Reconciling Romans 2:13 with the rest of New Testament

[TULIPed]

The only one I like is “love of God.” That’s why we do good works, also. Because we want to be united to God, we therefore do good works because we believe they are necessary for salvation.

I would say the Reformed Protestant view is a riff on “love of God”. We believe - as you do - that as Christians, we’re in an intimate relationship with Christ. Jesus himself calls us his friends after all. If you have a true friendship, wouldn’t you do anything for that friend? We thus are obedient to Him because we love him, and because we are so thankful for what He’s done for us. The question for us is - are you really, and truly in relationship with Him? If you are, your actions should be illustrative of the relationship.

 

[TULIPed]

Now, are you one of those who say that good works condemn the man doing them?

Uh…no.

10 characters.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

The only one I like is “love of God.” That’s why we do good works, also. Because we want to be united to God, we therefore do good works because we believe they are necessary for salvation.

I would say the Reformed Protestant view is a riff on “love of God”. We believe - as you do - that as Christians, we’re in an intimate relationship with Christ. Jesus himself calls us his friends after all. If you have a true friendship, wouldn’t you do anything for that friend? We thus are obedient to Him because we love him, and because we are so thankful for what He’s done for us. The question for us is - are you really, and truly in relationship with Him? If you are, your actions should be illustrative of the relationship.

I agree. How about the idea, though, that good works are somehow sinful?

 

[TULIPed]

As mentioned earlier, our motives are important. But in the case of poor motives, it would seem that the works themselves wouldn’t be “good” any more.

 

[Cathoholic]

TULIPed . . . .

What do you think motivates a Protestant to do good works if they think good works are meaningless?

I never said Protestants think good works are meaningless.

I said some think good works are meaningless with respect to their justification.

And I took great pains to explicitly state this figures into the equation of their justification.

And they frequently deny that necessity for good works in the Spirit.

But I am going to give you a chance to nuke at least part of my argument here.

I am going to invite you to just say it.
Just say Christians NEED to do good works in Christ (according to their state in life) and this figures into their justification because justification is a moment followed by a lifelong process.

This would really put me and my argument in its place.

So the invitation is extended . . . .

 

[Cathoholic]

TULIPed . . .

As mentioned earlier, our motives are important. But in the case of poor motives, it would seem that the works themselves wouldn’t be “good” any more.

Trent talks about that too.

If you want I would be happy to look it up.

Good works are motivated by Christ, and carried out in union with Crist.

Otherwise they really are not good. At least on a supernatural level (they are mere natural virtue and that in a sense is “good”, but not the sense I am talking about here).

 

[Cathoholic]

Ianman87 . . . .

How can you tell the difference between those who were in the Vine and left and those who were never in the vine, but did great works in the name of Christ never knew Christ? From our human perspective they were both strong Christians.

It’s not necessary that I tell the difference regarding OTHER people.

It is important to tell the difference regarding myself.

St. Paul verbalizes that with himself.

He isn’t aware of anything in himself that is currently hindering his salvation.

St. Peter tells us we, by WORKING, can make our calling and election sure.

St. Paul tells us to examine our consciences.

Just obey these things, strive after holiness without which no one will see the Lord, and Trust Jesus to save you.

 

[De_Maria]

I’d like to revist this question, just to summarize:

Reconciling Romans 2:13 with the rest of New Testament

I think you’ll find that the rest of the New Testament is right in line with Romans 2:13

I was wondering how Catholics reconcile 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.

with the numerous text that say we are righteous by faith, apart from the law? (I’ve listed a couple)

The biblical idea of justification by faith apart from works is merely an expression which summarizes the justification which we undergo in the Sacraments. In the Sacraments, those who have kept the Commandments of God, turn to Him in faith and He washes them in His mercy.

Such as Romans 3: 21-23 *But now the righteousness of God has been manifested

The righteousnss of God is euphemism for the “washing of regeneration” which is brought about in Baptism.

apart from the law,

It is apart from the Mosaic law because it was instituted by Jesus Christ and now falls under His law of grace.

although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—

The Law and the Prophets witness to it because of the numerous texts where the Old Testament says that God will save those who keep the Commandments, such as Exodus 20:6

And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Compare that to Titus 3:5

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

God pours His mercy on those who keep His Commandments.

22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

The word “sacraments” had not yet been coined. The righteousness of God through “faith in Jesus Christ” means the grace of God through the Sacraments.

For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus*

Galatians 3:11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law , for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Was Paul contradicting himself or is there a reason he says you are justified by doing the law then turns around and says we are justified by apart from the law?

I hope you have understood how we explain it, above. How do Protestants reconcile Romans 3:21-23 with verses like:

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

And Heb 10:36 You need endurance to do the will of God and receive what he has promised.

I know the Evangelical/Protestant answer to this question. I was just wondering how Catholics see it?

What is the Evangelical/Protestant answer? Is there only one? For example, there is something which Protestants have asked me concerning the Ordus Salutis or the steps which one takes to be saved. I’ve heard many different variations. Including one, recently, where one doesn’t need to repent in order to be saved. One is saved first and then has the wherewithal to repent.

 

[TULIPed]

I said some think good works are meaningless with respect to their justification.

Let me start by saying that Reformed Protestant theology and Catholic theology differ on these matters. I am on a Catholic website, and am respectful of your beliefs and theology. I am close friends with many Catholic brothers and sisters who know and love Christ - and I know they love Him because of WHAT they do. They are - certainly relative to me - selfless, kind, and generous people who serve our King. What follows is merely meant to explain our theology.

Reformed theology would say that the only work meaningful to our justification is Christ’s saving work on the cross. From the Westminster Confession of Faith (“WCF”):

“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; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”

We believe that good works are evidence of a true and lively faith in Christ. They are a necessary result of the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives. Again, from the WCF:

“These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith:and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ”

This doesn’t mean that all Reformed Protestant will tell you this is what they believe - just like not all Catholics will necessarily confess that which is in the RCC.

And apologies for the old language. You guys have done a much better job of keeping your Catechism readable. Well done.

 

[TULIPed]

I hope you have understood how we explain it, above. How do Protestants reconcile Romans 3:21-23 with verses like:

Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

The plumb line has been used for millennia to ascertain straight and/or level. For example, from Amos 7:

“Thus He showed me, and behold, the Lord was standing by a vertical wall with a plumb line in His hand. The LORD said to me, “What do you see, Amos?” And I said, "A plumb line " Then the Lord said, "Behold I am about to put a plumb line In the midst of My people Israel I will spare them no longer.”

Reformed Protestants would say that the law is like a plumb line in that it illustrates to man what God requires. Ultimately, the law - and the futility of trying to achieve it on our own - drives us to our knees - and to Christ.

 

[fhansen]

Reformed Protestants would say that the law is like a plumb line in that it illustrates to man what God requires. Ultimately, the law - and the futility of trying to achieve it on our own - drives us to our knees - and to Christ.

I haven’t been following this thread lately and I don’t understand, is anyone arguing against this??? This is Catholicism!

The main difference is whether or not achieving it in some manner is nevertheless still critical-for our justification. And to this the Catholic answer is yes! But we achieve it in that new way, that New Covenant way, initiated by a faith that places us in the hands of He who alone can accomplish it. Jesus Christ can accomplish real obedience in us, even if that obedience may be imperfect, not fully realized in this life. And that could be said to be the meaning behind Rom 7:25 BTW.

 

[TULIPed]

Hahahahaha hahahahaha! Yes, I know. I didn’t want to speak for you guys (but I know we’re in violent agreement).

 

[fhansen]

What’s kind of ironic is that your statement, that I quoted, defines the instrumental reason why I returned to Christianity after leaving the Catholic faith many years ago. Jer 31:32-34 said it all for me. And if later yet I hadn’t found that the RCC taught it as well, I could never have returned to Catholicism. I think maybe we need to get the word out better.

 

[C.Longinus]

Ultimately, the law - and the futility of trying to achieve it on our own - drives us to our knees - and to Christ.

Key words: on our own. But when we decide to work with Christ, we CAN fulfill the law.

 

[TULIPed]

I loves me some Jeremiah. He gets overshadowed somewhat in my opinion by the guy next door (especially at Xmas), but what great stuff. I find it much easier to read for some reason than Isaiah too. Every year, when I get to Isaiah/Jeremiah in the One Year Bible, I have to admit I look forward to getting through Isaiah and getting to Jeremiah.

 

[Cathoholic]

TULIPed . . .

Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ”

TULIPed. I have no idea of how I can make myself clearer.

I don’t deny Protestants assert their good works come from God.

I deny Protestants think this is necessary in regards to the process of salvation.

And they DO deny it (almost universally).

And I lament when Protestants mischaracterize Catholic Christian teaching that we DENY this for ourselves (they falsely accuse us of works righteousness or WORKING ON YOUR OWN, to get ourselves to Heaven).

And we have seen THAT mischacterization against Catholics implied right here on this thread.

As to your DENIAL of infused righteousness (“not by infusing righteousness into them”), this denies the NECESSARY transformative power of Christ IN YOU and through you.

Catholics have no issue with the imputed righteousness of Christ covering us.

The problem stems from MERELY imputed righteousness with a Protestant DENIAL of the NEED for Christ’s transformative power.

It is a Protestant denial of the need to be given the Divine nature which Christ died to give us, and once empowered, obtain “interest” on the proverbial talents given to us.

And if that phony theology gets lived out (and they do not make “interest” on the gifts the Master has given them), just as in the Gospels, it ultimately results in wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

[Cathoholic]

MATTHEW 25:14-30 14 “For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; 15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. 17 So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’

 

[TULIPed]

The problem stems from MERELY imputed righteousness with a Protestant DENIAL of the NEED for Christ’s transformative power.

I’ll take your word that there are Protestants out there who deny the need for Christ’s transformative power in their lives. I personally have yet to meet one. I have met many, many Protestants (holding up my hand and waving violently) and Catholics however who will testify that they’d be dead without Him.

And if that phony theology gets lived out (and they do not make “interest” on the gifts the Master has given them), just as in the Gospels, it ultimately results in wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Thankfully, I’m fairly certain we agree this isn’t our call to make.

 

[Cathoholic]

TULIPed . . . .

I’ll take your word that there are Protestants out there who deny the need for Christ’s transformative power in their lives.

TULIPed. Go back and read the confessional statement you just quoted.

You need to look no further than that.

I am not saying you deny Christ’s transformative power in the statement.

I am saying you deny the NECESSITY of Christ’s transformative power in regards to justification.

In Protestantisms, it frequently gets reduced down to a courtroom motif.

That is true, but it is only a partial truth.

The error comes in when those same Protestants DENY the need for this transformation in a person’s justification.

And you have (unwittingly?) interiorized this truncated mini gospel.

That is WHY when I ask you to just verbalize this aspect of Christ and the NECESSITY of it, you can’t do it.

We were taught this stuff basically from the cradle in Protestantism, and it takes a lot of grace to affirm a fuller Gospel.

 

[Cathoholic]

TULIPed . . . .

Thankfully, I’m fairly certain we agree this isn’t our call to make.

But I am not attempting to make that call.

I am attempting to show OBJECTIVELY what the Gospel teaches objectively in that sphere.

What a person does with that and the Holy Spirit’s touch to help them accept a full Gospel, and their acceptance or rejection of the Holy Spirit’s teaching that has been handed down (Apostolic paradosis) and the ultimate result of that SUBJECTIVELY is not mine to assert.