Pauline language in Romans, isn't it pointing toward imputation?

[Mikeoffaith]

Anyway, I am quite possible mistaken, as the Catholic Church has signed a Joint Doctrine of Justification with the LWF. I don’t know if it was accepted by WELS. Perhaps TriuneUnity can provide us some insight.

No neither WELS nor LCMS accepted the JDDF.

 

[Chris_S_1]

gurneyhalleck:

Nice to see another California poster. Where are you exactly in CA?

Actually, I’m from Canada, not California . Sorry for being ambiguous.

You seem to have an issue with faith/works, and not necessarily an imputation/infusion issue. I’ll address your questions, but I was wondering if you had any more objections to infusion that haven’t been answered yet.

As for faith/works:

If my Bible consisted of just Romans, Galatians, and James 2:10, I might conclude that we are justified by faith alone. I know you want to deal with these scriptures in isolation, but it doesn’t work. If my Bible just consisted of James 2, I might conclude that we are justified by works alone. Isolating books is a sure way to reach the wrong conclusion. Just look at Marcion in the second century, who only had the Pauline Epistles and half of Luke, and reached the conclusion that there were 2 Gods. But just for the sake of it, I’ll try to stick inside the books you mentioned.

Just by reading through Romans 3 it does seem to be teaching faith alone (which is why I think James 2 was written, to correct people who interpreted it this way). But you also have verses like this:

Romans 2:13
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

I don’t look at this verse out of context and automatically conclude that we are justified by works alone, in the same way I don’t look at Romans 3:28 and conclude that we are justified by faith alone. Taking both of them (and the rest of the Bible), I conclude that we are saved by works and faith.

The Catholic equation includes a formula of faith and works somehow pleasing God or not pleasing Him.

Based on your post, I think your main objections are not against actual Catholic teachings. It isn’t some mysterious “formula” that “only God knows”. If we are justified, then the works are pleasing to Him. If we are not justified, then the works are not pleasing to Him. See you can never gain that initial justification by your works, because you need to already be justified for your works to be pleasing.

But is the sanctification the measuring stick for our salvation?

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach this. If a person is justified when they die, then they will be saved, regardless as to how much they have been sanctified. Sanctification will be finished in Purgatory, hut this does not affect your salvation.

… it all hinges on the proper amount of sanctification to be saved.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach this. Have you read through that link I gave? It gives a pretty clear picture of what the Catholic Church really teaches regarding justification.

Obviously, as Luther and many of the Reformers taught, a person who commits no good works and lives a debauched life is more likely to NOT have faith so that person could lose his/her salvation completely

If this is what the reformers really taught, it seems even more mysterious and uncertain than the position that you’ve claimed the Catholic Church teaches. But nonetheless, I agree, because faith is a MUST, and a person doesn’t have good works than they probably don’t have good faith.

Gal 5:6, For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

The faith is a must, and the working is a must.

Now that I’ve cleared up some things that the Church doesn’t actually teach (along with guanophore’s excellent post), do you still see contradictions between Catholicism and Paul? If you do, it would be helpful if you could point out some specific passages rather than just the books of Romans and Galatians in general.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Canada? Too cold for this Central Valley boy! But I do like one hockey team—the San Jose Sharks baby!

Actually, I’m from Canada, not California . Sorry for being ambiguous.

I think you mistake my citation of a few verses for an assumption that for me these are the ONLY verses that are worthy of my perusal or salvation. That’s not the case. I simply cited them. I don’t think the rest of the New Testament is worthless or irrelevent obviously. But I think you do the same thing that I see many Catholics do, ignore the issue of what Paul says and try to holistically find other examples of works and try to supplement Paul’s blatant statements of justification through faith and create a formula of justification through faith + works. We are told something simple by Paul in Romans across the board and then in the scripture verse of James 2:10 that I quoted to you: The Law is a death sentence. The Law judges, condemns, destroys our souls, gives us the realization that we are sinners and offenders of the Almighty. James tells us that if we break even the tiniest elements of the Law then we might as well break the entirety of it. Do you dispute this? It’s plainly written. I’m not taking anything out of context. Works of the Law do not save. Faith does. You reference Romans 2:12 in which Paul discusses the interior law of the Gentiles and the Law of Moses. He says those who observe the Law will be justified. Problem is, WE CAN’T observe it. And what Romans 2 (like you said, context, context, context) is thematically discussing is the hypocrisy of Law-based religion salvifically. You who judge liars, do you lie yourself? You who judge people for being envious, are you envious yourself? Like these Republican senators that bash gays then get caught in gay nightclubs. Hypocrisy. And we ALL are hypocrites. We all bash, judge, slam, and pontificate but do these things, to some degree, ourselves! I as a teacher am terribly guilty. I get on a kid’s case for putting off studying or not turning in an assignment then put off turning in something to my principal. Or I get on a kid for gossip on the playground then we teachers are gossiping in the staff room. It’s human nature. So Paul’s not saying we can and will follow the Law perfectly and be saved, he’s saying those who can, will be saved. Problem is, in Romans 3: 11-18 Paul points out the full development of his line of thinking—ALL are sinners, all fall short, we’re all pathetic. “All have gone astray; all alike are worthless!” and here’s the final crux of the verse you quoted to me—no human being will be justified in his sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. So your hypothesis that we can take Romans 2:13 that says we’ll be saved by works under the Law and join it with Paul’s statements about justification through faith and create a synthesis of faith + works is false here. Romans 2:13 is merely pointing out that perfect 100% adherence to the Law, which he shows is impossible, would save us, if we could do it, which we can’t! So your context is out of whack here, respectfully. And look at Paul’s statements throughout Romans 3:21-26. It is all about Christ, not us. “his blood,” “his righteousness,” over and over. It’s all about Christ’s alien righteousness that comes from without to us within. Paul makes it clear at the end of chapter 3 that the justified sinner is not to become a libertine sinning maniac. Sanctification yields a respect and desire to live up to the Law, but never is our salvation based on the works of said Law.
As for faith/works:

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

If my Bible consisted of just Romans, Galatians, and James 2:10, I might conclude that we are justified by faith alone. I know you want to deal with these scriptures in isolation, but it doesn’t work. If my Bible just consisted of James 2, I might conclude that we are justified by works alone. Isolating books is a sure way to reach the wrong conclusion. Just look at Marcion in the second century, who only had the Pauline Epistles and half of Luke, and reached the conclusion that there were 2 Gods. But just for the sake of it, I’ll try to stick inside the books you mentioned.

Just by reading through Romans 3 it does seem to be teaching faith alone (which is why I think James 2 was written, to correct people who interpreted it this way). But you also have verses like this:

Romans 2:13
For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

I don’t look at this verse out of context and automatically conclude that we are justified by works alone, in the same way I don’t look at Romans 3:28 and conclude that we are justified by faith alone. Taking both of them (and the rest of the Bible), I conclude that we are saved by works and faith.

I won’t argue with your statement. Justification is by faith. Works done in faith are pleasing to God. Works done with the mentality of earning brownie points and working out our salvation on our end by playing nice isn’t Biblical. Works of supererogation are worthless.
Based on your post, I think your main objections are not against actual Catholic teachings. It isn’t some mysterious “formula” that “only God knows”. If we are justified, then the works are pleasing to Him. If we are not justified, then the works are not pleasing to Him. See you can never gain that initial justification by your works, because you need to already be justified for your works to be pleasing.

But the purgatory element is the thing I have a problem with. It is not Scriptural and was not a Catholic teaching prior to 1054 AD. This came from the post-schism papacy and developed over time. It also implies works again. Works of supererogation are necessary. God is not condemning a person to Hell for not being perfectly sanctified, as you stated, but in death they continue to get put through the fire to be honed into the steel of holiness that God demands. How does that fit in with Paul’s vision of justification through Faith apart from the Law? Works cause boasting, faith saves us. Does God declare us holy or fashion us into holiness itself through cleansing fires? Paul seems to teach the former not the latter?
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach this. If a person is justified when they die, then they will be saved, regardless as to how much they have been sanctified. Sanctification will be finished in Purgatory, hut this does not affect your salvation.

I did read it. I enjoyed it. Thanks
The Catholic Church doesn’t teach this. Have you read through that link I gave? It gives a pretty clear picture of what the Catholic Church really teaches regarding justification.

If this is what the reformers really taught, it seems even more mysterious and uncertain than the position that you’ve claimed the Catholic Church teaches. But nonetheless, I agree, because faith is a MUST, and a person doesn’t have good works than they probably don’t have good faith.

But what does “working” mean? Feeding the poor? Visiting the infirm? Praying rosaries? Attending Divine Mercy Sunday? Wearing a Scapular so God will save you when you die because you’re wearing it? Working in this context means your faith working in the love of your heart. Working means an active feeling here. You are ignoring the context yourself of Galatians Chapter 5 as a whole. What is the chapter about?—YOU WHO ARE SAVED BY FAITH, DON’T GO BACK TO THE WORKS-BASED MOSAIC LAW!! He’s telling the Galatians, for God’s sake, don’t jump back into the hamster wheel of earning your way to heaven with circumicising yourselves, going through rituals, trying to earn your way to the top with niceness and pomp. You are free through Christ, through faith, through hope, not works of the Law. "You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law, you have fallen from grace."
So “faith working through love” does not imply works of the Law, but faith working in your heart, in your soul, the inner active love of the Christian. It’s not brownie points and merit. It’s not the treasury of merit that Catholicism claims has a huge storehouse of grace points for us to tap into. This is the problem I have with Catholicism…works-driven points to be added to our faith to prove we’re worthy enough for salvation along with the faith. The faith alone doesn’t suffice, merit must follow with it. Paul is preaching the exact opposite.
Gal 5:6, For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

The faith is a must, and the working is a must.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I see enormous contradictions between Pauline theology and Catholic theology. Paul speaks of the Law being hammered to the Cross and the Law being dead, the principal of faith saves us. Going back to the Law is pointless. Catholicism teaches that works must be combined with faith. Paul doesn’t say this. Paul wants the Galatians and Romans to get off the hamster wheel of merit-making with faith/works and instead be sanctified after we are justified. Catholicism teaches a process of sanctification brought to fruition in the afterlife with purgatorial fires or the spiritual tapping into the Church spiritual bank account of Christ and the saints that supposedly had more salvation merit than was necessary for our salvation. This is not in line with Pauline thinking. I do agree with Galatians chapter 5 in that if we fall into intense sins like cohabitation, adultery, deep lust, fornication, powerful greed, etc. then we are in danger of losing our souls because these sins take away our faith and put our faith in this world, in Satan, and even worse–in ourselves!
Now that I’ve cleared up some things that the Church doesn’t actually teach (along with guanophore’s excellent post), do you still see contradictions between Catholicism and Paul? If you do, it would be helpful if you could point out some specific passages rather than just the books of Romans and Galatians in general.

I will sum up my analysis by pointing out Ephesians 2:8-10. For by grace you have been saved through faith and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is NOT from works, so no one may boast. For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them."** Works are not a bad thing. Works are not horrendous. Works are out lot and destiny. But they are NOT salvific whether they are pre or post-justification. They are works, period. “so that none may boast.” This is key. And Paul says it on multiple occasions. He tells us salvation is NOT from works. But then he goes on to say that good works were prepared for us in advance to do with God’s grace. Are they playing a role in our salvation? Clearly not. Once justified, then works flow. Will the works be a yardstick to judge us? Not at all. Also notice the past tense here: “For by grace you have been saved,” past tense, completed…**

 

[Chris_S_1]

I agree with pretty much everything you have said. You are beginning to discover what led the Catholics and (some) Lutherans to sign a Joint Doctrine on Justification.

**Do you dispute this? It’s plainly written. I’m not taking anything out of context. Works of the Law do not save. Faith does. **

I won’t dispute this. I have repeatedly stated that faith saves us. Catholics would also agree that trying to do works of the Law will not save us.

So your context is out of whack here, respectfully.

 

[Chris_S_1]

It’s not brownie points and merit. It’s not the treasury of merit that Catholicism claims has a huge storehouse of grace points for us to tap into. This is the problem I have with Catholicism…works-driven points to be added to our faith to prove we’re worthy enough for salvation along with the faith. The faith alone doesn’t suffice, merit must follow with it. Paul is preaching the exact opposite.

It’s not our merit, so we can’t boast. The grace that we believe is infused to us is literally the life merited by Jesus Christ on the cross.

I will sum up my analysis by pointing out Ephesians 2:8-10.

Although not from Romans or Galatians, this verse in Ephesians should again be taken in the context of the Law. The works of the Law do not save. Period. All of your posts seem to assume that Catholics believe they are saved by following the Law. I have yet to see a single Church document that ever said this.

Also notice the past tense here: “For by grace you have been saved,” past tense, completed

There is nothing wrong with Paul talking about justification in the past tense. I believe justification takes place is out pasts, as Paul plainly teaches. For one, it occurs at baptism. But what is fallacious is assuming that since it takes place in the past, it cannot be taking place today or in the future as well. It is correct to say that I brushed my teeth on March 7th, 1998 at 8:55pm. I brushed them, past tense. But no one in their right mind would conclude from that statement that I haven’t ever brushed my teeth since then, and that I would never brush them again. (eww…)

“Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” (Romans 5:9-10)

Here you have past, present, and future justification all in a single verse in Romans. I have a litany of examples like this should you request some more. Paul is saying that we shall be saved by His life because, as Catholics believe, the grace we receive through the Sacraments is literally His life, and it saves us.

… if we fall into intense sins like cohabitation, adultery, deep lust, fornication, powerful greed, etc. then we are in danger of losing our souls because these sins take away our faith and put our faith in this world …

Once justified, then works flow.

So in other words, if we have real, saving faith, then works will automatically flow. But if works ever cease to flow, then we no longer have real, saving faith. And it is this real, saving faith alone that saves us. Is this a correct interpretation of your words? If it is, I don’t have much of a problem with it. It’s the entire concept that led Catholics and (some) Lutherans to agree.

Catholics define faith to be the simple intellectual assent that God does exist, and Jesus did die on the cross, etc. This mere intellectual assent alone does not save us, because it does not specify whether or not works are present. It is possible to have the intellectual assent that God exists and still do nothing about it. This is why we say we need faith + works (of love, not Law) to be justified.

The Reformation (not all denominations, just some) redefined faith into what I would call a “fully justifying faith”. This definition of faith is the intellectual assent (etc.) AND works must follow. If works aren’t following throughout your life, you don’t have this “fully justifying faith” (or in Reformation terms, simply “faith”). It is true that if this is your definition of faith, then you could properly say that faith alone saves. But this is only because works are included in the definition of faith.

So the disagreement isn’t on doctrine, but on terms, which is fine as long as we take the time to define the terms.

Anyway, I was glad to clear up the whole thing about justification by works of the Law. The Catholics don’t teach this, so you can rest easy .

Chris

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree with pretty much everything you have said. You are beginning to discover what led the Catholics and (some) Lutherans to sign a Joint Doctrine on Justification.

I won’t dispute this. I have repeatedly stated that faith saves us. Catholics would also agree that trying to do works of the Law will not save us.

I am aware that I took Romans 2:13 out of context. It was deliberate, and I stated so in my post. The point I was trying to make is that you can’t just look at verses by themselves.

Agreed.

Catholicism allows for a great deal of free will on our part, a response to God’s graces, and works done in grace. What is the point of stressing the faith PLUS works if the works are done by God through us? That is a Protestant approach to works and sanctification. Why go out of one’s way to stress day in and day out the importance of works if they are not done on our end? God motivates us, according to what you’re saying, to do good works. But Catholicism looks at those works as salvific. Paul doesn’t? Catholicism doesn’t teach that they are Christ’s works. You’re minimizing the high degree of free will in Catholic teaching I think.
I’d cite Phil 2:12 in defence of “working out our salvation”, but you want to stay in the confines of Romans and Galatians. But that’s beside the point, because you have another misconception about Catholic teaching. Who says the works are done “on our end” or by our own efforts? It is Christ who works in us through the infusion of Grace. We can’t boast of our works, because any works worth boasting about aren’t ours, but Christ’s.

Heh? I don’t have too many objections to keep up with. And I’m only being honest in my objections. And the fact that I bother to question and care about them shows I care. Yes indeed, as the OP myself, it was about imputation. But keep in mind, like Microsoft Office, Catholic teachings come in a bundle. Purgatory is part of the journey for Catholics. It could and has had on several occasions a thread of its own. I cannot imagine, in your statement, anyone on this earth being “fully sanctified.” How is that possible? That smacks of Pelagianism? Someone in this world can be fully made holy? I know there are great examples of humanity reaching high levels of holiness, purity, kindness, charity, and martyrdom for Christ. But “fully” sanctified? To me that’s about as realistic as the plenary indulgence expectation that someone be 100% free of “any attachment to even venial sin.” Talk about unrealistic! Oops, you’ll probably accuse me of derailing my own thread again…“heh”
Heh, you have too many objections to keep up with. Wasn’t this thread about imputation? I think Purgatory should be given a thread of its own. I will say this though, because you seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on sanctification. Some people die justified, and fully sanctified. They go straight to heaven. Some die justified, but not fully sanctified. Since the are justified, they are going to heaven, but we both know that you can’t be in heaven if you aren’t fully sanctified. So somehow, those who die justified but not fully sanctified go through sanctification after death.
Good, because Paul never supports this thinking anywhere.
I don’t pretend to get this teaching from Romans or Galatians, but perhaps another Catholic poster would disagree with me.

I reach the same conclusion as you, am I still taking it out of context?

Exactly. Could not agree more.

 

[BryanM27]

Something I have not seen in this thread so far is a discussion of the context of St. Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians. This is something that is important anytime we are discussing scripture.

In Romans and Galatians, Paul is writing to churches that are made up of Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians in Rome and those that travel to Galatians after Paul (but before his letter) are insulted that the Gentiles are accepting Christianity without accepting the Jewish practices that preceeded Christ’s salvation. Paul is writing to tell these communities that man is justified in God’s eyes not by anything they do (i.e. observance of the law) but by what God has done through Christ.

Now look at the letter from St. James. James is not contradicting St. Paul’s justification by faith, but rather correcting misunderstandings of that teaching. Remember that Paul says the only thing that counts is “faith working through love.” (Gal 5:6)

James does not say that we are saved through our works, but that we need more than sitting around thinking good thoughts about God to have true faith. True faith manifests itself in acts of justice and kindness. He is not contradicting Paul, but clarifying his teaching for those who thought that because they were justified by their faith they do not have to do good works.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great point. I understand that. But the works we do out of our own free will are considered part of the salvation equation. The Treasury of Merit idea presupposes that I, as a Catholic, can tap into this account. I tap into it through my own works, visiting a parish with a saint’s name, going on a pilgrimage to a relic, saying a certain litany, doing this, doing that. Works.

It’s not our merit, so we can’t boast. The grace that we believe is infused to us is literally the life merited by Jesus Christ on the cross.

I will sum up my analysis by pointing out Ephesians 2:8-10.

**By name, no. The Mosaic Law is never employed. But when we get into a situation where we’re believing that our works combined with faith equals salvation for us, we are going back to the Law-based economy of earning our way. **
Although not from Romans or Galatians, this verse in Ephesians should again be taken in the context of the Law. The works of the Law do not save. Period. All of your posts seem to assume that Catholics believe they are saved by following the Law. I have yet to see a single Church document that ever said this.

I don’t disagree with anything you say here. And I’m glad you brush, too! I’m big on dental hygiene!
There is nothing wrong with Paul talking about justification in the past tense. I believe justification takes place is out pasts, as Paul plainly teaches. For one, it occurs at baptism. But what is fallacious is assuming that since it takes place in the past, it cannot be taking place today or in the future as well. It is correct to say that I brushed my teeth on March 7th, 1998 at 8:55pm. I brushed them, past tense. But no one in their right mind would conclude from that statement that I haven’t ever brushed my teeth since then, and that I would never brush them again. (eww…)

“Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” (Romans 5:9-10)

Here you have past, present, and future justification all in a single verse in Romans. I have a litany of examples like this should you request some more. Paul is saying that we shall be saved by His life because, as Catholics believe, the grace we receive through the Sacraments is literally His life, and it saves us.

**I think it gets down to this: are we declared, credited as righteous, or are we “made” righteous? Romans and Galatians, as my original OP point stated, seems to point to the former, not the latter. Works should stem from a lively faith. But are we justified by baptism and our faith or our works combined with it? Galatians and Romans do not indicate the second option. **
So in other words, if we have real, saving faith, then works will automatically flow. But if works ever cease to flow, then we no longer have real, saving faith. And it is this real, saving faith alone that saves us. Is this a correct interpretation of your words? If it is, I don’t have much of a problem with it. It’s the entire concept that led Catholics and (some) Lutherans to agree.

I agree that intellectual assent alone is bogus. Satan, we are told, believes as much, knowing the truth about Christ. Faith is deeper than intellectual assent I believe.
Catholics define faith to be the simple intellectual assent that God does exist, and Jesus did die on the cross, etc. This mere intellectual assent alone does not save us, because it does not specify whether or not works are present. It is possible to have the intellectual assent that God exists and still do nothing about it. This is why we say we need faith + works (of love, not Law) to be justified.

The Reformation (not all denominations, just some) redefined faith into what I would call a “fully justifying faith”. This definition of faith is the intellectual assent (etc.) AND works must follow. If works aren’t following throughout your life, you don’t have this “fully justifying faith” (or in Reformation terms, simply “faith”). It is true that if this is your definition of faith, then you could properly say that faith alone saves. But this is only because works are included in the definition of faith.

So the disagreement isn’t on doctrine, but on terms, which is fine as long as we take the time to define the terms.

I haven’t rested easy with Catholicism for about four years now. Between papal supremacy, infallibility, purgatory, indulgences, innovation, local pastoral incompetence, watered-down liturgy, NFP teachings, the sex predator scandals, liberation theology with illegal immigration, heavy emphasis on works, on and on, I have struggled mightily to be a Catholic. I have had my butt parked at my old Anglican parish for months now. I went to confession a couple of days ago because I plan to go to the Catholic church in the Philippines starting next week. As the X-Files horrific film title says: “I Want to Believe.” At this point sentimentality and emotion has kept me more Catholic than my intellect. My intellect pulls me in the other direction. In the past it was the other way around. God bless, Chris. Thanks for your kind, charitable, and thoughtful replies. You are not a judgmental, pedestal-sitting Catholic who accuses and labels people who disagree or struggle. I appreciate your approach. God bless.
Anyway, I was glad to clear up the whole thing about justification by works of the Law. The Catholics don’t teach this, so you can rest easy .

Chris

 

[SteveVH]

I know we’ve all discussed Paul’s Letter to the Romans at length in CAF on plenty of occasions but as I continue to read it, I still don’t see a satisfactory argument from the Catholic point of view disproving the imputation language (the more Lutheran interpretation) in Romans?

Towards the end of Chapter 3, Paul sounds very Protestant. Then beginning in Chapter 4 he uses the accounting language of a tent-maker for his time. And he as well as the 32nd Psalm that he quotes both have imputation sentiment, not the infusion of grace that Catholicism teaches…

Paul says:

"Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham beleved God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. A worker’s wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believed in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God** credits righteousness **apart from works:
“Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record.”

I fail to see how the Catholic position can be maintained with this language? Catholics argue in CAF that God cannot declare someone righteous when they’re still in sin and that it basically puts God into the position of being a liar. They argue that God makes us righteous through infusion, changing the inner being of someone and infusing it with grace. The Lutherans and other Protestants argue for what we see above—covering, giving credit where credit is not due based on works and acts but rather the principle of faith. How can we interpret the Catholic position in light of this obvious credit, faith, accounting language?

In Chapter 3 toward the end with verse 27 Paul says, “What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith.”

How is works factored into this equation? It seems that boasting is attached to works and that faith is the mode of salvation, not works? We are credited with something we don’t deserve. Throw on top of that Paul’s statement in Galatians that the Law was nailed to the Cross along with its legal claims and it sounds as if we are given credit we don’t deserve and Christ is being sacrificed in our place.

Look at all this, how do we justify works into what seems to be a simple equation? How do we also factor in indulgences, merit from the Treasury, purgatory, etc?

I may be way off here, but can you imagine a person of faith who does not translate that faith into good works? You can have works without faith, which is useless and completely inadequate in the context of our salvation. But the opposite is also true. “When you have done this to one of these, the least of thy brethren, you have done it to me.” Our “faith” requires “works”, just as your car requires gasoline in order to run. One, without the other, just won’t get you very far.

I see no contradiction between Pauls words and Catholic teaching.

“Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.” (CCC par 1989)

“When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.” (Council of Trent, DS 1525)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks for your post, Steve. I’m truly trying to work this out and get over the conflicts intellectually and spiritually I’ve had for years now. I feel it’s coming to a head soon. A lot of prayer involved. I appreciate your thoughts.

To be quite frank, I had a higher opinion of Catholicism before CAF than after joining it. While many Catholic posters in here are superb, charitable, bright folks, I see the works-driven mentality alive and well. People in here often feel so empowered by the rules and works of Catholicism that they experience a sense of elitism. I hear people trashing people for missing some obligation Mass or for not buying the NFP rationale/dogma, or people bragging because they pray their rosaries x amount per week. I feel an enormous sense of “I play by the rules of the Church! I’m in! I’m ok! I’m saved” really more than I ironically see Protestants feeling “in” and saved? Catholicism seems more driven by following dogmas, obeying rituals and nuances, staying on a steady course of devotions and formulas. That bugs me. Catechism here in my town is all about memorizing prayers. Heck, as a sixth grade teacher, my Catholic kids in my class (and Protestants) learned infinitely more about Christ, Christianity, and Catholicism in my classroom than at a year’s worth of catechism!? We study religion in California sixth grade curriculum. Christianity comes up in the last trimester standards with the Roman Empire. My kids learned so much…Catechism here is just memorizing a bunch of prayers. And confirmation in high school is just more of the same plus 15 hours of community service. I have plenty of concerns about Medievel innovations, papal claims, indulgences, purgatory, and at a pastoral level I’m burned out locally. I grow tired of the ethnic pandering, the liberation theology malarcky, and several other things. I’ve had some personal experiences and observations in the real world that I think point toward several Catholic beliefs being unfeasible. I won’t elaborate in the forum on that. I get burned out on the tribal stuff I see in here sometimes and the tiber swim team stuff. I get a tad fried.

But I love the forum overall and think the people, by and large, are awesome in here. I’m done with Catholicism and I don’t have a jag on for it. Not a hater. Just have a ton of questions and some serious doubts and burn out.

I may be way off here, but can you imagine a person of faith who does not translate that faith into good works? You can have works without faith, which is useless and completely inadequate in the context of our salvation. But the opposite is also true. “When you have done this to one of these, the least of thy brethren, you have done it to me.” Our “faith” requires “works”, just as your car requires gasoline in order to run. One, without the other, just won’t get you very far.

I see no contradiction between Pauls words and Catholic teaching.

“Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.” (CCC par 1989)

“When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.” (Council of Trent, DS 1525)

 

[BryanM27]

People in here often feel so empowered by the rules and works of Catholicism that they experience a sense of elitism. I hear people trashing people for missing some obligation Mass or for not buying the NFP rationale/dogma, or people bragging because they pray their rosaries x amount per week. I feel an enormous sense of “I play by the rules of the Church! I’m in! I’m ok! I’m saved” really more than I ironically see Protestants feeling “in” and saved? Catholicism seems more driven by following dogmas, obeying rituals and nuances, staying on a steady course of devotions and formulas. That bugs me. Catechism here in my town is all about memorizing prayers. Heck, as a sixth grade teacher, my Catholic kids in my class (and Protestants) learned infinitely more about Christ, Christianity, and Catholicism in my classroom than at a year’s worth of catechism!? We study religion in California sixth grade curriculum. Christianity comes up in the last trimester standards with the Roman Empire. My kids learned so much…Catechism here is just memorizing a bunch of prayers. And confirmation in high school is just more of the same plus 15 hours of community service. I have plenty of concerns about Medievel innovations, papal claims, indulgences, purgatory, and at a pastoral level I’m burned out locally. I grow tired of the ethnic pandering, the liberation theology malarcky, and several other things. I’ve had some personal experiences and observations in the real world that I think point toward several Catholic beliefs being unfeasible. I won’t elaborate in the forum on that. I get burned out on the tribal stuff I see in here sometimes and the tiber swim team stuff. I get a tad fried.

Sounds like you’ve got a lot of negative to focus on… gurney all I can suggest is that rather than focus on the negatives from an “outsiders” perspective, look at the positives. I have found that in Catholicism the positives tend to be the rule, rather than the exception.

If you feel something is wrong in your home parrish, speak up. If they don’t listen at the Cathecism levels, go up. Keep going up level by level until you reach the pastor. If he doesn’t help, then find a pastor or religious education director at a nearby parrish and ask them if they can help. If you really cannot find someone who is willing to help, then you’re in a bad area for someone who is trying to decide on Catholicism.

 

[guanophore]

 But I think you do the same thing that I see many Catholics do, ignore the issue of what Paul says and try to holistically find other examples of works and try to supplement Paul's blatant statements of justification through faith and create a formula of justification through faith + works.

We are in agreement that many Catholics do not understand that salvation is BASED upon grace (not works), but this is not the teaching of the Church. the formula “faith+works” emanates from the understanding that they are integrally connected.

 We are told something simple by Paul in Romans across the board and then in the scripture verse of James 2:10 that I quoted to you:  The Law is a death sentence.  The Law judges, condemns, destroys our souls, gives us the realization that we are sinners and offenders of the Almighty.  James tells us that if we break even the tiniest elements of the Law then we might as well break the entirety of it.  Do you dispute this? It's plainly written. I'm not taking anything out of context.  Works of the Law do not save.  Faith does.

Yes, but Catholics are not referring to works of the Jewish law. They are referring to the fact that Jesus said “if you love me, you will keep my commandments”. This is the Law of Love, where we obey Him because we are saved by grace, through faith.

You reference Romans 2:12 in which Paul discusses the interior law of the Gentiles and the Law of Moses. He says those who observe the Law will be justified. Problem is, WE CAN’T observe it.

Yes, we can. God does not expect or command that which He does not enable. When those who have not the Law act according to their conscience, they are a law unto themselves. What he is saying is that people can act in righteousness by grace, through faith, even if they have never been exposed to the commandments of God.

And what Romans 2 (like you said, context, context, context) is thematically discussing is the hypocrisy of Law-based religion salvifically.

Exactly! Salvation is not "law based’ but grace based. However, those who are saved by grace, through faith, are enabled by the HS to keep the Law.

People were keeping the Law by grace through faith before the time of Christ. All who were righteous under the Law were as such by grace, through faith. It IS possible to follow the Law, but only if it is grace based.

It’s human nature. So Paul’s not saying we can and will follow the Law perfectly and be saved, he’s saying those who can, will be saved.

It is possible to follow the Law.

However, our salvation is by grace, through faith, and it is on that basis we are able to follow His commandments. Because of grace, they are not burdensome.

Problem is, in Romans 3: 11-18 Paul points out the full development of his line of thinking—ALL are sinners, all fall short, we’re all pathetic. “All have gone astray; all alike are worthless!” and here’s the final crux of the verse you quoted to me—*no human being will be justified in his sight by observing the law; for through the law comes consciousness of sin. So your hypothesis that we can take Romans 2:13 that says we’ll be saved by works under the Law and join it with Paul’s statements about justification through faith and create a synthesis of faith + works is false here. *

Faith and works are in synthesis. both are based in grace. We cannot have saving faith without grace. We cannot obey His commandments without grace.
gurneyhalleck1;6710345:

Romans 2:13 is merely pointing out that perfect 100% adherence to the Law, which he shows is impossible, would save us, if we could do it, which we can’t!

It can be done. God does not command that which He does not enable.

So your context is out of whack here, respectfully. And look at Paul’s statements throughout Romans 3:21-26. It is all about Christ, not us. “his blood,” “his righteousness,” over and over. It’s all about Christ’s alien righteousness that comes from without to us within. Paul makes it clear at the end of chapter 3 that the justified sinner is not to become a libertine sinning maniac. Sanctification yields a respect and desire to live up to the Law, but never is our salvation based on the works of said Law.

As for faith/works:

I think this is well stated. Never is our salvation based upon works. At the same time, it is not separated from works.

 

[guanophore]

Paul makes it clear that works do not play a part in salvation. That’s the issue.

No, gurney, he does not. If this were the case, Paul would not be writing commandments like “work out your salvation with fear and trembling”.

What Paul is saying is that our salvation is not based in our own works. It is based upon the grace of God. Works have an integral place in our salvation.The grace that produces the fruit in us is the same grace by which we are justified. We are saved so that we can produce the works of righteousness that God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. They works that befit repentance cannot be separated from the saving grace that produces them in us.

The fact that works are involved in our salvation, though, does not make them the BASIS for our salvation. Grace is the basis.

Catholicism, of course, doesn't teach that our works are done independent of God's graces and will. I know that full well. But our works are the rubric, the evidence, the essential element that must be present according to Catholicism, sanctification evident, for us to be saved.

No, this is not true.

God can save whoever He wants, however He likes. The fact that we are commanded to obedience does not make that obedience the basis of our salvation. Grace is the basis. Our obedience is a response to grace.

Paul tells us that of course we shouldn’t go on sinning despite our justification through faith. Rather we should live the life of growing in holiness and in faithfulness to the Gospel. But is Paul saying that God will look at our good works and decide on that if we are worthy of eternal salvation?

We are judged upon our deeds.

However, we are never “worthy” of salvation. There is nothing that we can ever do to make us “worthy” in the sight of God. God justifies the ungodly, out of His love, not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy.

Where does Paul use the terms “initial justification” that Catholicism employs?

Do you not see that there is a beginning point in our walk with God? Paul talks about how we “began”. This beginning is an initiation, a starting point. At that initial point, all our unrighteous deeds are separated from us, and we are justified by grace, through faith. This is a one time event in which we are transferred from the kingdom of darkness into light.

But you have concluded that there is no dichotomy based on the emphasis on works.

I am sorry, I do not see the emphasis on works.

 

[guanophore]

Protestants believe there is no dichotomy based on the essence of faith. A Protestant will eliminate the dichotomy by viewing James through the lens of working in concert with the faith-alone stance nurtered by Paul. A Catholic like yourself will ensure no dichotomy based on James and the more works-driven language while trying to reconcile Paul to that.

I dont’ see any “drive” to reconcile. They are two sides of the same coin. One who is in Christ will obey His commandments. If one is attached to the vine, then one will bear fruit.
Where is the problem?

The language of Romans and Galatians as well as even James 2:10 shows a Law-based Judaic model. Paul’s approach is the same, no dichotomy. The Law is nailed dead on the Cross with Christ. It’s claims against us are dead and through our faith we are renewed and rejuvinated and justified.

This is Catholic.

Sanctification follows because Paul tells us it should. Luther did as well in his commentary on Romans. We are not to live a libertine lifestyle but grow in holiness. But will our level of sanctification be the final rubric/yardstick or will our faith be?

The two are together. One grows in holiness by grace, through faith. One cannot be sanctified by one’s own works of the flesh! If we grwo in holiness, then it is because we are submitted and cooperative with the grace of God that transforms us by faith.

Please don’t insinuate that I don’t understand Catholicism or the theology of the Church. It’s insulting.

It is not my intention to be insulting. I just don’t understand where you are coming up with these ideas. Perhaps you could show me the Church teaching that supports the “emphasis one works” you are claiming, as opposed to salvation by faith?

I would never assume as much about you whom I feel to be a bright and learned person. I can disagree with you but assumption of ignorance is not on the table for me, May God bless you!

I appreciate your compliment, but I have to tell you, the concepts you are forwarding here are, in large part, the reason I left the Catholic faith. I misunderstood the teaching of the Church,a nd I did not understand grace, or living by faith. Although I was baptized Catholic as an infant, I grew up with the misundertanding that I would be judged on how “good” I was, and was constantly coming up short. It took a long time for me to grasp that I did not understand the teaching of the Church on the relationship between faith and works in salvation.

Since I have returned, it is clear to me that there are a great many Catholics who have suffered the same misunderstanding. I chalk it up to poor catechesis.

  You say "we are saved by grace through faith" and that's true.  But the producing of works does not in itself save us.  The Catholic equation includes a formula of faith and works somehow pleasing God or not pleasing Him.

Yes, because the works that have been prepared beforehand that we should walk in them cannot be separated from the saving faith that enables us to do them. The fact that they are connected does not mean that the works are the BASIS of our salvation. They are integral, but grace is the basis.

Justification comes before sanctification. That’s correct. But is the sanctification the measuring stick for our salvation? If we don’t grow enough in holiness we are to have the satisfaction of our sins burned away in Purgatory and the remaining sanctification to take place in the afterlife because it all hinges on the proper amount of sanctification to be saved.

God does not sanctify those that are not first justified. Nothing unclean can enter heaven, so we must be purified in this life, or the next. We must be pure, as He is pure.

Paul doesn’t speak of this? Obviously, as Luther and many of the Reformers taught, a person who commits no good works and lives a debauched life is more likely to NOT have faith

And yet, people are saved that are unable to do any good works.

so that person could lose his/her salvation completely but are our works, in the end, the rubric? Or is it faith?

It would be more proper to say that we fail to be united with our heavenly inheritance. Scripture is clear that we must persevere in the faith in order to be saved. The reading for Mass today said “if we deny Him, He will deny us”. Why do you insist on this “either/or” mentality? Without faith, it is impossible to please Him. And how do the Apostles’ teach we show our faith? Through our works. They cannot be separated from one another.

Romans, Galatians, and the Pauline language doesn’t point to your works + faith equation.

I agree. I have never liked that equation. I prefer “faith, working through love”. These three abide, faith, hope and love.

Catholicism, of course, doesn’t teach that our works are done independent of God’s graces and will. I know that full well. But our works are the rubric, the evidence, the essential element that must be present according to Catholicism, sanctification evident, for us to be saved.

This is the part that is not familiar to me, and why I said that it seemed you did not understand the Teaching. Perhaps you can show me where you are getting this, so that we can hash it out. It does not sound like anything I have read (except calumny written by the enemies of the Church).

 

[BryanM27]

Something I have not seen in this thread so far is a discussion of the context of St. Paul’s letters to the Romans and Galatians. This is something that is important anytime we are discussing scripture.

In Romans and Galatians, Paul is writing to churches that are made up of Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians in Rome and those that travel to Galatians after Paul (but before his letter) are insulted that the Gentiles are accepting Christianity without accepting the Jewish practices that preceeded Christ’s salvation. Paul is writing to tell these communities that man is justified in God’s eyes not by anything they do (i.e. observance of the law) but by what God has done through Christ.

Now look at the letter from St. James. James is not contradicting St. Paul’s justification by faith, but rather correcting misunderstandings of that teaching. Remember that Paul says the only thing that counts is “faith working through love.” (Gal 5:6)

James does not say that we are saved through our works, but that we need more than sitting around thinking good thoughts about God to have true faith. True faith manifests itself in acts of justice and kindness. He is not contradicting Paul, but clarifying his teaching for those who thought that because they were justified by their faith they do not have to do good works.

To be clear, the context I was attempting here is more historical/biographical context. This is not theological context or anything like that. I’ll leave that to the theologians

 

[guanophore]

Catholicism allows for a great deal of free will on our part, a response to God’s graces, and works done in grace. What is the point of stressing the faith PLUS works if the works are done by God through us?

I think it is a response to the error that works have nothing to do with salvation.

That is a Protestant approach to works and sanctification.

No. It is Catholic. It is an element of the Catholic faith, like the Trinity, that has been preserved among our separated brethren.

Why go out of one’s way to stress day in and day out the importance of works if they are not done on our end?

The errors of the Reformation have resulted in a common notion that once a person is saved, they can do whatever they want, because sin cannot keep them out of heaven. This is one of the imbalances caused by Calvanism and the OSAS mentality.

God motivates us, according to what you’re saying, to do good works. But Catholicism looks at those works as salvific. Paul doesn’t?

I am not sure what you mean by this. Do you really think the Catholic faith teaches that we can be saved by works? if so, can you please show where you find this?

Catholicism doesn’t teach that they are Christ’s works.

Can you substantiate this? I think this is one of the most common misunderstandings about the Catholic faith.

You’re minimizing the high degree of free will in Catholic teaching I think.

Show me where it is, so we can explore it together.

I cannot imagine, in your statement, anyone on this earth being “fully sanctified.” How is that possible?

Why not? Do you not think that God’s grace is able to fully sanctify a person?

That smacks of Pelagianism? Someone in this world can be fully made holy?

I am sorry, I don’t see the relationship between these two. The Catholic Chruch teaches that we are made holy by grace, through faith.

I know there are great examples of humanity reaching high levels of holiness, purity, kindness, charity, and martyrdom for Christ. But “fully” sanctified?

It seems that you don’t have much confidence in the power of God.

 

[guanophore]

Great point. I understand that. But the works we do out of our own free will are considered part of the salvation equation. The Treasury of Merit idea presupposes that I, as a Catholic, can tap into this account. I tap into it through my own works, visiting a parish with a saint’s name, going on a pilgrimage to a relic, saying a certain litany, doing this, doing that. Works.

Tap into what “account”?

The Treasury of Merit does not presuppose anything about you.

If you think you can access the rewards of grace by going through these motions “doing this, doing that - works” then you are sadly mistaken.

These activities that you mention here are devotions of faith. People who do them without faith will find that it is impossible to please God at all by doing any of them.

What did the disciples do after they were baptized on Pentecost?

Do you consider their actions “doing this, doing that - works”?

 

[TheQuestioner]

Ok, I’ll say this part quickly.

Keep in mind in Galatians there is a reason why the words “The Law” are capitalized. They are not talking about human laws or works, they are taking about the Law of Moses. If you fall short in that you fall short in your salvation. That is what it was talking about. Galatians focuses heavily on the idea of abandoning it since it became obsolete. But if someone held to it they must hold to all of it otherwise they will fall short of salvation. You’ll notice also in Romans sometimes Paul expands the term “works” to “works of the law”. This is not to mean human law or good deeds, but specifically refers to circumcision.

Second, as per Romans and Abraham’s faith being credited as righteousness, if you read Psalms 106:29-31 you will see the same phrase being used for Phinehas.

What did Phinehas do? Drove a spear threw two people at once (Numbers 25: 6-8)

So we see a worked was credited to Phinehas as righteousness just as Abraham’s faith was. So what does this all mean? How do we reconcile all this.

Let’s take a look at James shall we? James 2:20-24 specifically.

We see here it says: 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,"e] and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

So in the end we see that Abraham’s works completed his faith. What Paul was talking about was a working Faith, or Faith Working in Love. The same for Phinehas. Phinehas’ faith was completed in his actions, since he truly believed God was the master of nature and all things, even disease, and acted to please God. Remember that Paul was not Protestant and James Catholic, they had the same faith. Their works (the epistles) and the rest of the Bible can be drawn upon to determine teaching. In this case, Romans 4 does not make Paul seem protestant. At least not after thorough biblical study.