What did Paul mean to be Justified by Faith?

[Lazerlike42]

•     James goes out of his way to tell us that faith alone is not enough.  His entire epistle was written to counter certain people who at the time were teaching things like salvation by faith alone.  He tells us many things.  He tells us that even demons believe in Jesus, and believe He is the son of God, and call Him Lord. (2:19)  He gives the most important statement on faith and works in the entire Bible in 2:20-24.  He says, “Faith without works is useless.”  He says, “You see that man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”(2:24)  Non-Catholics say that he means that if we have real faith, we will show works, and that the works are essentially a side-effect of faith, and that they are outward evidence of inward faith.  They say that we do not need to do works, but that works are the natural result of faith and that if a man doesn’t do works it just means he has no faith, because real and true faith leads to works.  This is simply not what James says.  He does not say man is justified by faith alone but that works are evidence of it.  He says men are justified by works.  He is very straightforward, and he even makes sure to be very clear to avoid misunderstanding.  To be clear, he makes sure to tell us about Abraham.  In 2:21-22, he says, “Wasn’t Abraham justified by his works when he offered his son Issac on the altar?”  Then he tells us that Abraham’s works perfected his faith.  Abraham already had faith, but it was his works that made his faith mean something.  This story is put in for the specific reason of making sure we don’t misunderstand James as non-Catholics do.  (They don’t do it on purpose of course, they’re not trying to ignore God.  They believe what they do because they were taught it by their parents, and them by theirs, and them by theirs, and so on back to Luther and Calvin).  This verse was so much against Martin Luther that he even went so far as to say that he did not want the book of James in his Bible!  He had such a difficult time trying to argue faith alone in light of this verse that instead of change his view, he would rather change the Bible, which is exactly what Catholics are accused of all the time!

•     The idea that true faith always leads to works is just wrong, and you can tell just by thinking about your experiences.  True faith can lead to works, yes.  In fact, it is only through the Grace of God that we are able to do good works at all.  If not for the Grace He gives us, we are too selfish and wicked ourselves to do anything.  However, I am sure that you know some people who do not have faith who do good works.  Their works are a result of God’s Grace working in them, but they don’t know it, and they have no faith in Him.  Even more importantly, look at yourself.  Have you ever just been too lazy to do something?  Or too selfish?  Has there been a time when your faith told you that you should give your money to the poor instead of buying a new television, or that you should help your family instead of going out?  Did you buy the TV set or go out anyways, and then feel guilty about it?  Do you believe in Christ?  If you can answer yes to these questions, then you do have true faith but you did not perform a work!  True faith can lead to works, but it does not always lead to works.  When we do good works, it is often a sacrifice for us to do so, and sacrifices are hard, and a personal choice, and we often choose not to make them.  The non-Catholic perspective often (though of course not always) denies the idea that we have to make sacrifices in our lives for God.

•     Our faith allows us to do good works, but it does not force us to.  As any Christian will tell you, God loves us so much He gave us free will.  That is why we can choose between Heaven and Hell, even though He wants us to choose Heaven.  If faith always resulted in us performing good works, that would mean God forces us to do good works, which completely goes against the idea that He gave us free will.

Also see here:
web.archive.org/web/20040218010840/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ498.HTM

web.archive.org/web/20040216000122/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ52.HTM

cin.org/users/james/files/justcath.htm

web.archive.org/web/20040218151229/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ447.HTM

web.archive.org/web/20040203201007/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ254.HTM

For something simple, go here: ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ90.HTM

If you won’t read these, do you really have that much faith in your position? Or do you really want to make sure beyond any doubt that you are really following the will of God? Isn’t He worth it?

 

[Church_Militant]

“Justification by faith alone” is not a “Protestant message,” it’s Paul’s. Was Paul a “Protestant?” Protestants have simply gone back to Paul’s teaching that salvation and justification are clearly by grace through faith

as revealed in his Epistles. In fact, Rome would do well to carefully examine the Epistle written to them (Romans).
Y’know…it’d be really nice if, when you choose to quote a non-Catholic’s opinion on something that you’d have the courtesy to post the link you took it from because this all shows signs of being something from a characteristically anti-Catholic site.

Your assertion that " Protestants have simply gone back to Paul’s teaching that salvation and justification are clearly by grace through faith as revealed in his Epistles. " is patently untrue, since this doctrine is part of the new wind of doctrines that only began to blow through Christianity less than 500 years ago. Moreover, the early church did not believe this as their writings show…

See here’s how you do this for future reference:
Protestants do not all agree with each other even on this pet doctrine.
"Disunity on "Faith Alone"

Lutherans understand the formula of sola fide in a way that does not exclude baptism as a means of justification, as do some Anglicans, some Presbyterians in relation to elect infants, and members of the Campbellite or “Church of Christ” movement. For many Protestants, however, the idea of baptism as a means of salvation is seen as a direct violation of sola fide. This division goes back to the early days of the Protestant Reformation, as illustrated by Luther’s Large Catechism, in which he excoriates Anabaptists for the new, non-baptismal interpretation they were giving his “faith alone” formula.

Following their founder, Lutherans also understand sola fide in a way that allows salvation to be lost, as do most Methodists, Wesleyans, Pentecostals, Charismatics, and many Anglicans. However, Calvinists, Baptists, and many non-denominational Evangelicals influenced by Calvinists hold that, if it is possible to lose salvation, then justification is accomplished in part by one’s “works” (in this case, avoiding the sins that would cause its loss), which is a violation of sola fide. (Those who concede the possibility of losing salvation are also split on the possibility of regaining it after a fall.)

Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Pentecostals, and many Anglicans and Baptists understand sola fide in a way that requires one to repent of one’s sins in order to be justified. However, some Baptists, non-denominational Evangelicals, and especially many Dispensationalists hold that, if repentance is understood as involving a behavioral change whereby one turns away from one’s sinful pattern of life, then salvation is in some measure “by works,” violating sola fide.

One of the most contentious points among Protestants is the meaning of the term faith in “faith alone.” It is widely recognized, per James 2:14–26, that not all forms of faith justify. However, there is great disagreement over the nature of “saving faith” or “justifying faith.” Some Protestants, such as Z. Hodges and C. C. Ryrie, appear to hold that saving faith consists of a person’s recognition and acceptance of the fact that Christ died for him (part of what Catholics call the virtue of faith). Others, such as R. C. Sproul, insist that saving faith includes a conscious decision to trust Christ for salvation (equivalent to what Catholics call the virtue of hope). Still others, in keeping with Galatians 5:6, insist that saving faith includes trust and results in a life of good works, which are inspired by supernatural love (equivalent to what Catholics call the virtue of charity).

Various Protestants will also add into the definition of faith the need for faith to be expressed in baptism, the need for faith to be expressed in repentance, the need for faith to be expressed in good works, the need for a particular form of emotional confidence, the need to have faith in God rather than “faith in one’s own faith,” and other qualifiers.

Those who do not share the same understanding of saving faith are, by necessity, looked upon as having a false understanding of “faith alone.” Disunity on Essentials where you can read the context of the article by Jimmy Akin

 

[linus]

- Catholics do not believe that a man can be saved by his own works.

•     Catholics believe that only faith can save a person, and that works must go side by side along with it.  Catholics believe that works without faith will not save anybody.

This translates into faith PLUS works. But that is not Pauline soteriology based on his Epistles (especially Roman three to four), as the originator of this thread rightly pointed out:

“But to the one who DOES NOT work, but BELIEVES in Him who justifies the UNGODLY (not after he has proven his godliness by a lifetime works), his FAITH (not works) is reckoned as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5).

Paul teaches in Ephesians that one is saved by grace through faith…it’s a GIFT of God; not as a result of works (Eph. 2:8). Then goes on to say that the believer is “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works” (2:10). In other words, works follow regeneration, they are not at all considered FOR salvation.

Hey, these aren’t my words, they’re Paul’s.

Gotta run…

 

[gusano]

justcatholic:

I believe one of the hardest Protestant objections to answer is when a evangelical presents the argument from Paul’s epistle to the Romans as found in chapters 3,4 and 5 on being justified by Faith. I know many will say that faith and works go hand in hand, because of what James says in his epistle of 2:24.

                               But when one reads what Paul says in the above chapters, he does seem to be saying that one is justified and declared righteous before God by simple faith or belief in Jesus Christ and what he has done for the believer.Paul **doesn't** mention works **with** faith at all, but simply believing. So how do you approach this difficult objection?

(1)…It is easy for a novice to confuse “a passing thought” with “FAITH” Which is what many “faith alone” proponents do.

I believe Rom. 4: 20,- 25 sets it quite straight.
v:21**" fully persuaded that God could DO whatever He had promised." **

God made the Covenant with Abraham ** AFTER he had proved his loyalty by offering Isaac.** (Gen 22:12, 15 )

(2)… The problem enters in through the door of SLOTH (one of the 7 deadly sins) …Rom. 4: 5 is the heart of “reformer faith”.
The idea of “doing nothing” yet being credited as justice attracts many “lazies”.

(3)… reformers have not yet figured out the difference between a “credit” and an “OATH”
"a credit" was given to Abram in Gen. 15:6…for accepting “a good idea”. …that is infant faith.

"an OATH" was given to him in Gen. 22: 15 after He proved his loyalty “fully persuaded that God would Give him back his son Isaac, after he had offered him as a burnt offering.” Rom. 4:21

(4)… reformers grab the infant faith …but steer clear of a “Proven Faith”…(mature Faith)…the difference between Rom. 4:5 … and 4:21.

(5)… Romans 4: 21 points exactly to The promise Jesus makes in John 6: 51 & 53, …connected to Matt. 26: 28
" fully persuaded that Jesus Christ, the Son of The Living God, can DO what He has promised; …namely,
GIVE US HIS FLESH TO EAT, AND HIS BLOOD TO DRINK. thereby fulfilling in us The New Covenant Promised…
in Jer. 31: 33,34.

(6)… In summary;
The FAITH of Abraham in Rom. 4: 21 , & Gen. 22: 15 and
The FAITH of an ordinary catholic in ordinary time in John 6: 51-53, + Mt. 26: 26-28 …
are exactly the SAME.

(7)… The only difference is
Instead of OFFERING OUR SON…
WE OFFER OUR LIVING BODIES. …(Rom. 12: 1 )

for the Love of Christ, Just do it !

gusano

 

[Lazerlike42]

First of all, remember that the entire section from Romans 2-4 is about the works of the Law, not simply works in general. The Law is the Mosaic Law that the Jews followed (this is not something any Protestant would dispute, but just to be clear: it’s the only law that there was at the time). Paul talks about the works of the Law a lot, because he was constantly running into people who were telling Christians that they had to follow the Mosaic Law to be saved, and do things like get circumcised (Paul practically wages a vendetta against circumcision throughout all of his letters; he HATES it). This is the first point. Usually, when Paul says works, he ads the words, “of the law” onto the end. The truth is that almost always when Paul talks about works he is talking about works of the law. When he is talking about works in Romans 4:5 he is talking about works of the law.

We actually know that in this chapter Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law, specifically circumcision. Read 4:10. IMMEDIATELY after Paul starts says works don’t save men, he says, “How then was it credited–while he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while he was circumcised, but uncircumcised.” So essentially, Paul gives this critique of works, then he says, 'So after I said all that, tell me: did circumcision justify Abraham?" He very clearly is talking about the Mosaic Law and circumcision. This entire passage is meant to explain to people why circumcision is not required.

After this, Paul explains WHY faith the key to justification. Read verse 4:16 -

“This is why the promise is by faith, so that it may be according to grace, to guarantee it to all the descendants–not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of Abraham’s faith.”

Faith is key so that Jews may be saved, but also so that anybody who has faith in God may be too. This is very important. Faith is not simply chosen arbitrarily. It is chosen for the very specific purpose of allowing non-Jews to be saved. The Jews were the only ones who up until that point had had any fellowship with God. They were a part of the old covenant, because the old covenant was entered into by being born a Jew. A Gentile could not enter into the old covenant no matter what. If faith could let a person have fellowship with God, then the Gentiles too could be saved. A gentile could follow every Mosaic law perfectly and it wouldn’t do him any good. Faith saved Gentiles from this problem, because it made it possible for them to enter into the new covenant. They didn’t have to be born a Jew, they just had to have faith.

Once you understand that faith is not arbitrary, and you understand it’s purpose, it becomes easier to see why works are needed in conjunction with faith. Before Jesus, faith was pretty unimportant. All that really mattered was following the law. Jesus changed this. The works of the LAW are not required, but some works are. Jesus tells us what these are in plenty of cases. Matthew 19:18-21 is a good example. Works of the old covenant are NOT required. Only a Jew could practice works of the old covenant, because the were prescribed for Jews. A gentile could follow every Mosaic law perfectly and it wouldn’t do him any good because God had no covenant (agreement) with these people. However one who has faith, be they Jew or Gentile, by the virtue of their faith enters into the new convenant. Having faith is a way of saying, “I agree to the terms of the new covenant.” Once a person is IN this covenant, they must follow the agreement and hold up their end of the bargain.

In other words, the old covenant won’t save anybody: it did not have Christ. Only the new covenant can save a person, because only the new covenant DOES have Christ. Faith ALONE can enter a person into the new covenant. It’s almost like a signature on a contract. It’s a little bit more complicated than that, but that is accurate. Of course once a person signs a contract, he must follow the things the contract says, and once a person has faith in Christ, he must follow what Christ says.

[continued below - the most important is yet to come]

 

[Lazerlike42]

[continued from below]

This is why works are required too: Christ, as part of His agreement, requires works. The works don’t save a person, or even do all that much to help save a person. However, a person who does not perform works is not following the requirements of the new covenant. Just like a person who doesn’t follow the rules of a contract is in breach of it and loses what he is entitled to by virtue of it, a person who doesn’t follow the requirements of the new covenant is in breach of it and doesn’t receive what the covenant promises him.

In Romans, Paul talks about the promise, and how it is by faith. The promise is a promise of salvation. This is promised to people by the new covenant, a covenant entered into by faith. Once a person is in it, he must follow it. This means following Jesus’ words. He tells us many things. He tells us we must confess our sins. This is a requirement of the covenant. He tells us we must not kill, or steal, or commit adultery. These are requirements of the new covenant. He tells us we must love God (which is different from having faith, by the way) and one another. He tells us we must help those without and those in need. These are all works we must do because they are required by the new covenant, which is entered into by faith alone. The works, though, are required to fulfill our half of the new covenant, the new agreement.

This is why works alone don’t do a thing. Works alone are obviously good, aren’t they? Nobody is going to criticize an atheist for running a homeless shelter or devoting his life to feeding the hungry. This is what plenty of atheists say, they say that if there is a God He will save them because of the good things they have done. As Christians, we always tell them this isn’t good enough, and they say that God isn’t a very good God then. This actually seems like a valid objection! They are wrong, though, because of the fact that our salvation is a matter of a covenant, an agreement. We are all sinners and not worthy of Heaven. We are all in agreement on this point. God promises us that we WILL reach Heaven, though, if we are a part of His covenant, a covenant which only faith can enter into. Think of a contract where a city agrees to pay $500 to a man to clean up the park. If the man cleans up the park, he makes the $500. But now say you go down to the park, and just for the sake of doing good, you clean up the park. You aren’t going to get paid, because you aren’t a part of the contract. This is how the covenant works.

[continued below]

 

[Lazerlike42]

[continued]

God’s promise, salvation and the new covenant, is ONLY accessible by faith. Faith ALONE can enter you into this covenant. Works won’t get you in. Doing good works would be like cleaning the park with no contract: it’s a nice thing to do, but doesn’t get you anything. However, once you have faith, and once you are in the covenant, you must follow the rules of the covenant. These include no murder, no stealing, no fornication, love God, love your neighbors, confess, help the poor, and so on. If you don’t do these things, you are booted from the covenant because you aren’t following the rules. This is why Catholics say faith and works are required together. Faith is absolutely far above works and very predominant. However, once you have faith, you have to do what God wants.

This is what James tells us in James 2. Thbe famous verse is 2:24 - “You see therefore that a man is saved by works, and not by faith alone.” James does not mean the Mosaic law. He is talking about the works that the new covenant requires. The arguement is that true faith always results in works. The problem with this is James 2:22, where he says,

“Do you see how faith worked with his [Abraham’s] works, and from the works faith was made complete?”

James doesn’t says that Abraham’s works were evidence of his faith, he says they made his faith complete. They also say faith worked with his works. This is vitally important. The idea of faith working with works is strictly Catholic. The Protestant idea that works are evidence of faith doesn’t fit with this verse. The verse very clearly talks about faith and works as two seperate and different entities which work together. The Protestant idea says that faith alone is the only thing that works to save a person, and that works are a result. James doesn’t say this. He says the two work together. The way they work together is not that works are equal to faith. Faith is the most important. It enters into the covenant. The works serve to AFFIRM a person’s commitment to faith, not to serve as result or as evidence. Pay close attention to James’ grammar here. If works were evidence, or a result, they would be passive in the sentence. They are not. They are active in the sentence.

I really hope this helps. This is the most thoroughly I have ever written on this topic. I can go deeper, but I really urge you to read this carefully and re-read it. I’ve tried to be as simple as I can, too. God bless, and Peace be with you!

 

[linus]

Lazerlike42:

First of all, remember that the entire section from Romans 2-4 is about the works of the Law, not simply works in general.

NO! YOU ERROR!!! In Romans four Paul refers to Abraham, and Abraham lived long BEFORE the Law was delivered at Mt Sinai to Israel. Check out the context:

“What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh (not Law), has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness…” (Rom. 4:1-6).

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Law, but “simply works in general.” The Law would not be delivered to Israel for another 400 years.

In fact Paul covers both bases when he then refers to David who was born under the Law. David, born under the Law, was also*“reckoned righteousness”* even apart from the works of the Law (see Rom. 4:6-9).

Bottom line, in Romans four (and, as I pointed out in my previous posts, consistently throughout all his Epistles) Paul clearly teaches that righteousness is based on FAITH apart from any works whatsoever - personal works or works based on the Law. According to God’s Word, righteousness is based entirely on faith in Jesus Christ, Why is that so difficult to understand? Why do men so vehemently oppose such wonderful GRACE? True salvation faith rests in what only Christ could do for us on the cross through his substitutionary death.

 

[justcatholic]

It does seem to say Abraham believed God. Paul doesn’t say God imputed righteousness to Abraham for what he did, but that he simply believed God. That belief or faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness and so Abraham was justified before God.
Since this **does ** seem to be the case, we all will be going to heaven by our faith in Christ and his finished work, rather than all the works we accomplish. This is what Romans 4 and 5 clearly seem to say to me.

 

[gardenswithkids]

linus:

In Romans four Paul refers to Abraham, and Abraham lived long BEFORE the Law was delivered at Mt Sinai to Israel. Check out the context:.

Agreed! And Abraham also lived long BEFORE the Christian faith. St. Paul also makes it clear that he is referring to the works of the Jewish Law in Chapter 4, citing that Abraham wasn’t even circumcised yet when his faith saved him (Romans 4:12). The fact that Moses hadn’t received Jewish law yet further highlights that the works of Jewish law aren’t necessary for salvation. Hence, Catholics consider it fine to eat pork. Catholics do not believe our salvation is tied to the works of Jewish Law

linus:

Bottom line, in Romans four (and, as I pointed out in my previous posts, consistently throughout all his Epistles) Paul clearly teaches that righteousness is based on FAITH apart from any works whatsoever - personal works or works based on the Law. According to God’s Word, righteousness is based entirely on faith in Jesus Christ,

When St. Paul talks about Abraham being justified by faith, he is not talking about Abraham’s faith in the name of Jesus. (Although the Holy Trinity is eternal, so Abraham’s faith in God included Jesus even if Abraham didn’t know Him by that name.) So there must have been something else about the faith of Abraham that we should imitate: Abraham’s faith was an obedient faith. I see Abraham’s faith involved personal work. Most of the stories told about Abraham involve personal work that he did because God told him to do it which he did and it demonstrated Abraham’s faith in God. That obedient faith literally helped bring Jesus into the world.

linus:

Why do men so vehemently oppose such wonderful GRACE? True salvation faith rests in what only Christ could do for us on the cross through his substitutionary death.

Well, now your back to grace, and I agree with you that salvation rest on Christ. As you argue with Catholics over faith and works, please remember that we agree on the issue of grace. Both faith and works are a grace from God.

I see faith and works as two different sides of the same coin that God hands us when He offers us the grace of salvation through Jesus. They go together. If I reject faith, then any works I do are not done for the glory of God and they do me no good. If I reject the works that He has prepared for me to do, then I reject faith in Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 2:10 For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life)

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Justification - Setting the Record Straight
by James Akin

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp

Justification by Faith Alone
by James Akin

cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

 

[Lazerlike42]

OK looks like I’m going to have to go deeper (though you haven’t replied to the brunt of my statements, especially James 2:22)

Let’s start in Romans 2, where this whole line of thinking begins. Paul starts off telling us that, Rom 2:6 - “He will repay each one according to his works.” Based on this alone, it would be possible to take Paul to mean the Protestant doctrine that men’s rewards in Heaven will be proportinate to his works. However, if we continue forward, we will see that this is not what Paul means. First Paul makes the statement that we will be repaid according to our works. Pay attention to what he says next:

Rom 2:7-8:“eternal life to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but wrath and indignation to those who are self-seeking and disobey the truth, but are obeying unrighteousness”

The payments that we will receive according to our works don’t concern different levels of rewards, but concern either eternal life or wrath and indignation. Read it all together now:

“He will repay each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but wrath and indignation to those who are self-seeking and disobey the truth, but are obeying unrighteousness”

It is abundantly clear that Paul here says that we will be rewarded based on our works with either eternal life or wrath and indignation. Are wrath and indignation things we are going to receive in Heaven? Of course not! Paul isn’t talking about Heavenly rewards here; he is telling us that if we, to use Paul’s own words, patiently do good, we will receive eternal life. There is no hint of faith here.

But Paul’s point continues to build. This was just an introduction. Next, he tells us that this promise is valid for the Jew as well as the Gentile (2:10). Only after the Jews are mentioned is the law brought into things. He does this because he has to explain how the law plays into salvation because of the reliance the Jews have on it. He has to begin to explain why the Gentiles can be saved even without the law. Paul begins by telling us that if a person follows the law, he is declared righteous (2:13). This doesn’t seem to fit with his other statements that doers of the law won’t be justified, though. He starts to get into why next, when he goes through a list of how the Jews, who have the law, don’t even follow it (2:16-24).

Following this, Paul begins to talk about circumcision. Here he is talking about God’s covenant with His people. Circumcision was a rite performed on every Jew as a sign that they were a part of the covenant, the agreement, with God. However, in 2:26, Paul tells us that if a circumcised man does not follow the law, that his circumcision is “counted as uncircumcision,” or in other words, that because of his disobedience the man who doesn’t follow the law is no longer a part of the covenant. Those who don’t follow the law, Paul says, break their side of the covenant, and may as well be uncircumcised because they have no fellowship with God. Next Paul goes on to say that even an uncircumcised person who does follow the law is more pleasing to God because he is following His commandments.

[continued]

 

[Lazerlike42]

[continued from below]

After saying this, Paul wants to make clear that the Jews do have an advantage of naturally belonging to the covenant with God. In 3:1-2, he explains how Jews do have an advantage because they were entrusted with God’s Word. Next, he wants to explain that God is still faithful to his people even though some don’t believe. God is better than His people: He remains faithful to the Jews even though they haven’t remained faithful to Him. Starting in 3:5, Paul begins to talk about how nobody actually follows the law. He speaks about how we in our sinfulness show the true goodness of God. He begins by asking one of the oldest atheist questions in the book: how can a righteous God send people to Hell? (3:5-8) He expected this objection all the way 2000 years ago!

Finally, in 3:9 Paul explicitly tells us that nobody follows the law. Remember, he just spent most of chapter 2 explaining that anybody who follows the law is justified, and even Gentiles who follow the law are more pleasing than Jews who don’t. After saying all that, he tells us that this doesn’t matter because there is no person who actually follows the law. This is the entire point of 3:9-19. In 3:20, Paul tells us that “For no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the law.” He is CLEARLY talking about the law here. He has been since chapter 2.

Any Protestant will recognize what Paul is doing here: he is preaching the law as a means of evangelization! Every Protestant book I have ever read says that the first step to converting a person is to preach the law to them, and then to explain to them how they are not following it. This is exactly what Paul is doing here. It’s really quite amazing! Paul has made the point that if we are to be in fellowship with God, we must follow the law. Next he made the point that we don’t and can’t follow the law. He’s bringing people to ask the question: what can we do? Paul has this question set up perfectly so that he can answer resoundingly with the name of Jesus Christ.

Paul here starts talking about faith in Jesus Christ. He begins to talk about how faith in Christ can save us. He makes this point from 3:24-28. In fact, in 3:28, Paul does say “For we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law.” What Paul doesn’t mean by this is that we are saved by faith alone. He means that we are saved by faith, and that works of the law can’t do it. Ever since chapter 2, Paul has been talking about works of the law. He has not once stopped. He tells us that works of the law can’t do it for us, but that faith can. In saying faith, he not once exclude works. What he does do is say that works of the law by themselves can’t help us, and he spent most of chapter 3 explaining why: nobody really follows the law.

Verse 29-30 further emphasizes this:

“Or is God for Jews only? Is He not also for Gentiles? Yes, for Gentiles too, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith.”

Notice how Paul begins this sentence: “Or is God for the Jews only?” He is placing a distinction between faith being good enough for fellowship with God and God being only for the Jews. He makes it an either or. Either faith will earn friendship with God or God is only for the Jews. This is because, as I said in my previous post, the law was related to the covenant, which was only for the Jews. Paul is telling us that faith is used as the basis for friendship with God so that not only the Jews but also the Gentiles can have this fellowship with God.

Look what comes next: Paul wants to make sure that people don’t get confused, and think that faith alone is what he talks about. He makes it clear that faith does not abolish the law in verse 31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” The law is established through faith. This is exactly the point I made in my previous treatment of this topic. When one has faith, he is entered into a covenant, an agreement with God. The law is our half of this agreement, but not the old law, the new law, the law of following Jesus’ commandments, like those in Matthew 19:18. The law is established because, as Paul told us earlier in chapter 2, those not born under the law aren’t held to the law, but now Paul tells us that those entering into faith are held to the law that is established by our faith. By faith, we agree to follow Jesus’ law, and that is why our faith establishes it.

[continued]

 

[Lazerlike42]

[continued from below]

Now, still talking about the Law of the past, as he has been since chapter 2, Paul brings up Abraham as an example. He makes the point that Abraham did not have the law, but that he was justified because of his faith. Paul does not say faith alone, but that Abraham was justified by faith. It is very important to pay attention to where Paul is in his line of thinking. He began by saying that the law is needed to have fellowship with God. He next said that nobody followed the law, so nobody could have fellowship. He next says that faith in Christ can bring us fellowship with God even if we can’t follow the law. Now, in chapter 4, he is defending his claim by pointing out that it has happened before in Abraham.

Paul has to contest the Jewish arguements (even while writing to gentiles, because Jews would obviously speak to them) that only the law can bring fellowship with God. The Jews had a covenant with God. They would say that only through this covenant can one know God. Paul is making an apologetic point that even before the law, people were justified because of faith. He uses Abraham as an example. He never says that works are unecessary. He only says that works of the law are not necessary and uses Abraham, a man who never had the law, as an example.

Even here, in chapter 4, Paul is still in the middle of the same discussion he began in chapter 2 about the works of the law. He has been building a case ever since chapter 2 to prove to the Gentiles that they too could have fellowship with God and not just the Jews. This is the whole point of these 3 chapters. If you miss this, you miss Paul’s entire message. This is why Paul returns to the topic of circumcison in verses 9-10. Verse 9 is yet another instance where Paul points out that God is for the Gentiles too. He asks, " Is this blessing only for the circumcised, then? Or is it also for the uncircumcised?" He does this because his whole point in this entire discussion is about convincing the Gentiles that they could have God too. This is why he keeps repeating this point. He has a patter here: he offers arguements, and then says, 'see, Gentiles can have God too." Specifically, in verse 9, he says, 'after all I have said, let me ask you this: is God just for the circumcised?"

Paul continues his point throughout chapter 4. This is really the climax of his arguement. In verses 11-12, Paul explains the reason that Abraham had friendship with God both before and after his circumcision was so that he could be the father of every nation of God’s people: those born into the law, which would come after him, as Jews, and those whom had faith in God like he did before he became circumcised. Paul never, ever tells us that no works at all are required, he only tells us throughout this entire arguement that works of the law are not required, and that faith can be rewarded with God’s friendship, and that way the Gentiles, and those not born as Jews, could also worship and have the promises of God.

[continued]

 

[Lazerlike42]

[continued from below]

The old covenant was a promise from God to the Jews, to those born as Jews under the law, and circumcised. Circumcision signified a person being bound under the law and being held to it and entering into friendship with God. The new covenant is a promise from God to all people who have faith. Faith is the
“entrance fee” into the new covenant whereas circumcision and birthright alone could get a person into the new covenant. That way any person anywhere regardless of their birth could enter the covenant. It is true that faith alone can enter this covenant, but once in the covenant, one must follow the requirements set forth by the covenant. These requirements are the ones Jesus gives to us: love God, love one another, help the needy, don’t murder, don’t forincate, don’t seek revenge, and on so forth.

Paul furthers his point, hammering it home in chapter 4. Again and again and again he tells us how faith is the basis for friendship with God so that everyone, and not just the Jews could have it. In fact, the rest of chapter 4 is essentially a summary of the arguements that Paul presented in chapters 2, 3, and the first half of 4. This is what it is all about.

And remember, Paul starts by telling us that if we do good, we will inherit eternal life, and if we do not do good, we will inherit wrath and indignation. He begins chapter 2 by telling us this (2:4-8). Then, he explains that this is true for both the Jew and the Gentile (2:9-10). In verse 11, he tells us that “there is no favortism with God,” and that God looks upon the Jew and the Gentile equally. He then begins an arguement which lasts until the end of chapter 4, to explain why and to prove that the Gentiles are just as open to God’s love as the Jews. This is the point of 2:12 all the way to 4:25. 2:12-4:35 is Paul defending his claim that the Jews and Gentiles are both open to God. 2:12-4:25 is Paul defending his claim that if either Jew or Gentile do good they will inherit eternal life, and that if they do not do good, they will inherit wrath and idignation.

[finished]

 

[JKirkLVNV]

linus:

Why do men so vehemently oppose such wonderful GRACE? True salvation faith rests in what only Christ could do for us on the cross through his substitutionary death.

No Catholic would disagree with your last two sentences. Indeed, I think that the notion that we could add anything to what Jesus did for us on the Cross was anathematized by the Council of Trent. We believe in *Sola Gratia *and *Sola Christe. *We just don’t believe in *Sola Fide *because it runs contrary to the teachings of Christianity, if by *Sola Fide *you mean “fiduciary trust,” ie., “I trust you as my Savior, but I’m going to lead my life the way I bloody well please, but yeah, sure, you can save me” or if by *Sola Fide, *you mean simple belief in Jesus, as Saint James in his epsitle warned us that “the demons believe and tremble.”

I think we could bridge the gap between what Protestants believe and what Catholic believe if we could grasp that FAITH is the sum total of one’s life, from initial justification to the final perserverance of the soul that follows Christ. We cannot work our way into Heaven, but certainly works are necessary in a life of faith, otherwise it is patently NOT a life of faith (Saint James said that faith without works is dead, ie., unable and insufficient to save). Faith is allegience and following, not simply trusting, but trusting and obeying and following. Fellow Catholics, help me out here, is this sound?

 

[Lazerlike42]

It is sound. My last two treatments of this cover 4000 words and explain the concept of justification, and the way works and faith work in it, very thoroughly, especially the one further down that linus objected to. Unfortunately, I don’t think anybody is reading them because they’re so long. If they did, they’d understand the relationship between faith and works (especially from the one further down), and even why God wants faith from us (especially from the most recent one).

The ideas I wrote about brought me to a whole other level of understanding of this.

 

[kaycee]

** Why do men so vehemently oppose such wonderful GRACE? True salvation faith rests** in what only Christ could do for us on the cross through his substitutionary death.

AMEN!

Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, "

 

[Lazerlike42]

kaycee:

AMEN!

Titus 3:5 "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, "

Read 45-47, and 52-55.

Really. Quoting individual Bible verses out of context doesn’t do anything other than turn God into a sound byte. He’s worth so much more. His word is worth reading through and through, in its entirety. Picking individual verses to quote is just so demeaning to God and makes it as though all he is worth is a quick quote here and there.

If you want to understand how faith saves us, read 45-47.

If you want to understand why God chose faith to save us, read 52-55.

This will also help you respond to atheists objections that doing good works should be enough to please God.

 

[Lazerlike42]

James 2:22 (NOT 24! )

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.(NIV)

You see that faith was active together with his works, and by works, faith was perfected.(HCSB)

Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?(KJV)

Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? (NKJV)

dost thou see that the faith was working with his works, and out of the works the faith was perfected?(YLT)

---

Notice that in every translation, works is active in the sentence. Works cannot be a simple result of his faith, or evidence, because they are active. They are “working together with” his faith, not “shown as evidence of” or “resulting from” his faith.

Works are an active part of the sentence, not passive.

They are not by any means equal to faith, but they are “working together with” his faith as a lesser but active partner in the relationship.