Titus - Further Thoughts

[NoelFitz]

I have been studying the Pastoral Epistles, and I favor Pauline authorship.

The verses 3:12-15 are very personal and indicate Paul was the author of these. So even if Paul did not write all the PEs he wrote this epilogue.

Are the ethics in Titus merely good Roman pagan Stoic/Cynic ones? Here we see Paul advocated good works, but one is not justified thereby. There is a practical purpose.

And let people learn to devote themselves to good works in order to meet urgent needs, so that they may not be unproductive (Tit 3:14).

In this letter Paul clearly shows we are not justified by works.

[H]e saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit (Tit 3:5).

So here we see good works are recommended, but not as a means of justification. As Catholics we believe faith and good works are important, but we are saved by God’s grace, which is given to us as a gift.

Thus arguments that Titus is later than Paul and represents a more Catholic development of the authentic views of Paul are not sustainable.

Opus Dei advocates the importance of doing our everyday duties well as a way of getting closer to God. I think one’s choice of words are vital here, so as not to claim we are justified by works.

This is what I think, would you agree?

I would like to hear views about what Titus means to you.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think one’s choice of words are vital here, so as not to claim we are justified by works.

This is what I think, would you agree?

I would like to hear views about what Titus means to you.

It’s important to note that nothing we can do prior to justification can merit salvation. It is indeed grace alone. The Council of Trent said as much.*CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. (Session VI)*In Titus 3:5, Paul teaches us how baptism initiates justification. Flowing from this grace is a singular faith-works response that complete the process of justification. In Catholic theology, sanctification is considered part of justification. (search Trent for “sanctification” here.)

 

[StrawberryJam]

I have been studying the Pastoral Epistles, and I favor Pauline authorship.

The verses 3:12-15 are very personal and indicate Paul was the author of these. So even if Paul did not write all the PEs he wrote this epilogue.

Are the ethics in Titus merely good Roman pagan Stoic/Cynic ones? Here we see Paul advocated good works, but one is not justified thereby. There is a practical purpose.

In this letter Paul clearly shows we are not justified by works.

So here we see good works are recommended, but not as a means of justification. As Catholics we believe faith and good works are important, but we are saved by God’s grace, which is given to us as a gift.

Thus arguments that Titus is later than Paul and represents a more Catholic development of the authentic views of Paul are not sustainable.

Opus Dei advocates the importance of doing our everyday duties well as a way of getting closer to God. I think one’s choice of words are vital here, so as not to claim we are justified by works.

This is what I think, would you agree?

I would like to hear views about what Titus means to you.

Just wanted to let you know that I am interested in your thread and will be watching it.

Paul is a very interesting figure in Christianity.

 

[Crumpy]

This is a perennial quesion, isn’t it? I’m not sure it’s going to give us new information, do you think?

One thing that bothers me about re-hashing the subject is this: What about the whole Bible? Aren’t we supposed to consider what all of scripture says, not just dwell on Paul here versus Paul there?

Jesus’ parting words in Mt 28 tells His disciples to teach all nations “to observe” all that He has commanded. Well, that must mean to do something, “all” of something, too.

OK, here we go, what about James? wherein we see that faith without works is dead.

The entire outlook of Jewish thought is that the Torah is a guide to living, and as they specifically believe, a guide to everything in life, inasmuch as God has given many commandments for living.

Then, this gets more intriguing if we even begin to explore what works are commanded.

Through Ezra, the Jews believe it is their lifelong mission to study Torah, first, of the necessity to know what God thinks, as much as He has revealed Himself.

As the Talmud says, Parable. A man falls overboard from a ship at sea. The captain throws him a line, to help save his life. That line is God’s Torah (instruction, direction) – in general terms, to know God, to love God, and to serve God.

 

[NoelFitz]

MarcoPolo

Many thanks for your sound, carefully worded reply to me.

I agree with you to a great extent.

At times it seems to me that Catholics fear saying we are saved by grace alone. As this can sound like Protestantism. Sometimes we seem a bit like Pelagians as a reaction to Luther (or possibly Augustine).

I am pleased you refer to Titus 3:5, because I have just finished a study of this Epistle and I quote it in my post.

Both Catholics and Protestants consider grace important, even if the understanding of grace may differ.

Your reply is a little like the Irish directions “I wouldn’t start from here”. I would prefer to use different language from yours. But a challenge is to see how different words can explain the same thing.

I would claim that prior to justification is the same as prior to baptism. Justification is a term Catholics shy away from, because of its reformed connotations.

How do you define justification? I would see it as being right with Good.

Baptism is not grace, but a sacrament which gives grace. Would you agree?

You say a singular faith-works response completes the process of justification. I have a problem with this, as it seems we save ourselves by our response. I would prefer to thing we are justified by the grace we get at baptism. I know St Augustine said something about we are saved by our response to grace, but I have tried to find out what he actually said, but cannot find it.

However here I am out of my depth and I would accept the views of one who has more theological insight than I have.

 

[NoelFitz]

Crumpy,

Again I agree with much that you say.
However Judaism and Catholicism differ.

The understanding of faith/grace/Bible alone is not easy. Justification, righteousness and salvation are also difficult concepts.

The new perspective on Paul may help. The Law (circumcision etc.) was seen as a community marker. Similarly good works are markers for those who belong to God. But they do not save us. We saved by the grace of God.

Again I am not too clear in my thinking, so I may be wrong.

 

[COPLAND_3]

It is by grace alone that we are saved, nothing that we do has the power to make us right in God’s eyes, we just don’t have that kind of power, it all comes from God. But, God allows us to be a part of the process of receiving that grace, we have a free will to decide to receive it or not. God gave us the Sacraments which are a means to receive His graces. Baptism allows us to be justified because it washes away all our past sins and the sin we inherited from Adam. Then God gives us the Sacrament of Confession in order to deal with the sins we commit after Baptism. Sacraments are not something we do, but we receive them, but we are a part of the process and it does require an act of our will.

Good works and a pure and holy life are ways to store up treasure in Heaven as well as a way that conforms us into being like Christ. We need good works because we are called to be saints, that is who we are suppose to be. Christians need to not ask what they can get by with and still get to Heaven, but to ask what they can do to glorify God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

How do you define justification? I would see it as being right with Good.

Baptism is not grace, but a sacrament which gives grace. Would you agree?

You say a singular faith-works response completes the process of justification. I have a problem with this, as it seems we save ourselves by our response. I would prefer to thing we are justified by the grace we get at baptism.

Yes, your definition of justification is essentially correct. You enter a condition where you are due to inherit eternal life. Though the degree to which one is “justified” can be said to “increase.” Again, see Council of Trent, session 6, chapter X.

Baptism imparts grace, correct again.

The faith-works response is itself powered by the grace within us, so we do not say we “save ourselves.” As St. Augustine said, when God crowns our merits, it’s His own merits He crowns. (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will)

The Council of Trent said: "For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and* this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works**, which without it could not in any wise be pleasing and meritorious before God."*

In other words, our works have to have merit because they flow from the vine through us, the branches. So if our works done by grace do not have salvific value, then we are essentially saying Christ’s grace has no salvific value.

 

[NoelFitz]

Copland 3,

I am very pleased to hear from you, as I made a blunt (and perhaps unfair) comment about one of your replies, and I regretted it afterwards.

You write carefully and thoughtfully from within the Church.

I agree with much of what you wrote and you have expressed more concisely what I was trying to get at. In parts of your reply

You wrote

t is by grace alone that we are saved, nothing that we do has the power to make us right in God’s eyes, we just don’t have that kind of power, it all comes from God.

I agree.
You also wrote:

God allows us to be a part of the process of receiving that grace, we have a free will to decide to receive it or not. God gave us the Sacraments which are a means to receive His graces.

I agree.
You wrote:

Baptism allows us to be justified because it washes away all our past sins and the sin we inherited from Adam.

Here I would quibble a little. Baptism works ex opera operato, the grace comes from the sacrament itself, not from the intention of the baptized or advertising person. But of course the person being baptized must have the correct intention (either by himself/herself or the sponsors).

If justification means becoming right with God, we are justified by baptism.

Again I would quibble with

Good works and a pure and holy life are ways to store up treasure in Heaven.

I would like different words. Good works are ways for us to show we love God and our neighbor, and if we practice good works God may respond by giving us grace. God is free and grace is a gratuitous gift.

Again I emphasize I am a bit out of my depth here and may be wrong in what I write.

 

[NoelFitz]

MarcoPolo,

Again many thanks.

I agree with much of what you wrote. As a Catholic, how could I do otherwise?

But I quibble a bit with your last sentence:

In other words, our works have to have merit

Again grace is a gratuitous gift and we do not buy/merit grace by our good acts. The grace is freely given to us by God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, as you rightly say. Our good acts are a response to God’s love, both his love for us and our love for him, and our love of neighbor.

Again I may be wrong, so I am open to correction.

 

[MarcoPolo]

But I quibble a bit with your last sentence:

If works done in grace don’t have merit, then the grace didn’t really empower us, no?

 

[NoelFitz]

MarcoPolo
The key point is that grace is a gratuitous gift of God. So when a person is in the state of grace and performs a work God may give that person a gift of grace through the merits of Jesus Christ.

Does that make sense? I am a bit lost here.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Copland 3,

I am very pleased to hear from you, as I made a blunt (and perhaps unfair) comment about one of your replies, and I regretted it afterwards.

You write carefully and thoughtfully from within the Church.

I agree with much of what you wrote and you have expressed more concisely what I was trying to get at. In parts of your reply

You wrote

I agree.
You also wrote:

I agree.
You wrote:

Here I would quibble a little. Baptism works ex opera operato, the grace comes from the sacrament itself, not from the intention of the baptized or advertising person. But of course the person being baptized must have the correct intention (either by himself/herself or the sponsors).

If justification means becoming right with God, we are justified by baptism.

Again I would quibble with

I would like different words. Good works are ways for us to show we love God and our neighbor, and if we practice good works God may respond by giving us grace. God is free and grace is a gratuitous gift.

Again I emphasize I am a bit out of my depth here and may be wrong in what I write.

There is no need to feel abd, you said nothign inappropriate at all, I took no offense. I hope I was not too blunt, I find myself being that way at times not meaning to.

I have found that Catholic and Protestant explanations about works usually mean nearly the same thing but articulated differently with a different vocabulary. Sometimes some Catholics can sound too works oriented while some Protestants sound like works mean nothing. As I speak in Protestant lingo here, works are a result of a saving faith. But in Catholic lingo, unless those works are there then that faith is not a saving faith, as James says, “Faith without works are dead.” Protestants don’t like to say this, but works have to be there as a result of our faith. But some Protestants have a hard time spinning this when they support a once in grace always in grace.

 

[NoelFitz]

Copland 3

many thanks.

You explain the issue clearly. The words we use can muddy our agreements.

 

[MarcoPolo]

MarcoPolo
The key point is that grace is a gratuitous gift of God. So when a person is in the state of grace and performs a work God may give that person a gift of grace through the merits of Jesus Christ.

Does that make sense? I am a bit lost here.

That’s correct, grace is always a gift. Though I just don’t think you should shy away from language that also calls work or merit the possession of the person. Scripture itself uses such language.*Heb 6:10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them.*Again, the source that powers such work is God.

Remember the parable of the talents. The master gives 3 servants gifts of talents (i.e. an ancient term for money)—which enable them to go out and be fruitful such that when they return, the master entrusts them with more. The 3rd guy did nothing with the gift from the master. He is punished!

The first two had no capacity to be fruitful unless they first received the gift to which they responded. You see the parallel to grace? The master lets us share in his glory. He is very generous. So when we say even works done in grace are worthless, we are insulting the master who gave us the gift.

 

[NoelFitz]

MarcoPolo

Thanks for your reply.

Fundamentally we agree, even if my mode of expression differs.

Thanks for your clarity, which has helped my understanding

 

[COPLAND_3]

Copland 3

The words we use can muddy our agreements.

Very well said!