Roman, James, and the Parable of the Talents

  • Thread starter Thread starter FrankF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FrankF

Guest
Hi,

I’m a new member, but have been reading the boards for quite some time. I’ve only recently (for the past 8 months or so) been exploring the faith. I am a baptized protestant and have been going to church by myself and occasionally with friends since my family is not at all religious.

Recently, the topic of sola fide has come up in the sermons, and passages from Romans are often cited. I’m sure you are all aware of the verses that are commonly used.

In my reading, however, I tend to view much of Romans as an exposition on initial justification… that is conversion. To me, it seems to suggest that God alone, through our faith in him, is capable of declaring and actually making us righteous. By grace that is only available as a gift from God, we have free will to choose how to respond. If we respond in faith in His son Jesus, we are made righteous and able to stand before God.

James, however, seems to be speaking of a “living faith” that evolves beyond our initial justification. This faith involves trusting in God’s revealed word and walking in faith with his decrees.

Also, in the parable of the talents in Matthew 25, it seems that when each of the servants are given a specific number of talents in accord with their abilities, they are being granted graces in accord with their faith. By putting what they’ve been given to practice, they “earn” additional graces, but the servant with the “dead faith” does not put his faith to practice, and is not found favorable before his master.

To me, it would seem accurate to conclude that our initial graces are a gift from God that no one can merit. These initial graces allow us to be declared righteous before the Lord, but it can’t end there. We are entrusted to put our faith to work, and can actually “earn” additional graces, but only because we have been given grace from the start.

I was just wondering whether this is how Catholics commonly view the synthesis Romans and James and the parable of the talents. If not, how can it be better explained? I’ve recently tried to explain this to a friend of mine, but I don’t think I’m being clear enough.

Thanks.
 
First and foremost, we require God’s grace for everything good we can do. I’m not an expert on merit, but I do know that we cannot “merit” eternal salvation as if we just have to do a certain number of things and bam you’re in!

When we are not in a state of grace, we cannot do anything right. Without acknowledging Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, fully God and fully man, it is only by luck and Divine Providence that anyone behaves well.

Once God gives us the grace to submit our will to that of the Father, we are given even more grace. However, different from the grace that initially moved us from our sin in spite of our will, the grace which God provides us after our conversion is in cooperation with our will. Provided we long to keep choosing God and, truly, do choose him, God will give us the grace to make our actions perfect.

As for the parable of the talents, it is clear that some are given more grace than others; some are able to “do more good” than others. But it is also with “God’s talents” that we do these good works, never our own.

We can choose to work against God’s grace and bury our talents in the sand, but we cannot help if God gives us the grace for conversion - He is the one in charge.
 
Would it be proper to say that man’s “merit” is merely his cooperation with the graces bestowed on him by God and that without grace, no human act by itself is pleasing to God?

Can it then be said that our “merits” may result in additional graces from God?

In this sense, the parable of the talents would make sense in that none of the servants “merited” graces beyond those that were already given to him. (i.e. The servant who was given 5 talents, earned an additional 5 but not more). In other words, God expects us to work with what we have.

Finally, can someone please clarify the difference between “conversion” and “justification” for me? It would seem that “conversion” must come first. Is it possible to be converted, yet remain unjustified?
 
Finally, can someone please clarify the difference between “conversion” and “justification” for me? It would seem that “conversion” must come first. Is it possible to be converted, yet remain unjustified?
go to these two links for a better explanation on conversion vs. justification than I could give…

newadvent.org/cathen/04347a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm

And welcome to the forums…hope you have every success in your journey toward the fullness of truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top