Paul's letter to the Romans

[Contrabass101]

Hey there,

I was reading Romas the other night, and I must say that Paul confuses me now more than ever (back in the days he simply seemed to agree with me, which was pretty nice).

The Letter of Romans was Luther’s favourite, and I do find some of the lutheran main theses in it. But I also find their antitheses, and often only few versesapart. Paul starts out by stating a dogma, it seems, and that is well and good, I accept that quite willingly, and then a few verses later he states another dogma that flat-out contradicts the first. At least as it looks in my view. He doesn’t say the same thing!

For instance: We are saved by faith, apart from the law, yet we are to live according to the new law. If we live according to the flesh, our faith is dead. And from the context, I find it hard to interpret it as the ritual law of Moses all the time.

Or: Israel. The old branches were broken off, and we (the people of the new covenant) are grafted in in their place. Therefor those who are decendants of Abraham are those that are like him in the spirit, and not in the flesh (circumcision and lineage). Yet God does not regret his promise, and all Israel (seemingly the OT Israel - his physical decendants) shall be saved in the end.

Or how about: Predestination. We were chosen to be grafted in on the vine. God hated Esau but loved Jacob. Yet Paul doesn’t talk to mindless slaves, but to active individuals who have to make a choice. Disebelief caused the old branches to be cut off, and might also cause the Romans to be cut off.

I do not understand.

I asked myself if there is a solution to all these paradoxes, and figured that if anyone knew, it would be the Catholic Church (so much for my nominal lutheranism )

Of course it just might not be for me to understand. God’s truth is higher than our understanding, and perhaps the paradoxes must stand. But that kind of division between faith and reason seems to me so… un-Catholic

Help me please!

• CB

 

[kepha1]

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16,21; 3:2,5,10; Eph. 2:8-9 - many Protestants err in their understanding of what Paul means by "works of the law” in his teaching on justification. Paul’s teaching that we are not justified by “works of the law” refer to the law of Moses or to any legal system that makes God our debtor. They do not refer to good works done in grace with faith in Christ. This makes sense when we remember that Paul’s mission was to teach that salvation was also for the Gentiles who were not subject to the “works of the law.” Here is the proof:

James 2:24 – compare the verse “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” to Gal. 2:16 – “a man is not justified by works of the law,” and Rom. 3:20,28 – “no human being will be justified in His sight by works of the law.” James 2:24 appears to be inconsistent with Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28 until one realizes that the Word of God cannot contradict itself. This means that the “works” in James 2:24 are different from the “works of the law in Gal. 2:16 and Rom. 3:20,28. James is referring to “good works” (e.g.,clothing the naked; giving food to the poor) and Paul is referring to the “Mosaic law” (which included both the legal, moral and ceremonial law) or any works which oblige God to give us payment. Here is more proof:

Rom. 3:20,28; Gal. 2:16 - Paul’s phrase for “works of the law” in the Greek is “ergon nomou” which means the Mosaic law or Torah and refers to the teachings (legal, moral) and works (ceremonial) that gave the Jews the knowledge of sin, but not an escape from sin. We have further proof of this from the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide the Hebrew equivalent (“hrvt ysm”) meaning “deeds of the law,” or Mosaic law. James in James 2 does not use “ergon nomou.” He uses “ergois agathois.” Therefore, Paul’s “works of the law” and James’ “works” are entirely different types of works. Again, they could never contradict each other because the Scriptures are the inspired word of God.
scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

 

[kepha1]

There is evidence that two of the “pillars” of the Church, Sts. Peter and James (Gal. 2:9) were seeking to properly interpret Paul’s epistles. Peter noted that he was writing of the “same things” that Paul did (2 Pet. 3:14) while emphasizing the importance of supplementing one’s faith with many virtues and also the necessity of active charity to complete one’s faith.

James on the other hand never mentions Paul at all by name but there is evidence that he sought to provide a proper interpretation of Romans 2-4 in his epistle. This position is supported by two factors. The first is that James (like Peter) wrote his epistle AFTER Paul wrote his epistles. Second, the themes addressed in James and Romans respectively are so similar. Note the following parallels between the two epistles.

There are obvious parallels between the arguments by St James (Chapter 2) and those by St Paul (Romans 3&4). Christians must be doers of the law not just hearers (James 1:22; Romans 2:13). The relationship between justification, faith, and works is discussed (James 2; Romans 3). Abraham is called upon as an example (James 2:21; Romans 4). Both texts quote Genesis 15:6 (James 2:23; Romans 4:3). It is also generally acknowledged that Romans was written before James.
The obvious conclusion is that James was written in part to respond to erroneous interpretations of Romans that were circulating at that time. These erroneous interpretations were probably much like those of Luther. We know that there were some problematic interpreters of St Paul during the NT era (2Pet 3:15-16; Acts 21:20). Consequently, James was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in order to GUIDE the Church’s understanding of St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. St James was therefore intending to use the same meaning for justification as St Paul was though his definition of works was different. St Paul was speaking about “works of the law.” St James was speaking about works of mercy.

It could also be pointed out that James 2:1 and 2:9 speak of how we should not show partiality towards persons because God does not do this (see Rom. 3:22). The parallels between the epistle of James and the epistle to the Romans in chapters two through four are quite obvious actually but it involves reading passages in proper context to understand this. Unfortunately, Protestants who espouse sola fide theology never do this; thus they misunderstand completely how important works are in an active capacity in completing our justification. Thus the warning of St. Peter about how misinterpreting the writings of St. Paul (and the other Scriptures) leading to the destruction of the “ignorant and unstable” who err in this manner should be a sobering meditation for those who claim that they are “guaranteed salvation”, “saved by faith alone”, or that they are merely “imputed the righteousness of Christ”.

Art Sippo

 

[Contrabass101]

Thank you, but it still doesn’t answer my question on the seeming contradiction of the paradoxes in Paul’s epistle.

Happy annunciation day

• CB

 

[Nita]

Hi Contrabass 101,

To put it succinctly - We are saved by grace through faith; to retain saving grace we must obey God’s commands.

I don’t think Paul says in Romans that it is our faith that saves us - rather it is grace.
Rom 3:24 they are justified by His grace as a gift (also Rom 11:6)
In addition see Paul’s other epistles:
Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; …
(also Eph 1:7-8; Eph 2:5; Titus 3:4-7)

We receive this grace in baptism - which we seek because of our faith. In the case of infant baptism, it is because of the faith of our parents. After we reach the age of reason, faith on our own part is required (if we are to retain the sanctifying/justifying grace received in Baptism).

In addition to faith, obedience is required. (Romans 1:5 …obedience of faith…)
If we commit mortal sin, (disobey God’s commands), and do not repent, we will not be saved.
Gal. 5:19-21 Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, … I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God…

Salvation can be lost.

Nita
, …

 

[Nita]

Hi again,

I hit the wrong button and my post got submitted way ahead of time. Couldn’t get all the editing done within the 20 min.

“Law”, as used by Paul, usually includes the ritual laws - *and sometimes that is all he is referring to. *(circumcision, sacrifices, etc.) At other times it can also include the moral law (Ten Commandments).
With the New Covenant, the Old Covenant ritual laws (Circumcision and sacrifices) ended and were replaced with the New Covenant rites (Mass and Sacraments). However, the OT moral law was retained (eg Mt 19:17-19; Mt 22:36-40) and expanded by Our Lord (eg. Mt 5 thru 7, Sermon on the Mount).

The OT Law revealed God’s will, but it did not give to us the power to obey it.
Knowledge was not enough - we needed more. We needed the supernatural power of God’s life present in our soul, to enlighten our understanding and strengthen our will. This grace is made present and communicated to us thru the NT rites. Through the power of God’s grace, merited for us by Jesus, sin can be overcome in us - we can be saved from it.

Romans 7:24-25 …Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God* through Jesus Christ our Lord**! …8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death."*
Hope this helps.

Couple suggestions:
1, It helps if you give specific verses with the questions (eg. the specific verses that seemed to contradict each other).

1. You had several topics in your thread. It’s best to have one topic per thread. I would suggest you start a new thread for each of the other topics.

God bless,
Nita.