'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[MagdalenaRita]

Paul is saying natural law has had as much success (failures) as the OT law.

That could be but the Mosaic law is much more detailed and explicit and ceremonial than the natural law. The natural law is what is written in everyone’s hearts, (Jews and Gentiles) that guides us in right and wrong.

Most of the New Testament Christians were Jewish and whether or not to follow the OT Mosaic law was still confusing to them.

We do need to still follow the natural laws God has placed in our hearts, so he wasn’t saying not to follow our consciences. As you said, it just doesn’t save us from our sins.

Please show me where conscience law saves

As above the conscience law does not save but neither does the Mosaic law, unless one is able to follow every bit of it, otherwise curses are involved.

Paul explicitly references both laws of Jews and Gentiles as lacking. He is saying for sure to Gentiles that Jewish law will not save but even more so, their “Gentileness”, living unto their own law, even of conscience, will not save.

I agree that the natural law does not save. We all must follow the natural law but it does not save.

But he isn’t talking about all laws, or that would contradict Jesus and the rest of the Scriptures. The Judaizers, certain Jewish Christians, wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised because they thought that Christians needed to continue in the laws of the OT.
Paul was about explaining to them that the OT Mosaic law could not save and that as Abraham had faith in God, we also are to have faith in God.
He repeats this in Galatians where he explains that the OT law was a tutor preparing Israel for the Messiah, who would set them free, making them heirs of Abraham. Because of their faith in Christ they no longer need to follow the OT law.

He is saying that the OT law does not save and that there is no reason for Jew or Gentile Christian to be circumcized

mcq72:

I believe that is very narrow read of Romans. He is saying both Jew and Gentile fall short morally and need salvation by grace and faith in Jesus Christ…deeds and laws/ conscience didnt save before and can’t be compared to the efficacy of faith in Christ.

I think both of these posts pretty much agree with each other. I am thinking you didn’t mean that Jews or Gentiles need to be circumcised.

As far as falling short morally and needing salvation by grace and faith in Jesus Christ - absolutely. The Church teaches that absolutely.

Just not “faith alone”. Scripture just doesn’t support it and there is a whole lot more Scripture to be understood that compliments Paul.

 

[Johan]

No where does He say we do not follow any law.

I still don’t understand why you keep stressing this (a potential straw man) because I have not claimed this and neither does the sola fide doctrine. And for the record—you, a sinner, do not “follow” any law. You strive to do so.

Yes works of the OT Mosaic law and he is right.

He does not qualify “works” as “of the Law” in chapter 4. He simply states that if Abraham would have been justified by works, then he would have had something to boast of. That is a universal principle, regardless of those works begin “works of the Law”, “works of charity”, or any other kind of works. That is why he adds that God justifies the ungodly who do not work but trust Him.

We are not saved by anything we do on our own but it is the Holy Spirit poured out upon us in baptism and because of our faith, that gives us the abilities to co-operate with Christ, in the works of Christ.

We are not saved by anything we do at all, not even our “cooperation” with Christ.

He has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. (2 Tim. 1:9)

In all charity, this has been the protestant argument for years, starting with Martin Luther but Scripture is the inerrant Word of God and nothing contradicts but completes instead. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself.

It ought to be a superficial contradiction to every reader of the Scriptures. If Paul denies that Abraham was justified by works and James claims that he was, then we do have a potential contradiction before us. The Catholic way of solving the problem appears to be to assert that Paul and James are talking about different kinds of works, whereas the Evangelical solution is to suggest that they are using the word “justify” in different ways.

Scripture just does not support anywhere the word “alone”.

Well, expressions like “who do not work” (Rom. 4:5), “apart from works” (Rom. 4:6), and “not by works” (Eph. 2:9) are equivalent to saying “through faith alone.”

Here you are contradicting your own thinking, as above you said Paul and James contradict each other.

Not at all. It’s just that I think that Paul and James are using “justified” in different ways. Even Christ Himself said that He was justified by His works (Matt. 11:19). That does not mean that He was a sinner in need of justification before God, but that His works vindicated Him of charges made against Him.

There is only one place where the word is alone is used and it is Scripture and it says we are not justified by faith alone.

However, that verse does not use adjectival alone (“faith that is alone”), but adverbial alone (“only by faith”).

 

[mcq72]

Most of the New Testament Christians were Jewish and whether or not to follow the OT Mosaic law was still confusing to them.

First of all thank you for your responses and for coming to some agreement.

Agree first church was mostly Jewish. Even in Gentile cities the church probably started in synagogues.

However, by the time of Romans I read that the church was mostly Gentile, the Jews being a small minority, and probably not meeting in synagogues anymore.

Still, Paul touches on Judaism and circumcision (not as strongly and explicitly as Galatians). He may be referencing Judaizers partially, but more to the Jewish origin of Roman church, and also because Paul himself was Jewish. I think we agreed that Paul had bigger scope and presented all man as needing justification, thru faith in Christ.

Not sure he says to keep any law explicitly but the law of faith. ( to me any other law given automatically represents my sin, that is, the falling short of God’s perfect aim and perfectly hitting the bull’s eye on every matter all the time).

He definitely however exhorts to holy living, as “a reasonable service”, as if we are indebted to Him, having already received grace and justification.

We are to be transformed, by renewing mind, and like James I believe, not to acquire more justification, but “to prove” why we are indebted, of granted justification in Jesus, as per God’s will. Ch.12

AS to our thread, Paul then mentions love (which to me is not a law but a command). By loving others we satisfy the law, citing most of the " ten commandments" dealing with man. Ch.13

So we agree works don’t save us. We agree faith saves us. We agree that after being “saved” deeds and attitudes (love) will, should follow by faith and grace. We unfortunately disagree on the “proving”, on whether it is equal to first justification or evidence of it (sanctification, glorification).

That is, we are seated in heavenly places now. His graces in my good works don’t keep me there directly. This is proved I believe because the only thing that can kick me out is for me to reject who put me there, and keeps me their, the work and grace of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

His sanctification put me up there now. His sanctification keeps me there now, even permanently in glorification later.

Under Catholic teaching, justification (faith) hopefully puts me there now. Sanctification ( live ,deeds, obedience) hopefully puts me there now. Glorification ( resurected and rewarded, and being made most like Him) puts me there finally for sure.

Lol…like one poster said very early on, such a fine thread of difference. Like the difference between being put there and kept there in heaven and and continually being put there.

 

[fhansen]

So we agree works don’t save us. We agree faith saves us. We agree that after being “saved” deeds and attitudes (love) will, should follow by faith and grace.

And if love doesn’t follow then we aren’t justified; we possess no justice and will be judged accordingly, having failed to fulfill the law of love which fulfills the other commandments by its nature. Faith only justifies to the extent that it leads to and produces love, which is the natural product of the object of faith: our coming to know and enter and remain in communion with God.

 

[Johan]

And if love doesn’t follow then we aren’t justified; we possess no justice and will be judged accordingly, having failed to fulfill the law of love which fulfills the other commandments by its nature. Faith only justifies to the extent that it leads to and produces love , which is the natural product of the object of faith: our coming to know and enter and remain in communion with God.

So Christ having died for our sins is not the basis of our justification?

Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! (Rom. 5:9)

 

[mcq72]

And if love doesn’t follow then we aren’t justified;

Well, some would not say that. Some would say , like James, if love doesn’t follow, you were not justified (initially) Not the same . Like if love follows, you were justified. If love does not follow, you were not justified. Nor like you better love to be justified, but your love will prove your justification.

Not like you are half justified then complete the other half when you love.

If you don’t love you were not only not half justified, you were not justified in the first place period.

 

[mcq72]

Faith only justifies to the extent that it leads to and produces love , which is the natural product of the object of faith: our coming to know and enter and remain in communion with God.

Again, it seems one must work, even love to acquire and maintain justification in the Catholic version.

Again by your version you must be continually justified to remain seated in heavenly places. Others make distinction between justification (coming to know Him and being made a child), and sanctification (growing in Him) and glorification (being made most like Him ). Your version you are always striving to be hopefully be His child, to be justified.

 

[fhansen]

Again, it seems one must work, even love to acquire and maintain justification in the Catholic version.

Again by your version you must be continually justified to remain seated in heavenly places. Others make distinction between justification (coming to know Him and being made a child), and sanctification (growing in Him) and glorification (being made most like Him ). Your version you are always striving to be hopefully be His child, to be justified.

Protestantism seems confused on this to be honest. Vigilance, perseverance, striving, personal responsibility, are good. Paul strove, to attain the resurrection. God wants us to have character, to perfect us, which comes as a person owns more and more of their right choices, not without His help. We’re not like some passive doll that sits back and gets stuffed with whatever God wants to give, as long as we believe. We’re to participate in our justification, to grow in it. We can’t remain unjust (by merely being declared just or righteous) and then be expected to act justly. And yet I’m sure you’d agree that we can’t act in gross injustice regardless of our level of faith; we cannot return to sin that constitutes a turning away from God and love and still consider ourselves justified/saved. What we do counts. And as long as we do right, we can have a strong level of confidence that we’re in His Kingdom. Man’s obligation to be righteous did not change with the New Covenant. He was given the authentic means to finally fulfill it now, in fact, God’s means, after exhausting our own.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

He does not qualify “works” as “of the Law” in chapter 4.

So we are going to just have to agree to disagree here. It is very clear he is speaking of the OT Mosaic law, that was the debate for the early Christian, since most were Jewish and some were wanting to continue the law and have the Gentiles do the same. They needed a clarification.

We are not saved by anything we do at all , not even our “cooperation” with Christ.

Hmm…Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

So I won’t quote all of Matthew 25 but your statement definitely disagrees and Jesus and his instructions for being called a good and faithful servant when entering heaven or not if choose not to cooperate. It disagrees with the whole sermon on the mount. It also disagrees with Him when He instsructed the rich young ruler to keep the commandments and sell everything he had in order to have eternal life, the book of James and so much more Scripture. Not only that, 1500 years of Christianity.

The Catholic way of solving the problem appears to be to assert that Paul and James are talking about different kinds of works,

Yes, and correctly so, as seen here. It is different types of works:

If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

These are now instructions for the new Church, the New Israel, walking in obedience to Christ and following His commands to walk in love.

It is man’s interpretation or as St. Peter said in Peter 2: 3, man is twisting St. Paul’s words that cause confusion.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

If Paul denies that Abraham was justified by works and James claims that he was, then we do have a potential contradiction

Nope. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. All of Scripture compliments Scripture.

It’s just that I think that…

We always need to read the Scriptures under the supervision of the Catholic church as it is led by the Holy Spirit. We can’t go by what we think but what the Holy Spirit says is true. One can think something and truly believe he is right and be completely wrong.

However, that verse does not use adjectival alone (“faith that is alone”), but adverbial alone (“only by faith”).

You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone., NIV

Ye see then how that of works a man is justified, and not of faith only. Geneva Study Bible

I am not sure how else you can switch that sentence around.

On Monday nights on EWTN is a show called The Journey Home. I used to watch it when I was evangelical. It was a very big eye opener. I heard Marcus Grodi, an ex protestant pastor himself interview other ex protestant pastors, and one thing they would occassionaly mention that as protestant pastors, Bible verses that were difficult to understand, or went against protestant theology, they skipped over them, or ignored them.

The book of James has bothered protestants since Martin Luther. I was told that as an evangelical also, that is too hard of a book to understand. I rarely heard anyone preach from it, except to say similar things to what you are saying but it just is not a clear understanding of Scripture.

As I said I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree but I pray God will bring you into His Church soon as it is a joyous place to be.

God bless.

 

[mcq72]

Vigilance, perseverance, striving, personal responsibility, are good. Paul strove, to attain the resurrection. God wants us to have character, to perfect us, which comes as a person owns more and more of their right choices, not without His help. We’re not like some passive doll that sits back and gets stuffed with whatever God wants to give, as long as we believe

Amen brother. We believe and use the scriptural terms sanctification, and glorification for what you rightly just posted.

Again a fine line of justification term yet important line , to keep from any self justification and truly resting on Christ and Holy Spirit. I am sure you feel that is properly answered and understood in Catholic theology.

Pretty sure the other side of fine line is to keep from sloppy agape or need to seek out our destined good works or to live holy lives etc. And as you might guess, our theology also answers these concerns.

Finally, I think we can both admit that though both theologies are well intentioned, actual respective practices for some fall short per both each others concerns, as born out in our histories.

Lol…not sure error is always well intentioned but self seving sometimes (of which side of that fine line to doctrinally rest on), but did not know how to figure that in above and may be mute to my point anyways, which was to highlight agreements and differences, and not any motive behind respective conclusions (whole other thread).

 

[mcq72]

Man’s obligation to be righteous did not change with the New Covenant

Yes, correct but He is is never indebted to us for any righteous works. We are always indebted to the price/ work(s) He does for us, in us, through us.

 

[mcq72]

And as long as we do right, we can have a strong level of confidence that we’re in His Kingdom.

Hmmm, there is that fine line, catch. Some might say really? Your confidence rests on your disposition?

But, but I partly agree. It is in invigorating to be used of Him. It us invigorating to declare His mercy, grace and goodness where we once did the opposite. Nothing like the demonstration of His power thru the Word working in us for encouragement that indeed His Seal is in us, on us.

Yes I am encouraged of any good work you and I do in Christ. His Truth marches on thru us, and we be marching on.

But wow to any most miserable man that tries to self justify, for one who sees he sometimes does what he would not, and not what he would, forgetting the grace and mercy and work of God thru Christ Jesus.

 

[fhansen]

Amen brother. We believe and use the scriptural terms sanctification, and glorification for what you rightly just posted.

We call it working out our salvation, again, with the following simple formula which is a very important distinction IMO:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

We don’t have to love. And God will give us all we need in order to love, but we can say no.

 

[Johan]

Nope. The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. All of Scripture compliments Scripture.

You do not seem to follow what I’m saying. Any two statements on the form “X” and “not X” are by definition mutual contradictions. So if one writer says “Abraham was justified by works” and the other says “No, he wasn’t”, then we indeed have a contradiction before us—unless they are using the words in different ways. So that is a good reason to investigate what the words involved may mean.

We always need to read the Scriptures under the supervision of the Catholic church as it is led by the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, but I cannot be gentle about this. I am of the firm conviction that the “supervision” of the Catholic church will guide the individual into error upon error. The fact that you react to my phrase “I think” is tragic enough since you seem to imply that your church does not encourage its members to think for themselves. That is called brainwashing (rather than supervision).

I am not sure how else you can switch that sentence around.

“You see that man is justified by works and not only by faith.” That is the adverbial use of “alone”, although clarified by the other word “only”. It’s like saying “You see that it is possible to get to the United States by boat and not by airplane alone.” The underlying idea is not that a traveler will go to the US by boat and airplane at the same time. Hence, James is describing two “modes” of justification; by faith and by works respectively.

The book of James has bothered protestants since Martin Luther.

Well, to be completely honest, there is one thing about that epistle that bugs me. And that is not James 2:24, which I simply think that Catholics have severely misunderstood because it seems to fit their theology. It is rather the fact that it says virtually nothing about the Gospel, which is Christ having been crucified for our sins and raised for our justification. I can’t help wondering why he is so silent on this.

As I said I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree but I pray God will bring you into His Church soon as it is a joyous place to be.

Thanks, but we will just have to continue to agree to disagree. I am so thoroughly repulsed by Catholic theology that to me it is not merely the matter of a different theology than the one I adhere to, but a different religion altogether.

 

[fhansen]

Hmmm, there is that fine line, catch. Some might say really? Your confidence rests on your disposition?

Not really what was said. Our confidence rests on God’s promises and our responses to them; again, a cooperative effort. Disposition is not the right term; fruit would be.

 

[Johan]

We call it working out our salvation, again, with the following simple formula which is a very important distinction IMO:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

Does that mean that unbelievers may pass the judgment? It’s not like love is an exclusively Christian quality. There are even many agnostics and atheists out there who are loving individuals. Why do you need a Savior at all if it is by your capacity to love that you expect to enter Heaven?

 

[mcq72]

At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

Totally agree, at the judgement seat of Christ. If you are there, you are already in heaven, having been found written in the Lamb’s book
of life.

But if that is too much and more simply put, our works and love will be judged not for entry into heaven but for reward and glorification purposes.

As Johan points out , many non believers have loved even to the greatest degree, having died for another, even for strangers or enemies.

 

[fhansen]

But if that is too much and more simply put, our works and love will be judged not for entry into heaven but for reward and glorification purposes.

We’ll be judged, for heaven or hell, on our love. That’s the gospel, the New Covenant, in a nutshell.

 

[mcq72]

It’s just that I think that…

We all go by what we think, as it should be. It is our God given dignity and responsibility.

You think you are led by the Spirit to go by what the Spirit told your church. It is still your choice and your thinking what is right. Every one has to think for themselves here.

Jesus never condemned people thinking for themselves but for sure for thinking wrongly. I mean He knew , even asked the apostles about all the opinions out there about whom Jesus was. He hever criticized any individuals or corporate groupings (zealots, pharisees, sangedrin, rabbis) for thinking.

Jesus also asked the apostles to think also think for themselves for an opinion, and not because they had any particular authority or office, being only disciples of just one more rabbi amongst many ( according to the culture, the " people".).