Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

[Thinkingstuff]

Paul defines justifying faith to be "firmly persuaded" in regard to God's power and promise. (Rom. 4:21). Hebrews 11:1 defines faith to be inseparable from the substance of ones hope and thus defines faith the same way Paul does in Romans 4:21.

The emphasis of James is not on the definition of faith but on the product of faith or what is done "by" faith as the visible evidence of faith. James is not talking about justification by faith "BEFORE GOD" but before men "show me." The supposed case is not addressing God but is addressing men "if a man say TO ME." The subject is not demonstrative proof of justification before God but evidential justification before men. James is concerned by the visible evidence supportive of the mouth profession.

For example, look at the last words the Old Testament Scriptures give to describe Lot in Genesis - drunk and in incest. His profession was so bad that his own family members would not heed his warnings or leave the city. However, Peter informs us by inspiration alone that his heart was vexed even though his actions were inconsistent with his heart.

If you don't grab the distinction between James 2 and Romans 4 you have no hope of helping Catholics.

James speaks in stong language and doesn't divorse the acts performed from the faith that performs it. He specifically says your faith is dead.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look, justification by grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone without works is preceded by regeneration and thus a change of nature with the new inclination to obey God.

However, Romans 7:18-25 demonstrates clearly that even a child of God has no innate ability to overcome indwelling sin except by the power of the Indwelling Spirit. Justifying faith is not perfectly expressed or consistently expressed as seen in the case of Lot.

James argues that in the realm of HUMAN OBERVATION that any profession of justifying faith that is not demonstrable toward human needs is not the kind of faith that justifies before God or man. Therefore in regard to the realm of HUMAN OBSERVATION such a faith is dead without works.

Abraham and Rahab are given as examples of justified persons whose actions confirmed their profession. Abraham had been justified long before Genesis 22. When God tested Abraham's faith, he confirmed it by obedience before his servants and his son as both were present. Rahab confirmed her faith before the two spises and Israel when she hid them and then let down the red cord.

No one can expect their profession of faith to be accepted by men if their actions contradict their profession. Neither can such a person have assurance of their salvation. However, James is dealing in a context of human necessities in the sphere of human observation. He is not dealing with justification by faith before God. Justification before God by necessity is without works (Rom. 4:5-6) but within the sphere of human observation profession of justification by faith by necessity must accompany good works or else there is nothing to demonstrate its existence.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What you are doing mentally in this debate is divorcing your mind from the Biblical position and defending the Catholic position only on its own merits. Just because a person tells you a black dog is white does not make the dog white and just because Rome tells you that baptism is not a work does not make it so.

An infant has no faith AT ALL - that is reality - not the Catholic reality but the reality called TRUTH. Therefore faith does not precede baptism even though that is not the Catholic reality it is the reality called TRUTH.

Thus Rome is reinventing the Biblical term "grace" to include "works" making baptism the means of grace through the work of baptism.

First of all when it comes to infants the bible is silent. You have no idea what is going on with infants. Interestingly enough God provide for circumcision for infants in the house of Abraham. Why would his modus operandi differ? The fact is the church is viewed in community and children are very much apart of family. Look at acts 2:39

The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

So faith is held individually and in community as well. The hope is that the faith of the family works provides grace for the child to be recipient of that faith once able to do so. Much like the faith of the Centurion recounted here

8The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

13Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

As you can see I'm not divorsing anything.

 

[Dr. Walter]

James speaks in stong language and doesn't divorse the acts performed from the faith that performs it. He specifically says your faith is dead.

No, he specifically addresses that kind of profession of faith which bears no evidence of its existence before human observation. If there are no actions there is no faith in regard to human observation and human evaluation. It is "dead" in that sense.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look, justification by grace alone in Christ alone through faith alone without works is preceded by regeneration and thus a change of nature with the new inclination to obey God.

you use the term "alone" quite a bit in this sentence. But the way you use it gives a sense of synergy between all the "alones".

However, Romans 7:18-25 demonstrates clearly that even a child of God has no innate ability to overcome indwelling sin except by the power of the Indwelling Spirit. Justifying faith is not perfectly expressed or consistently expressed as seen in the case of Lot.

And?

James argues that in the realm of HUMAN OBERVATION that any profession of justifying faith that is not demonstrable toward human needs is not the kind of faith that justifies before God or man. Therefore in regard to the realm of HUMAN OBSERVATION such a faith is dead without works.

I haven't said anything different. However, you still want to seperate the deed from the faith. They cannot be separated.

Abraham and Rahab are given as examples of justified persons whose actions confirmed their profession. Abraham had been justified long before Genesis 22. When God tested Abraham's faith, he confirmed it by obedience before his servants and his son as both were present. Rahab confirmed her faith before the two spises and Israel when she hid them and then let down the red cord

And so there is no disagreement here.

No one can expect their profession of faith to be accepted by men if their actions contradict their profession. Neither can such a person have assurance of their salvation.

Exactly

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, he specifically addresses that kind of profession of faith which bears no evidence of its existence before human observation. If there are no actions there is no faith in regard to human observation and human evaluation. It is "dead" in that sense.

Thus he doesn't seperate the two.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The circumcision of Abraham is specifically given as our example for justification by faith in regard to ceremonial ordinances (Rom. 4:9-12) not the later application of circumcision to infants. Distinctly and explicitly Paul demands that justification by faith preceded circumcision by at least 14 years and therefore in no manner could be included in the doctrine of justification by faith in the father or example, or pattern for ALL BELIEVERS.

Moreover, in regard to the later circumcision of infants that is by design typical of new birth under the New Covenant, not of literal infants but of spiritual infants who in all cases were capable of personal comprehension and faith in God:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. - Jer. 31:34

Note, that under the New Covenant even the "least" are capable of cognance and personal relationship with God. This covenant is the New Testament covenant found in Hebrews 9 and 10 as well as in 2 Cor. 3:3-6.

Moreover, the Bible is not silent in regard to baptism. There is not one precept or example of infant baptism in the scriptures. Every precept and example in Scriptures require personal repentance and faith prior to baptism.

The pedobaptism claim that "infants" are included within any passage in the book of Acts is based on pure silence and unfounded speculation contrary to explicit New Testament precepts and examples.

First of all when it comes to infants the bible is silent. You have no idea what is going on with infants. Interestingly enough God provide for circumcision for infants in the house of Abraham. Why would his modus operandi differ? The fact is the church is viewed in community and children are very much apart of family. Look at acts 2:39 So faith is held individually and in community as well. The hope is that the faith of the family works provides grace for the child to be recipient of that faith once able to do so. Much like the faith of the Centurion recounted here As you can see I'm not divorsing anything.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The circumcision of Abraham is specifically given as our example for justification by faith in regard to ceremonial ordinances (Rom. 4:9-12) not the later application of circumcision to infants. Distinctly and explicitly Paul demands that justification by faith preceded circumcision by at least 14 years and therefore in no manner could be included in the doctrine of justification by faith in the father or example, or pattern for ALL BELIEVERS.

Moreover, in regard to the later circumcision of infants that is by design typical of new birth under the New Covenant, not of literal infants but of spiritual infants who in all cases were capable of personal comprehension and faith in God:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. - Jer. 31:34

Note, that under the New Covenant even the "least" are capable of cognance and personal relationship with God. This covenant is the New Testament covenant found in Hebrews 9 and 10 as well as in 2 Cor. 3:3-6.

Moreover, the Bible is not silent in regard to baptism. There is not one precept or example of infant baptism in the scriptures. Every precept and example in Scriptures require personal repentance and faith prior to baptism.

The pedobaptism claim that "infants" are included within any passage in the book of Acts is based on pure silence and unfounded speculation contrary to explicit New Testament precepts and examples.

I'm sorry but I have to quote Bobryan here.

Your response to the scriptures provided is "less than compelling"

and as for your claim

The pedobaptism claim that "infants" are included within any passage in the book of Acts is based on pure silence and unfounded speculation contrary to explicit New Testament precepts and examples.

I find several problems the 1st being its not based on "Pure Silence" but on a term Children as in this passage

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

And also the term Household

When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. "If you consider me a believer in the Lord," she said, "come and stay at my house." And she persuaded us.

and

They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

Which includes children and slaves.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Justification before baptism

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. - Rom. 4

Let us be clear here. Paul is expounding the doctrine of justification by faith as to what it is and is not. Abraham is Paul's chosen example to illustrate the truth of justification by faith as to what it is and is not.

In this section dealing with external ordinances of God ("circumcision") Abraham is presented as "the father" or pattern "OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE." Therefore, if "infants" are capable of believing this includes them and if they are not capable of believing this excludes them but it for certain includes "ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE."

Rome, as well as all pedobaptists use circumcision as the basis for inserting pedobaptism into the New Testament teaching on baptism. Why? Because the New Testament provides no precepts or examples that support infant baptism. So they must go back into the Old Covenant and fetch circumcision to boslter their unbiblical doctrine of grace, regeneration and justification.

However, Paul destroyes the doctrines of Rome when he demands:

1. Justification occurred while Abraham was in "uncircumcision"
2. Circumcision is only the "sign" and "seal" of justification already in possession 14 years previous to circumcision.
3. Justification by faith in the uncircumcised state of Abraham is the pattern for "all beleivers"

This destroys the doctrine of sacramentalism as means of grace. This destroys the idea of baptism concurrent with regeneration. This destroyes the idea of baptism as conveying justification, new birth, or remission of sins.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm sorry but I have to quote Bobryan here. and as for your claim I find several problems the 1st being its not based on "Pure Silence" but on a term Children as in this passage And also the term Household and Which includes children and slaves.

Acts 2:38 sets forth the conditions for those receiving it - "repent" and each one repenting is qualified for baptism. Look at the Greek text where Peter changes from plural to the singular in regard to repentance. This very qualification denies that "children" are new born infants.

In every case where the term "household" is found in connection with baptism the context always qualifies it to refer to those capable of beleiving and nothing but pure silence provides imagination infants are included.

1. The house of Lydia consisted of "brethren" - Acts 16:40
2. The house of the Jailor are said to have all believed - Acts 16:34

To say "household" demands infants is pure speculation which both context, Biblical precepts and every example denies.

However, you did not take heed to one specific statement in Jeremiah 31:33-34.

they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD:

Jeremiah 31:34 cannot be denied as the New Covenant and the text says "ALL" and it explicitly denies that ANY of that "ALL" have need to be taught this salvation knowledge by anyone and this is true of "the least" among them. That simply kills pedobatpism.

The exposition I gave on Romans 4:9-12 denies and repudiates the whole Roman Catholic system of salvation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Romans 4:5-6 separates faith from deeds "without works" as Paul is defining Justification by faith before God. James does not separate faith from works because James is dealing with visible manifestation of faith in the sphere of human observation.

Romans 4:5 Paul contrasts "worketh not" to "beleiving" because He is defining justification by faith whereas James is dealing with human observation and cannot divorce works from faith as works are the only visible manifestation to demonstrate faith exists in the eyes of men.

you use the term "alone" quite a bit in this sentence. But the way you use it gives a sense of synergy between all the "alones".



And?



I haven't said anything different. However, you still want to seperate the deed from the faith. They cannot be separated.



And so there is no disagreement here.


Exactly

 

[Thinkingstuff]

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. - Rom. 4

Let us be clear here. Paul is expounding the doctrine of justification by faith as to what it is and is not. Abraham is Paul's chosen example to illustrate the truth of justification by faith as to what it is and is not.

In this section dealing with external ordinances of God ("circumcision") Abraham is presented as "the father" or pattern "OF ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE." Therefore, if "infants" are capable of believing this includes them and if they are not capable of believing this excludes them but it for certain includes "ALL THEM THAT BELIEVE."

Rome, as well as all pedobaptists use circumcision as the basis for inserting pedobaptism into the New Testament teaching on baptism. Why? Because the New Testament provides no precepts or examples that support infant baptism. So they must go back into the Old Covenant and fetch circumcision to boslter their unbiblical doctrine of grace, regeneration and justification.

However, Paul destroyes the doctrines of Rome when he demands:

1. Justification occurred while Abraham was in "uncircumcision"
2. Circumcision is only the "sign" and "seal" of justification already in possession 14 years previous to circumcision.
3. Justification by faith in the uncircumcised state of Abraham is the pattern for "all beleivers"

This destroys the doctrine of sacramentalism as means of grace. This destroys the idea of baptism concurrent with regeneration. This destroyes the idea of baptism as conveying justification, new birth, or remission of sins.

Clearly you missed the context of the passage which has to do with law. Sacramentalism is not the same as legalism. They are divergent. Sacraments are based in Faith. Law required strict adherance and judgement by that body of Laws. You are not judged based on sacraments but they infer grace. If Sacraments are cause for judgement it is only based on disobedience rather than strict adhereance to them. You keep combining consepts not made for combination. Roman's does away with Judgement by law. Use the passage on SDAs not Catholics.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Thus he doesn't seperate the two.

Of course not. In the sphere of human observation to divorce the two is to destroy any evidence of faith. James is not concerned with God's observation point and the basis of justification by faith but with human observation and the impact of justification by faith.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Acts 2:38 sets forth the conditions for those receiving it - "repent" and each one repenting is qualified for baptism. Look at the Greek text where Peter changes from plural to the singular in regard to repentance. This very qualification denies that "children" are new born infants.

In every case where the term "household" is found in connection with baptism the context always qualifies it to refer to those capable of beleiving and nothing but pure silence provides imagination infants are included.

1. The house of Lydia consisted of "brethren" - Acts 16:40
2. The house of the Jailor are said to have all believed - Acts 16:34

To say "household" demands infants is pure speculation which both context, Biblical precepts and every example denies.

However, you did not take heed to one specific statement in Jeremiah 31:33-34.

they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD:

Jeremiah 31:34 cannot be denied as the New Covenant and the text says "ALL" and it explicitly denies that ANY of that "ALL" have need to be taught this salvation knowledge by anyone and this is true of "the least" among them. That simply kills pedobatpism.

The exposition I gave on Romans 4:9-12 denies and repudiates the whole Roman Catholic system of salvation.

its funny but in these passage you have to speculate both ways. To deny children requires speculation as speculation is required to include them. And you take a strange view of the change from plurality to singularity the text has to writen that way abiding by the laws of greek gramar. It doens't make necissary that children are not inlcuded.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Of course not. In the sphere of human observation to divorce the two is to destroy any evidence of faith. James is not concerned with God's observation point and the basis of justification by faith but with human observation and the impact of justification by faith.

I think you and james disagree on this point. He doesn't seprate the two based on observation either. And question. IF a person does not perform the works is their salvation in question? If so whats really the difference?

 

[Dr. Walter]

Clearly you missed the context of the passage which has to do with law. Sacramentalism is not the same as legalism. They are divergent. Sacraments are based in Faith. Law required strict adherance and judgement by that body of Laws. You are not judged based on sacraments but they infer grace. If Sacraments are cause for judgement it is only based on disobedience rather than strict adhereance to them. You keep combining consepts not made for combination. Roman's does away with Judgement by law. Use the passage on SDAs not Catholics.

Paul denies that justification comes THROUGH divine ordinances or is CONCURRENT with divine ordinances. Circumcision is the initial ordinance in the life of a Jew at birth just as baptism is the initial ordinance in the life of a Catholic at birth. Paul repudiates this application of divine ordinances completely by the use of Abraham as there is 14 years between the justification of Abraham by faith and submission to circumcision.

Paul is precisely defining what is and what is not included in justification by faith before God. Law keep is explicitly excluded in Romans 4:13-16 just as the idea of sacraments is totally excluded in Romans 4:9-12.

Listen, you did not even try to counter the three proofs I gave from this text that obliterates the Roman Catholic view of sacraments. Jesus said that the justifiied "shall not come into condemnation" and therefore the justified will not stand under the judgement of the Law because Christ has already stood under the judgement of the Law IN OUR PLACE - which is part of the good news of the gospel for justification by faith.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I think you and james disagree on this point. He doesn't seprate the two based on observation either. And question. IF a person does not perform the works is their salvation in question? If so whats really the difference?

James is the one that says "show ME" and "shew YOU" demonstrating he is speaking about the sphere of human observation.

If a preson does not perform the works is their salvation in question? It is in question by men and should be in question by the professor. It is never in question by God as God does not need works to evidence justification unto Him.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Paul denies that justification comes THROUGH divine ordinances or is CONCURRENT with divine ordinances. Circumcision is the initial ordinance in the life of a Jew at birth just as baptism is the initial ordinance in the life of a Catholic at birth. Paul repudiates this application of divine ordinances completely by the use of Abraham as there is 14 years between the justification of Abraham by faith and submission to circumcision.

Paul is precisely defining what is and what is not included in justification by faith before God. Law keep is explicitly excluded in Romans 4:13-16 just as the idea of sacraments is totally excluded in Romans 4:9-12.

Listen, you did not even try to counter the three proofs I gave from this text that obliterates the Roman Catholic view of sacraments. Jesus said that the justifiied "shall not come into condemnation" and therefore the justified will not stand under the judgement of the Law because Christ has already stood under the judgement of the Law IN OUR PLACE - which is part of the good news of the gospel for justification by faith.

They weren't proofs. They were taken out of context because you made the error of corrisponding Paul's discourse with regard to Law particularly expressed in talmudic fashion through haggadah and correlate it with sacraments which differ from ordenance. There is no comparison. You just ignore that fact. And you Ignore what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:27-32

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. 31But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment. 32When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be condemned with the world.

where if a mistreatment of sacramental right results in Judgement then it follows adhereance brings grace. Note This passage sounds very sacramental in that grace is given

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life

So you're basically ignoring some of paul to emphasise your point. It occures to me Marcion tried this pre-eminance of pauls writings as well and we know the outcome.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

James is the one that says "show ME" and "shew YOU" demonstrating he is speaking about the sphere of human observation.

If a preson does not perform the works is their salvation in question? It is in question by men and should be in question by the professor. It is never in question by God as God does not need works to evidence justification unto Him.

ultimately then by your "human observation" there is no difference saved in perceived semantics.

 

[Dr. Walter]

its funny but in these passage you have to speculate both ways. To deny children requires speculation as speculation is required to include them. And you take a strange view of the change from plurality to singularity the text has to writen that way abiding by the laws of greek gramar. It doens't make necissary that children are not inlcuded.

The greek grammar calls on the PLURAL to repent but changes to the singular "every one of you" which has reference to only those who obey that initial command. The qualification "repent" for baptism necessarily excludes all who cannot demonstrate repentance to the administrator. John would not baptize anyone who showed no fruits of repentance (Mt. 3:6-8). The grammar restricts baptism to those who repent.

Repentance and faith are required prior to baptism (Acts 8:35-37; Mk. 16:16; Acts 2:41; etc.).


Children can repent but infants cannot. Children can believe but infants cannot as they have no ability to discern right from wrong and this is the very argument given by Paul to prove that all mankind were represented by Adam when he sinned because death occurs to those who do not sin willfully as did Adam (Rom. 5:12-15). Adam's sin was WILLFUL and DETERMINATE (I Tim. 2:12-13) but those who did not sin after the similitude of Adam's transgression die. Paul is proving that Adam's one sin brought death upon the whole human race because even infants and those incapable of discernment suffer death and thus death cannot be attributed to them by any act of PERSONAL sin.

Romans 7:6-11 Paul argues that even in adults that individual condemnation occurs only when LIGHT of discernment brings sin to life and man choose to sin thus bringing condemnation upon him. Hence, infants are safe until they are capable of discerning right and wrong and choosing to do evil.

Jesus argued that it is willful response to light that individually condemns a person before God. Infants are safe until they can discern and respond to light. Much more is gained in Christ than lost in Adam. Where sin abounded grace did much more abound. Infants do not need baptism and that is why we find no precepts or examples to baptize infants.