Why are the Protestants so misinformed with "works"?

[De_Maria]

cont’d

Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision

Well then, if even the Gentiles can keep the law, what advantage do we, the Jews, have.

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Well, we have the instruction of God, passed down to us through the Prophets.

3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, …

Is it God’s fault when a Jew fails to believe that which was revealed? Of course not.

5 But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) 6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

Is God wrong to punish us for doing evil? Of course not! How could God judge the world if He does not have the right to punish our wrong doing?

7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? 8… Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

But some say, “let us do evil in order to do good”. Their condemnation is deserved.

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

This is a statement that is hard to be understood (2 Pet 3:15-17). Does he mean that every single Jew and Gentile in the world is sinful and that none are righteous.

That can’t be true because there are many references to righteous Jews in Scripture. So, if it were true, he would be contradicting the written Word of God.

So, how do we harmonize? We can go to another Scripture where a similar statement is made and see what it means.

Psalm 14:1The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

So, it is fools who don’t believe in God who have not done any good and are therefore, not righteous.

So his point is that we’re all doomed.

On the contrary, only those who don’t believe in God. Those who don’t obey God. It is they who are doomed. The rest of us have a hope of salvation.

We’re going to be judged based on what we do, and none of us can do it - at all.

That’s how a faithless person speaks. Here’s what a faithful person thinks:

Rom 4:19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

It might seem impossible to you. But with God, all things are possible.

We are thus entirely reliant on God to save us.

Amen! Therefore, obey His Word.

Hebrews 5:9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

 

[TULIPed]

Let’s do it.

Paul is setting up an argument in Romans 2.

It is (true) according to the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops at least. From their commentary on Romans 2 http://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/2 :

“* [2:1–3:20] After his general indictment of the Gentile, Paul shows that in spite of special revelation Jews enjoy no advantage in moral status before God (Rom 3:1–8). With the entire human race now declared guilty before God (Rom 3:9–20), Paul will then be able to display the solution for the total problem: salvation through God’s redemptive work that is revealed in Christ Jesus for all who believe (Rom 3:21–31).” (Emphasis mine)

The point of Romans 1-2 is to argue that all are guilty and set up the solution to the problem - again, at least according to the USCCB.

(After re-reading this commentary, I must say it’s uncanny how similar it is to what I wrote off the cuff here (yes, I’m about to break my arm patting myself on the back )

So his point is that we’re all doomed. We’re going to be judged based on what we do, and none of us can do it - at all. We are thus entirely reliant on God to save us.

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria:

Let’s do it.

Paul is setting up an argument in Romans 2.

It is (true) according to the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops at least. From their commentary on Romans 2 http://www.usccb.org/bible/romans/2 :

“* [2:1–3:20] After his general indictment of the Gentile, Paul shows that in spite of special revelation Jews enjoy no advantage in moral status before God (Rom 3:1–8). With the entire human race now declared guilty before God (Rom 3:9–20), Paul will then be able to display the solution for the total problem: salvation through God’s redemptive work that is revealed in Christ Jesus for all who believe (Rom 3:21–31).” (Emphasis mine)

The point of Romans 1-2 is to argue that all are guilty and set up the solution to the problem - again, at least according to the USCCB.

Well, good point. I have no solution for this. I have frequently been sideswiped by the comments in the ecumenical NAB bible.

I’m not sure how to proceed here, except to say that these comments are orthodox, but do not delve into the solution which St. Paul was explaining. The Sacraments.

Anyway, I’ll bow out because I don’t want to appear to be debating against Catholic Doctrine.

 

[TULIPed]

Hahahahahah. You’re a good egg @De_Maria - I don’t care what they say about you

 

[TC3033]

Many are ultimately afraid that they will be convicted of the truth of the Catholic Church.

Wait, what…?? Many?

I guess I would disagree with that.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos and @TULIPed

Now that I’ve done my studying and contemplating; I’m ready to answer.

Chapters 1 and 2 do lay out how works alone can not justify us before God. Men aren’t perfect and we cannot do it. However: Men are still condemned for their works.

Under the Law, there’s no mention of faith. Only works. A law code written for the people of God to adhere to.

In Chapter 3, we see the first mention of faith apart from works justifies.

Faith apart from works. Not faith alone. It’s an important distinction to bear in mind. If Saint Paul was teaching faith alone, he would have said faith alone.

More to be continued later.

 

[Hodos]

Chapters 1 and 2 do lay out how works alone can not justify us before God. Men aren’t perfect and we cannot do it. However: Men are still condemned for their works.

We agree here.

Under the Law, there’s no mention of faith. Only works. A law code written for the people of God to adhere to.

Depends on what you mean by Law. The books of the law (the Torah) mentions faith consistently, and as we saw Paul draws from the law (in his vocabulary) to demonstrate that we are justified by faith. That being said, built right into the law is the sacrificial system which Hebrews describes as the foreshadowing of a better promise that was used to provide a visible symbol of the coming propitiation that would ultimately be made by Christ for sin. So, saying that there is no faith involved in the law is a bit of a sketchy statement when you look at the entire breadth of the revelation provided in scripture.

Faith apart from works. Not faith alone. It’s an important distinction to bear in mind. If Saint Paul was teaching faith alone, he would have said faith alone.

This is an argument from silence. As described above, faith alone (Sola fide) means faith apart from works in the original historic sense of the term. Saint Paul did in fact state this and essentially used the first two and half chapters of Romans to draw the contrast between justification through works and justification by faith. Remember that Sola Fide means we are justified by faith, this is in opposition to a philosophy that we are justified by our works. The Solas are always rebutting an existing issue. They have to be examined in light of the question the Sola statement is attempting to address.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos, please.

Faith alone is a different phrase than faith apart. Don’t play word games.

 

[Hodos]

Faith alone is a different phrase than faith apart. Don’t play word games.

No one is playing word games. Examine the historic usage of the phrase and you will see that is exactly what the Reformers were emphasizing and they were doing so using the same passage we are discussing. Paul drew a contrast between justification by works, and justification by faith, and states it is by faith that we are justified apart from works, hence Sola Fide. I am merely correcting you for redefining the historic doctrinal use of the term. Again, I can point to our confessions. If some people refuse to read them even though they have been cited 2 or 3 times in this thread, then there is no excuse for willful ignorance when it is demonstrated that they are misrepresenting our doctrine.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

Sola means alone. Fide means faith. Faith alone is not faith apart; regardless of how Protestant spin doctors of the 16th century misrepresented the word.

You guys consistently misrepresented our doctrine for 500 years; accusing us of Pelagianism. Even scales, please. Don’t pull on us what you accuse us of pulling on you.

Back to it.

Faith apart means Saint Paul distinguishes faith from works but didn’t say alone. This is important to note for later on.

Now, in Chapter 4, we reach the crux of the argument: Abraham was reckoned righteous by faith before he did any works. Curious: The text doesn’t say alone.

Saint Paul used Genesis 15:6 to illustrate an important point. That point being that faith justifies in addition to works. Not works alone.

 

[Mishakel]

As a Protestant I would first ask for a definition of what you mean or Rome means by “works”.

When scripture talks about faith and works the works are things we as humans can do while on earth to glorify God. There is an abundance of ideas one can come up with that fit in this category.

When, again as a Protestant, I hear Rome speak of works there are more meanings behind it than I just gave.

Is reciting the rosary a work? Is stations of the cross a work? Is adoration of the cross a work? Is visiting a cemetery a work? Is the litany of Mary a work? I don’t have the exact number but there has to be 100’s of things a Catholic can do to earn a so called indulgence. Are these included in your definition of works??

I learned they actually thought Catholics can work and do “nice things” without Christ and we think we are saved.

I have watched numerous Catholic experts debate salvation and they all agreed on the idea that a Catholic could never be 100% sure of their own salvation. So your quote strikes me as a little odd. It’s indeed the Protestant view that a human can be assured of their salvation because of their faith whereas a Catholic may attend Mass 10,000 times in their life and still be unsure.

The Pope in 2018 spoke to a little boy. The boy was upset because his father had died and was an unbeliever yet had his children baptized. The Pope said “That man did not have the gift of faith, he wasn’t a believer, but he had his children baptized. He had a good heart,”

The next step in answering the boy’s question, he said, would be to think about what God is like and, especially, what kind of heart God has. “What do you think? A father’s heart. God has a dad’s heart. And with a dad who was not a believer, but who baptized his children and gave them that bravura, do you think God would be able to leave him far from himself?”

Is this now the teaching of the Catholic church? We don’t need faith or works but if we have children and baptize them we earn salvation?

I understand you probably are wanting a simpler answer regarding works but with Catholicism the answers are often times grey.

The Pope said on the same day “God created everyone, loves everyone and put in everyone’s heart a conscience so they would recognize what is good and distinguish it from what is bad,” the pope said.

Jeremiah 17:9 says the opposite “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?"

Proverbs 3:5 “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding”

Did the non believing man trust in the Lord?

1 John 2 22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Scripture is very clear but the Pope seems to contradict the very nature of salvation according to scripture. The Pope is indicating that by 1 “work” this boy’s father must wind up in Heaven.

So there you have it

 

[Hodos]

Let me explain it this way. This might clarify. As you acknowledged above Paul demonstrates that the law accuses and condemns the person who has not been justified by faith. The law as Paul states shows us our sin and the need for a savior. Through faith in Christ we are justified before God. Now that we are justified by faith, the law continues acting as a mirror to show our sin, bring us to repentance by faith and Christ. However it also now serves as a guide telling us God’s will for us in our walk with Christ in the process of sanctification.

 

[po18guy]

Methinks you may be following the tradition of disagreeing! Being a convert myself, I know a little about it. Read a few conversion stories. Or, not a big reader? Watch the stories - BUT - listen to their reasoning.

Catholic Conversion Stories - The Coming Home Network

 

[TC3033]

Non-Catholics don’t avoid going to adoration because they’re afraid of being driven to conversion… I’d say many don’t even know it’s a thing. I’ve never gone and it has nothing to do with being scared I’ll have the drive to convert.

I may give the link a read.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

After reading Romans and studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church; my faith in the truth of Catholic doctrine is renewed, deepened and strengthened.

The first thing we have to do is clarify terminology.

Nowhere in Romans does Saint Paul say faith alone justifies. He says faith apart from works. Looking at that wording in the clear sense; it means that works aren’t eliminated from justification. As it would be if the text explicitly said faith alone. If one doesn’t catch the exact wording; it’s easy to misread Saint Paul as Luther did.

Works. In Romans 1-3, Saint Paul laid out that man, under his own will and exertion cannot merit justification by works of the Old Law. It conferred no grace, could not justify anyone and taught man what sin was. It was basically the preparation for the the New Law of the Gospel.

However, there’s a secret contained in Romans 2:29. Circumcision of the heart. That prefigures conversion of the heart; of the inner man.

Now in Romans 3, Saint Paul first mentions faith apart from works justifies. Remember: Not faith alone. Then Saint Paul goes on to say that not one; no one is righteous and all fall short of the glory of God.

Rightly said; when bearing in mind works only soteriology. Saint Paul is making an important contrast here and leading up to an important point.

In Romans 4, Saint Paul mentions Abraham and how Abraham was reckoned righteous by faith. Mark the exact wording: by faith. Alone isn’t in the text.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Abraham, the other is Our Blessed Mother; is one of the two examples of the obedience of faith.

Abraham, upon hearing God; believed. Because he believed; he acted.

If one believes something; one is required that act on that faith. Faith requires completion in works. Faith requires that one acts in obedience to faith. Otherwise, faith is dead and the person is a hypocrite. As we see in the Gospels; Jesus has a serious mad on about the Pharisees. Calling them hypocrites for doing works for the praise of men and not undergoing an inward conversion.

After the beginning of Romans 4, Saint Paul goes on to state that inheritance of the promise of God goes not to the adherents of the law; but to the righteous in faith. Again; we see that Saint Paul doesn’t say faith alone.

In Chapter 5, Saint Paul speaks of our justification in faith and our access to grace through Jesus Christ. Then Saint Paul finishes Chapter 5 with our being reconciled to the Father through being justified in Christ and receiving righteousness.

Now, this means that faith and righteousness we receive from God as a free gift unmerited by us and that this justification by faith, again not alone; in Christ is the starting point and basis.

In Chapter 6, Saint Paul teaches us that we die to our sins and rise again in newness of life with Christ. We are no longer slaves to sin under the Old Law but slaves to God.

Going into Chapter 7, Saint Paul asks us are we to obey sin or obey God and yield up our bodies as instruments of one or the other?

 

[Hodos]

Yes, and Infallible means without error, as in not any error, and yet Rome has no issues redefining the term to mean something very specific within her doctrine. So if you don’t mind, we will employ the doctrine of Sola Fide as it was used by the people who coined it as a doctrinal term. Otherwise, you seem reluctant to address the doctrine as it is because you would prefer to attack a straw man.

Now, that being said you had already conceded my point that in Chapter 2 Paul was using the law not to justify but to condemn. And in Chapter 3, Paul then introduces us to the means of justification which is by faith. If the two options he presents us with are justification by works, and justification by faith, and Paul then eliminates the possibility of justification by works saying explicitly we are justified by faith apart from works, what does that leave you? Justification Sola Fide.

With regard to Chapter 7, this was covered in my comment above. Notice Paul isn’t justified in chapters 1-6 by works but by faith. Chapter 7 he laments that his works are still short, and in Chapter 8 gives us the legal concept of forensic justification in the courtroom setting, still not justified by works. That said in the process of sanctification we walk by faith being conformed to the likeness of Christ and yet these works don’t justify. Paul was already justified apart from his works by faith in Christ.

You seem to be ascribing antinomianism to us which again has been refuted several times. We have already stated (I need a counter) several times works are necessary in the Christian life that we might do God’s will, but we aren’t justified by works but by faith.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

This is where works comes again into play and Saint Paul talks about his struggles with sin.

Remember: Works we’re not eliminated from justification. More on that in a minute.

The struggle lies in the battle between impulses to sin and impulses to obedience of faith. Impulses strive to completed in works.

Saint Paul says that one must set one’s mind on things of the Spirit in order to live by the Spirit.

Now, we have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit in our interior battles between good vs evil. In other Pauline Letters, Saint Paul says things like: Fight the good fight of faith, work out your salvation with fear and trembling and constantly renewing your mind.

That makes sense in the light of that works have a part in justification.

Now, Hodos; you mentioned that Saint Paul distinguishes between justification and sanctification.

If justification is by faith alone and sanctification only helps you grow in holiness in conformity with Christ; then faith in necessary and works are unnecessary yet required in the Christian life. That’s schizophrenic.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that justification and sanctification are the same thing; citing Romans 6:22.

If sanctification lead to eternal life, as faith leads to eternal life; then Luther’s soteriology is non sense.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

I did forget that in my reading in Romans, that a faithful Protestant wouldn’t practice antinomianism. I concede that.

I refuse to play by your rules that Sola Fide means faith apart. That’s spin doctoring.

 

[Hodos]

There are several issues with this reading of Romans 6:22. Sanctification is mentioned separately and not interchangeably with justification. The benefit mentioned by Paul is the justification by faith already mentioned in the preceding verse where Paul states in the past tense that you were already freed from sin and gifted righteousness. Paul even states what I had mentioned before, that sanctification is the fruit of justification, the result of justification, not its cause. Notice Paul again states that eternal life is the free gift of god given to us in vs 23, reiterating what he had stated earlier about grace being a gift and not earned as a wage. Thank you for bringing in that verse. I’d say you helped quite a bit in making my point.

No one is asking you to “play” by any “rules.” If you choose to intentionally misrepresent our doctrine that reflects more upon the weakness of your position than it does my doctrine. I will continue to clarify as I have done nonetheless.

 

[Michael16]

@Hodos

I can see that by your crack about papal infallibility, you’re trying to broaden the battlefield and confuse the issue.

You challenged me to harmonize Romans and I have. Let’s stay focused here.

As for intentionally misrepresenting your doctrine: I’m merely pointing out the logical inconsistencies in it as I read the text in a clear sense without word games or redefining terms.

Essentially, Luther taught a soteriology that’s roughly what the Catholic Church teaches: That we’re justified by faith and that in obedience to that faith; works flow.

However: Luther fell into error by misreading Saint Paul by trying to say Saint Paul wrote faith alone when it’s faith apart. Exact wording, Hodos.

Now: When faith alone is mentioned in Scripture, a la Saint James; it’s clearly and definitively shot down.

You say Saint James can reconciled with faith alone, when Saint James clearly says faith alone doesn’t save; by saying Saint James agrees that faith is shown by works.

It’s a cute “ Yes and No “ set up.

Saint James says faith alone is dead and faith is completed in works. As we see in Saint Paul in Romans. Sanctification leads to eternal life as faith does.