is the same standard and concept. Catholics simply apply the standard consistently and Biblically.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I am glad we are on the same page then about the Catholic position. Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree that this is not what Chrysostom is saying. In fact, you are misreading him.

Again, here is the quote: *Ver. 4. “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
Ver. 5. "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. NPNF1: Vol. XI, **Homilies on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans,**Homily 8, Rom. 4:1, 2., p. 386

Again, John is making the point that God not only saves a man from punishment, but literally makes “him worthy of those immortal honors.” John is clearly describing the Catholic concept of infusion. He talks about our inward change in the terms of “punishment” vs. “immortal honors.” Thus, this cannot merely be talking sanctification, but has to be referring to justification. Thus, I re-state that you are misreading John. I stand with “the greatest expositor” on this matter.

Well, let me put it this way. If Chrysostom exegesis of Romans 4:4 is that God has become a debtor then he is as guilty as you are of salvation by works. The whole point of Romans 4:4 is that if it is a debt then it is not of grace! The two are in contradistinction to each other! This is plain exegesis. As far as your response that God makes himself the debtor that is clearly ruled not only by the text, but Chrysostom rules it out with his words. Notice what he says:

*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. *

The “he” that contributed himself is the believer and “he” therefore has God as his debtor. If you replace “he” in the above with God it becomes nonsensical, because it would be saying, “so God too hath God for his debtor”.

I see you keep wanting to jump to the “but even to make him just”, because you think you have a leg to stand on here. However, in actually there is nothing about this language that goes against the Protestant position. We believe God makes us just, the question is how does he do it? It is by imputing Christ righteousness to us. So you are begging the question on this one and you are still guilty of salvation by works. You have two joices in Romans 4:4. Debt or grace. You pick debt.

 

[SolaScriptura]

This is correct. However, as the thread has discussed, God can obligate Himself. God’s word is binding. Thus, if God promises something, He obligates Himself out of His perfect nature. Therefore, when we work from the love granted to us in sanctifying grace (in other words, God’s works), we “merit,” in a condign sense, God’s reward. This merit is not a strict payment for our work done, but rather a reward by God for the works He has done in us, based in His promise to reward these works.

Romans 4 gives you two options. Either righteousness is credited because of your works and therefore it is a debt or it is credited because of grace. Also remember in this context it is speaking of the ungodly. So your claim that this verse is teaching the ungodly has made God a debtor because of his work doesn’t make any sense.

Thus, we rightly say that “merit” does not mean we earn anything. For just as Protestants acknowledge that faith is the gift of God through grace, and therefore does not earn grace (but rather that God rewards the individual’s response to the grace of faith based on His own promise), we say this applies to works as well. It is the same standard and concept. Catholics simply apply the standard consistently and Biblically.

This is sophistry and esigesis. We are discussing Romans 4:4 to claim this verse is teaching God becoming our debtor is so far off base I can’t believe you have the temerity to keep arguing for the position. And if 4:4 couldn’t be any clearer verse 5 says it is the ungodly, so how in the world you get Catholic theology of “merit” out of this is unbelievable.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito,

Do you have Catholic commentaries on Romans 4? If so, I challenge you to quote from one that confirms your exegesis. As a matter of fact I have Robert Sungensis’s, “Not By Faith Aone” which has Nihil Obstat and a Imprimatur. It is endorsed by the likes of Catholic such as

• Scott Hahn
• Peter Stravinskas
• Karl Keating
• Patrick Madrid
• Thomas Howard
• Ronald Tecelli
• Art Sippo
• Steve Ray
• Philip Bosser

Now even though Sungenis and I would disagree on many things on this one thing we are united against you and your eisegesis on this verse. Sungenis takes 4 pages to explain what he calls "Paul’s Principle of ‘Obligation’ "( pg. 8-12 ). He understands Paul is presenting you with two choices for a relationship with God. It is not a mixture, but instead one or the other. You should read it or any other commentary that you can get your hands on, because your refusal to admit the obvious here is very disappointing.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito,

Now this is interesting. I found the source of your quote was from the legendary Matt1618. However, here is own exegesis of the same verse at a page on his site:

Matt1618:

The language that Paul uses here is that of condemning those who try to obligate God to owe them justification. Paul shows in v. 4 one who tries to put God in an employee-employer relationship (saying that God is obligated to pay someone or justify them, i.e. works of the law, be it Mosaic or trying on their own power to earn justification) will not be justified. It is only through God’s graciousness that one will be justified (For more info, see my 4 point demonstration of this on Friday). That is exactly the Catholic position. We are his adopted children who God pours his own divine life into at justification. (matt1618.freeyellow.com/page8.html)

The really ironic thing is that he claims this is “exactly the Catholic position”, but you interpret the same verse in the opposite way and claim yours is the “catholic position”. So which version of Matt1618 should we believe?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Redbandito,

Here is another. Catholic scholar William Marshner on Romans 4:4
William Marshner:

So, over against the justice of God, which is the justice of faith, there is a self-justice which is of the Law and which is a justice of works. This latter would give men a basis for boasting (Romans 4:2, Ephesians 2:8-9), since works give one a strict right to be considered just: “To the man who has works, his salary is not counted as a favor but as something due,” (Romans 4:4).(ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/JUSBYFAI.htm)

As Marshner says Romans 4:4 is speaking of self-justice and gives you ground to boast.

 

[Philthy]

This is correct. However, as the thread has discussed, God can obligate Himself. God’s word is binding. Thus, if God promises something, He obligates Himself out of His perfect nature. Therefore, when we work from the love granted to us in sanctifying grace (in other words, God’s works), we “merit,” in a condign sense, God’s reward. This merit is not a strict payment for our work done, but rather a reward by God for the works He has done in us, based in His promise to reward these works.

Thus, we rightly say that “merit” does not mean we earn anything. For just as Protestants acknowledge that faith is the gift of God through grace, and therefore does not earn grace (but rather that God rewards the individual’s response to the grace of faith based on His own promise), we say this applies to works as well. It is the same standard and concept. Catholics simply apply the standard consistently and Biblically.

You did a much better job of explaining this than I did in my post 678!

 

[SolaScriptura]

You did a much better job of explaining this than I did in my post 678!

Philthy,

Romans 4:4:

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

So are you agreeing that a valid interpretation of this verse is that God is our debtor?

 

[Philthy]

Well, let me put it this way. If Chrysostom exegesis of Romans 4:4 is that God has become a debtor then he is as guilty as you are of salvation by works. The whole point of Romans 4:4 is that if it is a debt then it is not of grace! The two are in contradistinction to each other!
… You have two joices in Romans 4:4. Debt or grace. You pick debt.

I understand your desire to wish to categorize things into the “debt vs grace” category, but it becomes a difficult distinction to utilize except in the very narrow category of debt from “works of the law” verses grace. Within that narrow confine we are all unambiguously in agreement - it is by grace. In the context of God rewarding His own “good works” (the fruit of His Spirit) performed among the faithful (His Body), then the terminology begins to break down. What does not change, however, is that the origin of God’s rewards toward his Church always has as it’s ultimate source His Grace.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I understand your desire to wish to categorize things into the “debt vs grace” category

It is not my desire, but the desire of the Scriptures. The Apostle Paul is categorizing “debt vs grace” and this is beyond dispute.

, but it becomes a difficult distinction to utilize except in the very narrow category of debt from “works of the law” verses grace.

Well the category we are talking about is Romans 4:4 and justification. Does that fit your narrow category?

Within that narrow confine we are all unambiguously in agreement - it is by grace.

Not if you are claiming Romans 4:4 is teaching that God is our debtor, because once you chose debt you have eliminated grace.

In the context of God rewarding His own “good works” (the fruit of His Spirit) performed among the faithful (His Body), then the terminology begins to break down. What does not change, however, is that the origin of God’s rewards toward his Church always has as it’s ultimate source His Grace.

Is that the context of Romans 4? Here is the context. We are the ungodly ones He justifies. We are the ones whose transgressions are forgiven. We are the ones whose sins are forgiven. We are the ones whose sins He never counts against us. What fruits of the Spirit do you see here, besides trusting in this God who does all these things on our behalf?

 

[Redbandito]

Well, let me put it this way. If Chrysostom exegesis of Romans 4:4 is that God has become a debtor then he is as guilty as you are of salvation by works. The whole point of Romans 4:4 is that if it is a debt then it is not of grace! The two are in contradistinction to each other! This is plain exegesis. As far as your response that God makes himself the debtor that is clearly ruled not only by the text, but Chrysostom rules it out with his words. Notice what he says:

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.

The “he” that contributed himself is the believer and “he” therefore has God as his debtor. If you replace “he” in the above with God it becomes nonsensical, because it would be saying, “so God too hath God for his debtor”.

I see you keep wanting to jump to the “but even to make him just”, because you think you have a leg to stand on here. However, in actually there is nothing about this language that goes against the Protestant position. We believe God makes us just, the question is how does he do it? It is by imputing Christ righteousness to us. So you are begging the question on this one and you are still guilty of salvation by works. You have two joices in Romans 4:4. Debt or grace. You pick debt.

Exactly! You just made my point. Try to follow here. You just admitted that John cannot be saying that “God too hath God for his debtor.” What you rightly state is that this means “Man has God as His debtor.” Correct! That is precisely my point. A debtor is someone who owes payment to a “CREDITOR.” Your apparent problem is a confusion of terms. Thus, if man has God as his debtor, John is saying that God “owes man payment.” Thanks. You argued well for my position.

Now again, you seem to automatically returned to your entrenched Protestant position of “God can’t owe uw anything.” Which, of course, I agree with you on in the strict sense of the term. Yet, we have already explained the difference in our use of terminology where you use merit as “earn” and we use it as “reward” (which is the way the Scripture uses it).

Thus, since John (whom you deemed to be a reliable Church Father in citing him in the first place) is clearly arguing that God becomes a debtor to man (as you just admitted), it is now incumbent on us to see how he could possibly be saying such a thing in light of Paul’s teaching in Romans. However, we cannot do this until you admit that this is indeed what John is saying.

So, in other words, you are going to continue to talk past me.

 

[Redbandito]

Romans 4 gives you two options. Either righteousness is credited because of your works and therefore it is a debt or it is credited because of grace. Also remember in this context it is speaking of the ungodly. So your claim that this verse is teaching the ungodly has made God a debtor because of his work doesn’t make any sense. .

Are you going to continue to argue in circles. We have already addressed this. I believe you stated previously that assertion does not equal a valid argument. You keep asserting this despite the fact that I have been arguing something completely different. Please follow the discussion.

This is sophistry and esigesis. We are discussing Romans 4:4 to claim this verse is teaching God becoming our debtor is so far off base I can’t believe you have the temerity to keep arguing for the position. And if 4:4 couldn’t be any clearer verse 5 says it is the ungodly, so how in the world you get Catholic theology of “merit” out of this is unbelievable.

SS, please. You can accuse me of eisogesis, and I can do the same. Quit grandstanding. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too here. You argue your position on Romans 4. Then you have the audacity to gank a Church Father to “support” your position. When I respond by providing multiple quotes from that Father that he does not agree with your position, you accuse me of not being true to Paul’s text. You’re completely schizophrenic here. Stay with one topic at a time. Either John did or didn’t agree with you. That is where we are. Once you admit he didn’t, we can go back and re-address Paul.

 

[Redbandito]

Redbandito,

Now this is interesting. I found the source of your quote was from the legendary Matt1618. However, here is own exegesis of the same verse at a page on his site:

The really ironic thing is that he claims this is “exactly the Catholic position”, but you interpret the same verse in the opposite way and claim yours is the “catholic position”. So which version of Matt1618 should we believe?

Actually, it’s not ironic at all. What you have failed to realize, because we have not gotten there yet, is that my position actually argues this BETTER, than your’s. Clearly, Paul is using the term “works” interchangeably with “circumcision.” IF you need any type of confirmation of this, try reading Romans 3-8. Underline the amount of times Paul uses circumcision. Circumcision was part of the CEREMONIAL LAW, which was a part of the entire Mosaic Law. Paul specifically focuses on the “ceremonial” here though, as he is discussing that which distinguishes Jew from Gentile. Again, read Romans 4:9-12. So, while Paul focuses on the ceremonial law not justifying us, but rather grace through faith, he also makes an interesting argument for the moral law. How? Well, what is it that the ceremonial law symbolized? Israel’s sin and inability to justify themselves by living morally. Thus, the very fact that God gave the Jews the ceremonial law shows us that we are not capable of justifying ourselves, for the Jews had already tried but failed. Therefore, in stating that the ceremonial law does not justify man, Paul implicitly teaches that the moral law cannot justify man apart from grace either. Thus, the Catholic position is that neither “faith or works” merit God’s free gift of mercy in a strict sense, but rather God is pleased by the efforts of His children and rewards them for these efforts. Not because He is obligated by their works, but because He obligates Himself by His love for His children and promise to them.

 

[Redbandito]

Redbandito,

Do you have Catholic commentaries on Romans 4? If so, I challenge you to quote from one that confirms your exegesis. As a matter of fact I have Robert Sungensis’s, “Not By Faith Aone” which has Nihil Obstat and a Imprimatur. It is endorsed by the likes of Catholic such as

• Scott Hahn
• Peter Stravinskas
• Karl Keating
• Patrick Madrid
• Thomas Howard
• Ronald Tecelli
• Art Sippo
• Steve Ray
• Philip Bosser

Now even though Sungenis and I would disagree on many things on this one thing we are united against you and your eisegesis on this verse. Sungenis takes 4 pages to explain what he calls "Paul’s Principle of ‘Obligation’ "( pg. 8-12 ). He understands Paul is presenting you with two choices for a relationship with God. It is not a mixture, but instead one or the other. You should read it or any other commentary that you can get your hands on, because your refusal to admit the obvious here is very disappointing.

Is Sungenis infallible? I agree with Sungenis on a lot of what he wrote in “Not by Faith Alone.” I have read the entire book, and it is really solid. I just disagree with him on this part.

And I, for one, know for a fact that Scott Hahn does not agree entirely with Sungenis’ exegesis in this one area. How? I know Scott Hahn. I have had dinner with he and his family on multiple occassions. I am good friends with a guy that lived with and studied under Dr. Hahn personally. We have been discussing this thread as it has gone along.

Scott Hahn actually makes the point in his Ignatius Bible Study that there were two ways to read this passage. One is in the camp of St. Jerome (maybe the greatest Biblical Scholar of his time, who agrees with my view) and the other is with St. Augustine (one of the greatest theologians ever who agrees that Paul talks about all works when referring to law). Dr. Hahn actually believes both as I explained it above in the previous post.

BTW, name dropping a bunch of Catholics that supposedly agree with your position does not impress me. Further, it is entirely different to have Biblical SCHOLARS agree with your position than apologists. I have a great deal of respect for all the names on that list, but there is no question in my mind who the pre-eminent in Biblical scholarship is amongst them. I stand with that man’s interpretation, period.

Finally, the imprimatur is great. Yet, this does not mean that every passage is exegeted perfectly. Exegeting correctly or incorrectly is not synonomous with teaching doctrinal error or not. This is the perfect example. Because I agree with Catholic doctrine and Sungenis’ conclusion that man cannot obligate God, in a strict sense, to pay him for work done. The only payment this could merit, in a strict sense, would be Eternal Punishment. Yet, I don’t agree with the way Sungenis gets there in exegeting THIS passage.