Reconciling Romans 2:13 with the rest of New Testament

[fhansen]

Here’s the catch. God only does that for those who keep the Law. As Rom 2:13 says. Doers of the Law are justified.

Right, and, as Trent teaches we become doers of the law only by “divine grace through Jesus Christ”. God does the justifying, not us. Only He can make us obedient, law-abiding, as we cooperate in this work of His.

 

[C.Longinus]

It’s the superficial contradiction inherent in Protestant teaching. The fact is that you don’t believe that you are regenerated and born again when you are justified. For Protestants, those are just catch phrases without meaning. They sound cool. But, you have taken the power out of the Gospel.

Agreed. Paul states clearly in 1 Corinthians 6:11, “Some of you were those things, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit.”

It’s clear from this alone that God turns dung into flowers, not put snow over dung.

 

[Johan]

Because it’s been forgiven and washed away by the power of the Holy Spirit. Not because it is somehow covered over. We are renewed and regenerated. Not repainted.

Right, and, as Trent teaches we become doers of the law only by “divine grace through Jesus Christ”. God does the justifying, not us. Only He can make us obedient, law-abiding, as we cooperate in this work of His.

Agreed. Paul states clearly in 1 Corinthians 6:11, “Some of you were those things, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit .”

It’s clear from this alone that God turns dung into flowers, not put snow over dung.

Since you seem to agree with each other I ask you this question collectively: do you consider yourselves sinless? Have you stopped sinning altogether?

 

[fhansen]

Since you seem to agree with each other I ask you this question collectively: do you consider yourselves sinless? Have you stopped sinning altogether?

While God prefers us to be perfect, who we were created to be (and will ultimately achieve it), we don’t need to be sinless, as the Church teaches. We need to sin less and love more (as love covers a multitude of sins and fulfills the law by its nature anyway) than we did before we were justified, or else either our justification never happened, or we haven’t take the justice, the grace, given, and “invested” it. Justice or righteousness is given in seedling form, and must be appreciated, embraced, nurtured, and cultivated. Because it consists first of all in communion with God, and, like any relationship, it must be valued in order for it to blossom.

So it’s a struggle, for our attention, for our values, what we shall worship in this life. But a good struggle, where we can be tested and refined and may well fall at times but are expected to get back up and move forward more than we backslide, as we work out our salvation with He who works in us.

Canon 23.
If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace,[124] and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema. Council of Trent

 

[lagerald24]

It depends what you mean by sinless. Like the Apostle Paul, we Catholics say “For I am conscious of nothing against myself, yet I am not by this acquitted; but the one who examines me is the Lord.” We examine our lives for grave, mortal sin which does indeed separate us from God like we read in 1st John 5:16-17, “He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.”

The idea of the just man being also ontologically unjust at the same time is not only unbiblical but is a true theological novum, making its first appearance with Martin Luther, whose conscience was often plagued by his own personal guilt. We know that he read his own personal strife into Paul’s letters, casting Paul’s Judaizer opponents as Catholics and seeing himself as the Apostle Paul who taught justification by grace alone through faith alone.

Finally, here is more from the Council of Trent:

“This disposition, or preparation, is followed by Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts, whereby man of unjust becomes just, and of an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to hope of life everlasting.”

“CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.”

 

[Johan]

While God prefers us to be perfect, who we were created to be (and will ultimately achieve it), we don’t need to be sinless, as the Church teaches. We need to sin less and love more (as love covers a multitude of sins and fulfills the law by its nature anyway) than we did before we were justified, or else either our justification never happened, or we haven’t take the justice, the grace, given, and “invested” it.

What I don’t get is that you on the one hand criticize (some posters even appear to ridicule it) the Protestant idea of simul justus et peccator, but on the other hand (if I read between the lines) you are saying that you are still a sinner with the goal of becoming sinless in the future. Do you consider yourself righteous before God? Because then you are right now precisely what the Protestant formula is expressing, i.e., simultaneously righteous and a sinner.

 

[Johan]

It depends what you mean by sinless.

Well, I honestly don’t think the word is unclear. A sinless person is a person who does not sin. Someone who sins is not sinless, but a sinner.

The idea of the just man being also ontologically unjust at the same time is not only unbiblical but is a true theological novum, making its first appearance with Martin Luther, whose conscience was often plagued by his own personal guilt.

But you cannot have it both ways. If you are still sinning, then you are not ontologically righteous/just, but unrighteous/unjust. The notion of an ontologically righteous sinner is an oxymoron. That is why I wondered if you are sinless, i.e., have stopped sinning altogether. If not, I simply do not understand why you are pointing fingers at Martin Luther’s theology.

 

[fhansen]

For one thing Catholics believe in a final state of purification, in line with the scriptural concept that no sinners enter heaven. Meanwhile they must show themselves to be moved well forward on the righteousness, aka love, scheme of things, not engaging in the kinds of sin that leads to death and which constitute a turning away from God and love. The Protestant doctrines, on the other hand, of Sola Fide and imputed righteousness, create a fuzzy line between whether or not one is obligated to actual righteousness at all or not, whereas Catholicism maintains that we absolutely are even if “venial” sins are to be expected in this life.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Because it’s been forgiven and washed away by the power of the Holy Spirit. Not because it is somehow covered over. We are renewed and regenerated. Not repainted.

Right, and, as Trent teaches we become doers of the law only by “divine grace through Jesus Christ”. God does the justifying, not us. Only He can make us obedient, law-abiding, as we cooperate in this work of His.

Agreed. Paul states clearly in 1 Corinthians 6:11, “Some of you were those things, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the power of the Holy Spirit .”

It’s clear from this alone that God turns dung into flowers, not put snow over dung.

Since you seem to agree with each other I ask you this question collectively: do you consider yourselves sinless? Have you stopped sinning altogether?

No. But we were washed of our sins when we were baptized and it is possible, by the grace of God, for us to gain a perfect union with Christ in this life if we persevere in well doing until the end.

 

[De_Maria]

fhansen:

While God prefers us to be perfect, who we were created to be (and will ultimately achieve it), we don’t need to be sinless, as the Church teaches. We need to sin less and love more (as love covers a multitude of sins and fulfills the law by its nature anyway) than we did before we were justified, or else either our justification never happened, or we haven’t take the justice, the grace, given, and “invested” it.

What I don’t get is that you on the one hand criticize (some posters even appear to ridicule it) the Protestant idea of simul justus et peccator, but on the other hand (if I read between the lines) you are saying that you are still a sinner with the goal of becoming sinless in the future. Do you consider yourself righteous before God? Because then you are right now precisely what the Protestant formula is expressing, i.e., simultaneously righteous and a sinner.

Not the way that Protestants mean.

Protestants deny that a man can achieve perfection in this life. But the Catholic Church holds up for us examples of men and women who became perfect in this life. Men who raised the dead to life, who bilocated, who cured the sick. And I’m not talking about the Apostles. I’m talking about the canonized Saints throughout the ages.

God doesn’t whitewash our souls. God washes them of sin and then we, as Longinus puts, must maintain that state of grace. And everytime we go to Confession and everytime we do good works, we establish a habit of righteousness. The more we establish that habit, the closer we come to the Divine Nature, which Jessus Christ shares with us.

 

[De_Maria]

lagerald24:

It depends what you mean by sinless.

Well, I honestly don’t think the word is unclear. A sinless person is a person who does not sin. Someone who sins is not sinless, but a sinner.

That’s where we differ.

A sinless person is one who’s ledger has been washed clean by the grace of God. That is what happens at Baptism.

Acts 22:16 Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’

1 Peter 3:21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[lanman87]

Here is St. Paul in 1st Corinthians 13 telling us about a guy, who even gives up his body to be burned.

I’ve been out of pocket for a few days and come back and find this thread has continued…I’ve been trying to catch up.

Anyway, SyCarl gives a good answer to the 1 Corinthians 13 passage so I will not repeat what he posted

 

[MJDorry]

Bear in mind that Paul is speaking to the Jews in these quoted texts.

Before we can address the Jewish question, however, I think it is important to share that I think your question reveals a subtle misunderstanding about the grammar in Paul’s letters. You ask: “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 apart from the law?”

As you point out, what Paul says specifically is “…but the doers of the law who will be justified.” This might seem equivocal with your rephrasing “you are justified by doing the law,” but that is not the case. What Paul is saying is that those who are justified will necessarily have been doers of the law, because nobody justified would be conscious doers of anything but the law.

In your second proposition, “…then turns around and says we are justified apart from the law”, you accidentally fuse two separate clauses you provide, one from Romans 3 and the other from Galatians 3. In Romans 3, Paul does not state we are justified apart from the law. He states that the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law. Meaning that God’s righteousness is not the law itself, but is above the law and informs his judgment, as the law and God’s judgment both proceed from His righteousness.

In Galatians 3, Paul states that nobody is justified before God by the law. This is in fact qualitatively different from both of his statements in Romans 2 and Romans 3. What Paul is stating in Galatians 3 is that having the law does not justify you. He’s not talking about doing the law, but merely having it.

This is important to understand in the context of the fact that Paul is speaking to the Jews. The Jews thought themselves justified because they had the law, and that gentiles were not justified because they did not have the law. Thus, Paul was chastising them by stating that having/inheriting/upholding the law does nothing: you must do the law if you are truly faithful.

This is why in Romans 2:13, he states also “For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God…” He’s telling the Jews A) that being the bearers of the law does not make them righteous and B) shouting the laws at others does nothing to bring others to righteousness.

To put this in context, one need only read the previous and succeeding verses: “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law… For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.”

Paul is telling the Jews, “Look, the sinner will perish whether he has been brought up in the law or not (Jew), and guy who does the right thing has God written on his heart, even if he has never known the law (Gentile).”

 

[lanman87]

Still not ready to call them works of God, though, huh? But this reminds me of when you brought up the laying on of hands bringing about the grace of the Holy Spirit . We call that the Sacrament of Confirmation.

Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he of fered them money,

(Oh and also the Sacrament of Holy Orders)

1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

But you do agree, that the laying on of hands will bring about the grace of the Holy Spirit, right?

I thought, that according to Catholic doctrine that someone is “born again”/indwelled by the Holy Spirit at Baptism???

If that is the case then whey did the Holy Spirit wait until Paul laid hands on them for the Holy Spirit to come upon them? Wouldn’t that have already happened in Baptism according to Catholic doctrine?

After reading a little about confirmation I’ve found that these are the effects of confirmation:

• An increased portion of the gifts of the Holy Spirit: wisdom, knowledge, right judgment, understanding, courage, piety, and fear of the Lord
• A deepening and strengthening of the grace received at Baptism, which is considered the presence of God in the soul
• A more intimate relationship with Jesus Christ
• A closer bond with the Catholic Church
• The ability to take a greater, more mature role in the Church’s mission of living the Christian faith daily and witnessing to Christ everywhere
• A special mark, or character, on the soul that can never be erased

Basically, if I were using Video Game terms, Confirmation is a “power up” of the Holy Spirit and not the actual imparting of the Holy Spirit. The Acts 19 passage can’t be confirmation because it is clear that that the laying of hands was the moment the Holy Spirit came upon the 12 men who were disciple of John.

As far as 1 Timothy 4:13-14 it is clear that gift that was given the they laying on of hands was the gift of exhortation and teaching. Does everyone who goes through confirmation get the gift of exhortation and teaching?

I also understand the God gave the Apostles special Spiritual gifts for the purpose of displaying the power of God to the 1 Century Church. Laying on of hands to give the Holy Spirit or impart Spiritual Gifts was one of those special gifts that ceased at the death of the last apostle and probably actually ceased over the course of life of the apostles as they were no longer needed to establish the authenticity of the gospel message.

 

[lagerald24]

As Augustine said so succinctly, “The Law was given so that grace we might seek, and grace was given so that the Law we might keep.”

 

[lagerald24]

If that is the case then whey did the Holy Spirit wait until Paul laid hands on them for the Holy Spirit to come upon them?

Umm, this is exactly what we believe as Catholics. It’s Confirmation by a bishop of the Church in which the already baptized believer becomes an adult in his or her faith.

 

[lanman87]

He’s describing the Sacraments.

So I’ve been reading about the Sacraments. I doubt very seriously that Paul was describing anything other than a internal faith in Christ. Apparently, modern Sacramental theology was developed by Scholastic Theologians in the middle ages. If you had asked Paul about the seven sacraments he wouldn’t have had any idea what you are talking about.

Peter Lombard changed the definition of a Sacrament from Augustine’s “An outward sign of an inner grace” to mean not only a sign of grace but a cause of Grace in The Sentences. Lombard also set the number of Sacraments at seven. (Augustine identified over 300 Sacraments).

When sacraments first started being discussed as “Divine Mysteries” pretty much anything “Set apart as holy” was considered a sacrament. Even the earth itself was described as a sacrament as it showed the Glory and majesty of God’s creation.

It took a thousand years for the sacraments, as defined by the Catholic church, to be defined as we know them today. And the church actually changed the definition of a Sacrament when the scholastic Theologians all got on board with Peter Lombard’s opinions.

So unless Paul could see 1000 years into the future and agreed with Peter Lombard then there is no way he was referring the sacraments when he is talking about faith.

 

[lanman87]

Can we terminate this side conversation about baptism/laying on hands/confirmation? It’s not in keeping the subject of the post.

I would love to and actually suggested we create another thread earlier in the thread… but I was asked a direct question so I responded.

 

[De_Maria]

I thought, that according to Catholic doctrine that someone is “born again”/indwelled by the Holy Spirit at Baptism???

Amen! But before we go further, do you agree that the Holy Spirit is given by the laying on of hands? Yes or no.

If that is the case then whey …

I’ll be glad to answer all your questions. But don’t you think it a bit rude to expect to answer all those questions and you won’t answer one of mine. Is the Holy Spirit imparted by the laying on of hands?

 

[lagerald24]

@lanman87, if you want, you or I could open up a separate thread to discuss Sacramental theology. I’d love to address some of the points you raised. I think @MJDorry is right about moving the Sacrament chat elsewhere.