Justification by Faith and Justification by Works

[stan the man]

Do Catholics believe in justification by faith alone

So Trent does not condemn the (good) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns sola fide if it is used so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fides formula and not the formula itself.

I should mention at this point that I think Trent was absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the Catholic faithful of the time. The term faith had long been established as referring to intellectual assent, as per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula faith alone had to be squashed in the Catholic community because it would be understood to mean intellectual assent alone the very view being condemned in James 2 and would thus send millions of souls to hell (as the antinomian branch of Evangelicalism is doing today).

The Catholic Church could no more allow people to run around indiscriminately using the faith alone formula knowing how it would be interpreted by the faithful after centuries of one usage than the Church today could allow people to run around saying Jesus is not God (using God as a proper name for the Father). The confusion (and damnation) it would wreak would be massive. Even though the formula can indeed have a perfectly orthodox meaning, that is not how it will be understood by the masses. There must be continuity in the language of the faithful or massive confusion will result.

In fact, one can argue that the problem of antinomianism in Protestantism is a product of the attempt by the Reformers to change the established usage of the term faith to include more than intellectual assent. The English verb believe (derived from Old High German) and the English noun faith (derived from French and before that Latin) were both formed under the historic Christian usage of the term faith and thus they connote intellectual assent.

This is a deeply rooted aspect of the English language, which is why Protestant evangelists have to labor so hard at explaining to the unchurched why faith alone does not mean intellectual assent alone. They have to work so hard at this because they are bucking the existing use of the language; the Reformers effort to change the meanings of the terms believe and faith have not borne significant fruit outside of the Protestant community.

This is also the reason Evangelical preaching often tragically slips into antinomianism. The historic meaning of the terms believe and faith, which are still the established meanings outside the Protestant community, tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community when people aren’t paying attention, and antinomianism results.

 

[stan the man]

Do Catholics believe in justification by faith alone

This reflects one of the tragedies of the Reformation. If the Reformers had not tried to overturn the existing usage of the term faith and had only specified it further to formed faith, if they had only adopted the slogan iustificatio sola fide formata instead of iustificatio sola fide, then all of this could have been avoided. The Catholic Church would have embraced the formula, the split in Christendom might possibly have been avoided, and we would not have a problem with antinomianism today.

So I agree a hundred percent with what Trent did. The existing usage of the term faith in connection with justification could not be overturned any more than the existing usage of the term God in connection with Jesus identity could be overturned.

What both communities need to do today, now that a different usage has been established in them, is learn to translate between each others languages. Protestants need to be taught that the Catholic formula salvation by faith, hope, and charity is equivalent to what they mean by faith alone. And Catholics need to be taught that (at least for the non-antinomians) the Protestant formula faith alone is equivalent to what they mean by faith, hope, and charity.

It would be nice if the two groups could reconverge on a single formula, but that would take centuries to develop, and only as a consequence of the two groups learning to translate each others theological vocabularies first. Before a reconvergence of language could take place, the knowledge that the two formulas mean the same thing would first need to be as common as the knowledge that English people drive on the left-hand side of the road instead of on the right-hand side as Americans do. That is not going to happen any time soon, but for now we must do what we can in helping others to understand what the two sides are saying.

(Needless to say, this whole issue of translating theological vocabularies is very important to me since I have read Evangelical and Catholic books and thus have had to learn to translate the two vocabularies through arduous effort in reading theological dictionaries, encyclopedias, systematic theologies, and Church documents. So I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I hear R.C. Sproul and others representing canon 9 as a manifest and blatant condemnation of Protestant doctrine, or even all Protestants, on this point.)

 

[Faith alone]

Thx Stan for explaining how changes in the RCC in 1983 changed their position on justification. But the RCC still holds to the infusion of grace rather than imputation.

Now I have already acknowledged that some Protestants hold a similar view. But Protestants hold to justification at a point-in-time by faith alone, while Catholics hold to infused grace and justification by faith alone initially only. They say that works must effect final justification. And while some Protestants will agree with the RCC that a Christian can "lose their salvation" and in saying that just believing in Christ is not enough to gain eternal life, they do not do so in terms of justification.

You have pointed out very nicely how Catholicism is coming closer to Protestantism. But I have read nowhere any Catholic position paper which agrees with what you say below regarding "faith alone." (I have read about faith nor being mere "mental assent," as you mention, but that this is all that canon 9 is now referencing I have never read.)

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term faith in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). I might rephrase the canon:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc. (The term cooperate should not be distracting. It does not mean do something by our own strength or contribute our effort to what God does in us. Indeed, the Catholic Church teaches that prior to justification and after justification man is completely unable to do any supernatural act by his own strength. In order to make an act of faith, hope, or charity, one must receive God's grace because human nature, before or after justification, is unable to do these things and must have God's grace produce these acts in us. The reason the canon includes the word cooperate is to express the fact that, even though it takes God's grace to produce supernatural acts such as repenting, believing, and trusting, they must still be done. Thus our cooperation is produced by God's operation. God's operation produces our operation, and thus we co-operate under the impetus of God's grace.)

Actually, many Protestants do not agree with this idea of "intellectual assent"... What you imply about the meaning of "antinomianism" is not what it means either. Antinomianism is the belief that it matters not how we live as believers. Anyone who holds to eternal security, as most Baptists, acknowledge that our works and life-style does make a difference... but not in terms of becoming a child of God. That is by faith alone. So I for one do not agree with it. We are not justified by repenting, but by believing. That is essential Protestant doctrine.

Incidently, Martin Luther and later John Calvin were both accused of antinomianism by the RCC at the time, and got into debates with some of their theologians. Is this same charge still happening? Well, I still say...

SOLA FIDE
SOLA GRACIA
SOLA SCRIPTURA
SOLO CHRISTO
SOLI DE GLORIA

I also see no distinction in the scriptures between a "mental assent" kind of faith and some other sort of faith. As I mentioned in my last post, James 2 is not talking about two kinds of faith... it is talking about two kinds of justification.

Canon 9 - "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema"

Now notice the 2nd underlined portion above. This clearly expects that something else after initial faith in Christ must follow it. You'll have to point me to some Catholic sanctioned links that describe canon 9 just as you have suggested was intended. Because I still do not see that.

Thx,

FA

 

[stan the man]

Thx Stan for explaining how changes in the RCC in 1983 changed their position on justification. But the RCC still holds to the infusion of grace rather than imputation.

I did not say that the RCC changed their position on justification. This is what I said: "The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants (Aside from the facts that [1] the term anathema in ecclesiastical documents is used to refer to the canon law penalty of solemn excommunication and that Protestants cannot be excommunicated from the Catholic Church because they are already not part of it and [2] the canon law penalty of anathema or solemn excommunication was abolished in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, leaving only ordinary excommunication in place.) is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon."

 

[Faith alone]

I did not say that the RCC changed their position on justification. This is what I said: "The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants (Aside from the facts that [1] the term anathema in ecclesiastical documents is used to refer to the canon law penalty of solemn excommunication and that Protestants cannot be excommunicated from the Catholic Church because they are already not part of it and [2] the canon law penalty of anathema or solemn excommunication was abolished in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, leaving only ordinary excommunication in place.) is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon."

stan,

Then the RCC still teaches that we are not finally justified by faith alone then. Only initial justification is by faith alone, right?

Thx,

FA

 

[stan the man]

Do Catholics believe in justification by faith alone

The fact faith is normally used by Catholics to refer to intellectual assent (as in Romans 14:22-23, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and James 2:14-26) is one reason Catholics do not commonly use the faith alone formula even though they agree with what (good) Protestants mean by it. The formula runs counter to the historic meaning of the term faith.

The other reason is that, frankly, the formula itself (though not what it is used to express) is flatly unbiblical. The phrase faith alone (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in the Bible, and there it is rejected:

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:24)

Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, see below (On the subject of the kind of justification discussed in James 2:24, Trent quotes this verse only once and then applies it to progressive, not initial justification, so one does not have to do good works to get into a state of justification; good works are fruits of the state of justification, not causes for entering it. The fact this passage does not refer to initial justification should be obvious since the justification of Abraham it refers to occurred years after Abraham was first justified by faith in Genesis 12, when By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go (Heb. 11:8). Thus James 2:24 refers to later, progressive justification, by which one grows in righteousness, not initial justification, when ones sins are forgiven.)), the phrase faith alone is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase faith alone to the use of that phrase in the Bible.

Thus, if we are to conform our language to the language of the Bible, we need to reject usage of the formula faith alone while at the same time preaching that man is justified by faith and not by works of the Law (which Catholics can and should and must and do preach, as Protestants would know if they read Catholic literature). James 2:24 requires rejection of the first formula while Romans 3:28 requires the use of the second. (Note: In Catholic theology, works of the Law are taken to be either actions done by human strength [i.e., acts of human righteousness] or works of the Mosaic Law. Both understandings are theologically acceptable, since one is justified by neither and pinning your hopes on either will damn you, but the latter is clearly the exegetically supported one.

The Law Paul is talking about in Rom. 3:28 is clearly the Mosaic Law since in the very next verse, 3:29, he asks, Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? indicating that works of the Law are something Jews have but Gentiles do not and in the verse after that, 3:30, he states: Since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith indicating that circumcision is one of the works of the Law, and the only Law which commands circumcision is the Mosaic Law. Since the faith Paul has in mind is faith in Christ, the verse means, For we hold that a man is justified by faith in Christ apart from works of Mosaic Law.

The antithesis Paul has in mind is between justification by Christ and by the Mosaic Law, not between faith and good works. Thus Paul told the Jews of the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch:

We bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus. Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and every one that believes is justified by him from everything from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses. Beware, therefore, lest there come upon you what is said in the prophets: Behold, you scoffers, and wonder, and perish; for I do a deed in your days, a deed you will never believe, if one declares it to you. [Acts 13:32-33, 38-41]

The Christ/Mosaic Law contrast in Romans 3:28-30 is brought out even more clearly when one takes the simple step of using the Hebrew term for the Law Torah rendering the passage:

For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of Torah. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.

As I have said, incidentally, recent work in the Dead Sea Scrolls, including the recently published and very important MMT document, which served as the Constitution or Declaration of Independence for the Qumran community, reveals an enormous preoccupation on the part of first century Jews with works of Torah. The phrase works of Torah/works of Law is used repeatedly in them and sheds great light on the meaning of the term in Paul.
Cf. the three articles in the Nov/Dec 1994 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review and R. Eisenman and M. Wise’s book The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, chapter 6, Works Reckoned as Righteousness Legal Texts.)

Thus while Catholics have good reason for not using the formula faith alone, they do not deny what non-antinomian Protestants mean when they use this phrase.

This brings me back to the subject I began with. When people ask, Why aren’t Catholics under the anathema of God since they reject the faith alone formula? I can simply say that in addition to believing in justification by grace alone and justification by Christ alone, Catholics also have no problem with justification by faith alone, so long as the kind of faith is understood properly as formed faith/fides formata/faith working by charity. Catholics don’t normally use the phrase faith alone for the two reasons indicated above, but they have no problem at all saying we are justified by faith alone if the faith is understood to be Galatians 5 faith.

 

[Eric B]

So it's "antinomian" evangelicals versus "the good ones". That kind of reminds me of someone trying to cover up negative racial or ethic stereotyping with "well, you're 'one of the good ones'".

Just who are all of these antinomian Protestants? The general population that is nominally Christian, but basically unchurched (or only goes on special occasions), and lives however they want? It is not right to blame this on evangelicalism and "faith alone". These people did not get that way by believing in faith alone in Christ, but by deciding that their sind don't matter, and that God will accept them because He's "loving", and their good outweighs their bad, etc, which is actually more a form of salvation by works, only they decide what works save them (being "nice", only baig nasty when the other guy deserved it, not killing anyone, their sexual behavior is their business and "love", and not hurting anyone, etc).

But that is clearly not an evangelical Protestant problem, as these people are not considered evangelicals (if man is good and automatically saved, there is no need to evangelize, and tell anyone they need faith), and the problem is just as bad or really worse in liturgical Protestant ("mainliners") and especially Catholic "cultures" where the people have been instilled with "works-salvation" from the getgo, and just like the others, they end up deciding for themselves what works grade them into Heaven, and live as antinomians, even begging the Church to change its position on morality (including homosexuality) to match their lifestyles. You hear that alot right in the national news, and it is not the evangelicals doing this. Also, the rabid legalism, of all three groups in the past exasperate people, and they give up, and figure "God must understand and accept me as I am".

As for James, if you take this verse this way, it looks like he is not only contradicting, but also directly answering/opposing Paul in Romans 4 and Galatians 3! As always, such "contradictions" are swept under the rug by redefining "faith" (since it is here said to be "dead without works"). But the contexts are completely different! The word "justification", just as we use it today, does not refer exclusively to salvation! Any act we do we can be "justified" in or not justified, and it has nothing to do with our standing before God. Paul is the one dealing with salvation. James is not talking about salvation, for Abraham and Rahab were not saved because of their acts! Their acts "justified" them in that they are now looked upon as faithful saints, depsite their sins. "justification" unto salvation could ONLY have been through Christ; not their works in addition to Christ. James is writing to Jewish Christians, who generally still have problems trusting in the letter of the Law, yet are lacking in certain works, which they probably thought uneccesary; not realizing that "having respect of persons" due to class (the sole context of the chapter) is just as much sin, that violates the spirit of the Law. Notice, that he speaks of "keeping the whole Law and offending in one point" (v.10,11). These are people trusting in "the works of the Law", but thinking "faith" alone excuses them from areas in which they fail. That actually becomes close to the error of legalists today who use the verses to teach that we are saved by "trying harder", and that "faith" simply fills in, basically, when we fail. But what James is really, ultimately saying here is what Paul told the Galatians: "For as many as are under the works of the Law are under a curse: for it is written 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things which are written in the book of the Law'"(3:10)"...a debtor to do the whole Law! Christ is of no effect unto you whoseover are justified by the Law, for you are fallen from grace!"(5:3,4). This is what I call "the Great Irony": the legalists end up as the lawless!

As for the LAw of Moses, yes, that is what Paul was addressing, but that doesn't mean now that we can simply bring in a new set of laws yet still place justification in following them, and not still be guilty of what Paul is condemning just because it is a different law. The principle is the same. We do not do any works of any law to the extent that could satisfy God and justify us, so salvation has to be by faith.

 

[mman]

There are only two options that I can see for resolving this apparent contradiction.

One way, and it is a popular view today, is to say that there are errors in the bible. One of these passages is wrong, and that is why Paul appears to be teaching justification by faith alone when really Paul was a good Roman Catholic.

Or the other way, which is the way I believe is correct, is to recognize that things that are different are not the same, and that Paul and James are speaking of two different justifications. One is by faith alone, apart from works. One is by works added to faith.

I think there is a third option.

First, the bible is full of paradox's. The first shall be last and the last shall be first, whoever desires to be the greatest should be the servant of all, lose your life to save it, to be lifted up by God you must humble yourself, strength through weakness, and so on.

These two seemingly contradictory passages are in complete harmony with each other.

Justification is by faith, not belief. However, nothing we can do can earn our justification or any part of it.

An example the bible uses is the walls of Jericho. The walls of Jericho fell by faith (Heb 11:30). They did not earn any part of it, however without their obedience, the walls would not have fallen. Still, the walls fell by faith.

Was Abraham justiifed by faith or by works? The same example is used in both places. Are there two different justifications being discussed in Rom 4 and James 2? I say NO! How confusing that would be! Heb 11 is the bridge that one needs to cross when going from Rom 4 to James 2.

Abraham was justified by faith, no doubt. Had Abraham not obeyed God he would not have been justified by faith. His obedience did not earn his justification however his justification was dependent on his obedience. There is nothing of merit in offering your child upon an alter. He did it because God said to. Faith comes from God's word (Rom 10:17). By faith he offered Isaac (Heb 11:17). Was his offering of Issac a work or by faith? It was certainly not a work that merited justification. The Hebrew writer says it was by faith. How can a "work" be classified as "by faith"?

Abraham was not justified because he had a dead or incomplete faith. Abraham was justified because he had faith.

James 2:21-24 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"-- and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

When was the scripture fulfilled that Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness? When he offered up his son Isaac on the alter, which was by faith (Heb 11). Did that act earn his justification? No, certainly not. Could he have been justified if he rebelled at God's instructions? Certainly NOT!

If you read the Rom 4, Heb 11, and James 2 accounts of Abraham with the knowledge that works do not earn justification and faith is doing what God said (Heb 11:17, By faith Abraham offered Isaac), then all 3 passages will harmonize completely and it will change the way you understand the rest of scripture.

 

[James_Newman]

Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

thats a big if.

 

[James_Newman]

I think there is a third option.

First, the bible is full of paradox's. The first shall be last and the last shall be first, whoever desires to be the greatest should be the servant of all, lose your life to save it, to be lifted up by God you must humble yourself, strength through weakness, and so on.

These two seemingly contradictory passages are in complete harmony with each other.

Justification is by faith, not belief. However, nothing we can do can earn our justification or any part of it.
SNIP...

If you read the Rom 4, Heb 11, and James 2 accounts of Abraham with the knowledge that works do not earn justification and faith is doing what God said (Heb 11:17, By faith Abraham offered Isaac), then all 3 passages will harmonize completely and it will change the way you understand the rest of scripture.

Yeah, but it will be wrong. Belief is faith. You have just gone right back to what I was originally writing against.

There are other variations on these methods, ways to redefine words to try to make them appear to be teaching the same thing, but they seem to all fall into these two category's. Faith and works is the same thing, or dead faith won't save you.

You contradict yourself when you say you are justified by faith, nothing you can do... then say faith is doing what God said.

 

[mman]

Yeah, but it will be wrong. Belief is faith. You have just gone right back to what I was originally writing against.



You contradict yourself when you say you are justified by faith, nothing you can do... then say faith is doing what God said.

No, I did not contradict myself, you just failed to understand. Heb 11 must be IMPOSSIBLE for you to understand also.

Ok, I'll make this as simple as I can for you.

Abraham was justified by faith (Rom 4).
Abraham offered Isaac by faith (Heb 11).
Abraham was justified and counted righteous and the scripture was fulfilled which said Abraham believed God, when he offered his son upon the alter.(James 2)

1) Was Abraham justified by faith? YES (Rom 4)
2) Did Abraham's obedience earn his justification? NO (Rom 4)
3) Could Abraham have been justified without his obedience? NO (James 2)
4) Was Isaac offered by faith? Yes (Heb 11)

If I said, send me your bank account number and I'll wire you 1 billion dollars, could you understand that it would take faith on your part (believe what I say and send me the account number) to recieve the billion dollars, however you did nothing of merit to earn any part of that billion dollars?

What good is belief without action? None! (James 2)

You would be a billionaire by faith, because you certainly did not earn the money. It would be a gift from me to you, even though non-meritorious action is required on your part(Rom 4).

By faith, you sent me your account number (Heb 11).

Now, how did you recieve the billion dollars, by faith or by works?

God has not contradicted Himself!

 

[Faith alone]

justification - Catholic version - part I

The fact faith is normally used by Catholics to refer to intellectual assent (as in Romans 14:22-23, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and James 2:14-26) is one reason Catholics do not commonly use the faith alone formula even though they agree with what (good) Protestants mean by it. The formula runs counter to the historic meaning of the term faith.

The other reason is that, frankly, the formula itself (though not what it is used to express) is flatly unbiblical. The phrase faith alone (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in the Bible, and there it is rejected:

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:24)

stan,

Buit I explained in an earlier post that MONON is an adverb and cannot be modifying PISTIS ("faith"). If it was MONOS, an adjective, then PISTEWS MONOS would mean "faith alone." MONON does not modify PISTEWS. "Faith alone" is not being rejected by James 2:24 - impossibility grammatically. If you disagree with this, then please address it rather than just ignore my argument. Thx.

Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, see below (On the subject of the kind of justification discussed in James 2:24, Trent quotes this verse only once and then applies it to progressive, not initial justification, so one does not have to do good works to get into a state of justification; good works are fruits of the state of justification, not causes for entering it. The fact this passage does not refer to initial justification should be obvious since the justification of Abraham it refers to occurred years after Abraham was first justified by faith in Genesis 12, when By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go (Heb. 11:8). Thus

James 2:24 refers to later, progressive justification, by which one grows in righteousness, not initial justification, when ones sins are forgiven.)), the phrase faith alone is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase faith alone to the use of that phrase in the Bible.

stan,

Yes, I understand that. But Protestantism knows no such thing as "progressive justification." "Progressive sanctification," yes. How can someone have crossed over out of death into life (John 5:24) and yet not be justified? And again, "faith alone" is not rejected by James 2:24... that's not what it is saying. (See earlier comments.)

Thus, if we are to conform our language to the language of the Bible, we need to reject usage of the formula faith alone while at the same time preaching that man is justified by faith and not by works of the Law (which Catholics can and should and must and do preach, as Protestants would know if they read Catholic literature). James

2:24 requires rejection of the first formula while Romans 3:28 requires the use of the second. (Note: In Catholic theology, works of the Law are taken to be either actions done by human strength [i.e., acts of human righteousness] or works of the Mosaic Law. Both understandings are theologically acceptable, since one is justified by neither and pinning your hopes on either will damn you, but the latter is clearly the exegetically supported one.

stan,

The underlined portion above is good, and your description of it referring to either the Mosaic Law or to our own self-efforts is great and how I have been using the term as well. But the difference remains that the focus of the Protestant Reformation was justification - which Luther and those who joined in took to be by faith alone. The difference remains regarding infused righteousness (Catholic) and imputed righteousness (Protestant). The RCC teaches that initial justification is by faith alone, but that works are required IOT be finally justified. Protestantism knows nothing of progressive justification. Mainstream Protestantism teaches that we are fully justified in every sense of the word by faith alone at the moment of the new birth.. (No other requirement IOT become a child of God.) Now some Protestants believe that there is something which a believer can do, or not do, which would cause him to lose their state of salvation. But they do not refer to that as justification.

You know, I don't really know why we're having this discussion, except that I know that Catholicism does not teach that we are justified by faith alone, and that mainstream Protestantism does... What really matters is not what churches in either camp teach, but what the Bible teaches on the matter.

The Law Paul is talking about in Rom. 3:28 is clearly the Mosaic Law since in the very next verse,

3:29, he asks, Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? indicating that works of the Law are something Jews have but Gentiles do not and in the verse after that, 3:30, he states: Since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith indicating that circumcision is one of the works of the Law, and the only Law which commands circumcision is the Mosaic Law. Since the faith Paul has in mind is faith in Christ, the verse means, For we hold that a man is justified by faith in Christ apart from works of Mosaic Law.

But you need to consider what else Paul has said about justification - elsewhere in Romans and also in Galatians. When we do it becomes apparaent that Paul is referring to the Law since most believers where Jews in those days, but he also refers to ERGON ("works") in a general manner - one in which a person tries to save himself rather than relying upon the salvation that God has provided. (As you referred to this earlier.)

Romans 4:1-8What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. (FA - Abraham was justified by faith alone, not works, 400 years before the Law) For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." (FA - Notice that Abraham simply believed God - it was credited to hisaccount as righteous - "imputed" as righteousness - Hewas "declared righteous.") Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. And to one who does not work but trusts Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. (FA - This clearly has nothing to do with the works of the Law, though they would be included - as "trusting in our own works to save us rather than trusting Him who justified the ungodly.") So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: (FA - God imputes, considers the person who is ungodly, with righteousness based on their faith alone.... "apart from works.") "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."

Faith is simply trusting in Him, who justified the ungodly. Get that, God declares those who are ungodly - they have no works of any sort to hold up before God - to be righteous based on their faith. The person who trusts in God's provision is trusting in God - God has declared them to be righteous apart from anyworks they may or may not have done. THAT is "faith alone."

End of part I

 

[James_Newman]

Now where did God tell me to send my bank account number to be saved? The bible says 'believe'. What else is required?

 

[Faith alone]

justification - Catholic version - part II

Later Paul says in the same chapter...

Romans 4:13 The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

The "righteousness of faith." How can works have anything to do with attaining such righteousness? Earlier in Romans 3 Paul said... Look at a couple of verses later...

Romans 4:15, 16 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants--not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all

Righteousness depends not on any works, but on faith. Why" So that the promise can be by grace alone, and not be based on our own efforts to any degree. Look in chapter 3...

Romans 3:21-24 But now, apart from the law, God's righteousness has been revealed--attested by the Law and the Prophets --that is, God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe, since there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. They are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Paul is simply saying that those who are relying solely upon what Christ has done, and not upon their standing based on the works of the Law, are justified "freely" by His grace. Grace is a gift imparted apart from any works. If works are required, then someone can boast.

Ephesians 2:8, 9 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God--not because of works, lest any man should boast.

If salvation depended upon works to any degree, then we could boast. Paul continually, throughout his writings, contrasts the righteousness which comes from faith - trusting in God's provision alone - with the righteousness which comes from works - relying upon something you have done or must do.

Romans 11:6Now if by grace, then it is not by works; otherwise grace ceases to be grace.

If we mix grace and works, we get works. Grace can only be grace if it is totally isolated from any works. That does not mean that a believer should not naturally do works. Ephesians 2:10 tells us that we were created (spiritually - re-born) for the purpose of doing good works... but it is not how we are justified in His sight.

The antithesis Paul has in mind is between justification by Christ and by the Mosaic Law, not between faith and good works. (FA - I disagree - see above. The works of the Law is certainly a prime example of relying upon our own efforts instead of the work of Christ in our place. But Paul is clearly concerned about any reliance upon our own good works to save us instead of relying upon Christ alone = "faith".) Thus Paul told the Jews of the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch:

We bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus. Let it be known to you therefore, brethren, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and every one that believes is justified by him from everything from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses. Beware, therefore, lest there come upon you what is said in the prophets: Behold, you scoffers, and wonder, and perish; for I do a deed in your days, a deed you will never believe, if one declares it to you. [Acts 13:32-33, 38-41]

FA - Notice that everyone who believes is justified. No other requirement. He is contrasting reliance upon the works of the Law with relaince upon Christ (faith).

The Christ/Mosaic Law contrast in Romans 3:28-30 is brought out even more clearly when one takes the simple step of using the Hebrew term for the Law Torah rendering the passage:

For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of Torah. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.

FA - See my earlier comments on this.

<Dead Sea Scrolls stuff snipped for brevity>. The phrase works of Torah/works of Law is used repeatedly in them and sheds great light on the meaning of the term in Paul.
Cf. the three articles in the Nov/Dec 1994 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review and R. Eisenman and M. Wise’s book The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, chapter 6, Works Reckoned as Righteousness Legal Texts.)

Thus while Catholics have good reason for not using the formula faith alone, they do not deny what non-antinomian Protestants mean when they use this phrase.

FA - Actually, they do not fully agree either. Since mainstream Protestantism (I'm trying to avoid your improper application of "antinomianism" to refer to anyone who says that we are justified by "faith alone." I corrected it earlier, but you seem to be ignoring that. The meaning of thisterm appears to vary based upon who is using it. )

Antinomianism - The doctrine that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral.

Some add some sort of statement referring to those who hold to "salvation being attained solely through faith as a gift of divine grace." If this latter is used, then it applies to all of mainstream Protestantism. Historically, this portion is NOT how it was used though. FWIW.

But the most basic use of this term historically has been to refer a belief that we are saved by faith alone through God's grace alone and hence a Christian is freed from all laws (including the moral standards of culture). It is a belief that a Christian can do whatever he wants. That is essentially what came about as a result of gnosticism, though. Antinomianism led to sexual license - see Marcion. THAT is the historical use of this term - you are mis-using it, stan. Antinomianism is simply a belief that since we are saved by grace through faith that we can do whatever we want without consequences. Very few Protestants or Catholics have held to such a view. Now if you are going to continue to mis-apply this term, then should I start erroneously state that you believe in salvation by works? What you are doing is accusation by labeling. I am not an antinomian. You say that you do not hold to salvation by works.

(Antinomianism is also used to refer to moral laws being relative in meaning and not fixed or absolute universally. In that sense it would refer to someone who thinks that right and wrong are relative and not absolute. But that meaning does not apply to this discussion.)

This brings me back to the subject I began with. When people ask, Why aren’t Catholics under the anathema of God since they reject the faith alone formula? I can simply say that in addition to believing in justification by grace alone and justification by Christ alone, Catholics also have no problem with justification by faith alone, so long as the kind of faith is understood properly as formed faith/fides formata/faith working by charity. Catholics don’t normally use the phrase faith alone for the two reasons indicated above, but they have no problem at all saying we are justified by faith alone if the faith is understood to be Galatians 5 faith.

stan,

I appreciate your concern that many Protestants misunderstand what Catholics believe. You are saying that Catholics hold to a faith that is more than “just mental assent.” Some Protestants say the same thing. Calvin said that faith in and of itself is mental. He said that "faith as a superior kind of knowledge." (Institutes, p. 68) To Calvin, faith was passive, "For, in regard to justification, faith is merely passive, bringing nothing of ourselves to procure the favor of God, but receiving from Christ everything we want." (Institutes, section 3.11.7)

But the RCC also teaches more than that justification is by faith which is more than mere mental assent. It teaches that only initial justification is by faith alone. You appear to be attempting to re-define faith to include works. Paul, on the other hand, did the opposite – he regularly contrasted faith and reliance upon works.

Thx,

FA

 

[mman]

Now where did God tell me to send my bank account number to be saved? The bible says 'believe'. What else is required?

It's called an analogy to help you understand the concept. Let's suppose you owed a debt you could not pay. The same analogy holds true, except it is salvation that is offered, not a billion dollars.

Mark 16:16, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned"

(He that believes and sends me their account number, shall be a billionaire, he who does not believe will be bankrupt)

Eph 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

(By my grace, I have made you a billionare through faith. You did not earn it, it is my gift, you did not work for it and earn it that you can boast)

Gal 3:26-27 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

(For you are all billionaires through faith for as many of you as sent me your account number have put on my wealth)

Now, if you only had my three statements, can you harmonize them? Could you understand what would be required to obtain the billion dollars? Would you understand that it was a gift and not earned? Could you understand that it took faith on your part?

 

[Faith alone]

Stan,

If you believe a bit differently than standard Catholicism, that's fine. I am just concerned that what is being presented as RCC doctrine is not what is found on most RCC websites or books. No biggie to me either way. It's good news to hear than my Catholic brother or sister believes closer to what I believe.

Roman Catholic salvation theology is driven by two defining axioms: first, that man has been wounded by sin - they do not hold to total deparivity in the same manner as mainstream Protestantism - that man is dead in his sins, and second - what I have been emphasizing, that justification is incomplete without ultimate sanctification. Of course, there are other distinctives - another critical one being sola scriptura, but regarding salvation, that is the heart of the difference as I understand it.

With the help of divine grace, sin’s wounds must be overcome and a life of charity or good works must be followed. Only then is justification assured. So as I see it progressive sanctification has been assimilated into justification in Catholic theology and thinking, and you refer to it as "progressive justification." So for the Catholic, as we cooperate toward sanctification (progressive justification) we increase our justification. This, of course, runs counter to the Protestant doctrine of sola fide as it is used by mainstream Protestantism.

Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life. Augustine opposed this teaching. This was when the early church took a stand against salvation by faith plus works. RCC opposes it in the sense that they teach that man must first be initially justified, by faith. But this was the point of departure during the Reformation between Catholic and Protestant theology as well - Pelagianism.

I don't think we can resolve the different approach toward justification by simply re-defining what faith means. That's all I'm trying to say. Either we are assured of eternal life based on faith alone, or we are not. Faith is faith.

In RCC justification includes both the removal of sins committed prior to Baptism and the infusion of righteousness for sanctification. So then, what Protestants understand to be sanctification, or growing in grace, and see to be the result of justification, Catholics believe to be a part of justification. So a Catholic is not completely justified before God until he is fully sanctified.

IOW, as I understand it, in Catholicism people are accepted before God on the basis of their cooperation with God’s grace over the course of their entire lives, rather than on the basis of Christ’s finished work alone, received through faith alone.

Justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2018

I am not trying to be critical of the RCC any more than I am trying to be critical of those Protestants who disagree with me that we are justified by faith alone. (And there are many Protestants who do disagree with this.) But the RCC does not hold to justification by faith alone - and that simply was the heart of the Protestant Reformation. So the differences are still greater than I see you presenting them.

Do I believe that Roman Catholic is saved? If he has trusted in Christ's death in their behalf - just as any Protestant is saved. The church they attend is not what determines ifthey have been justified ("declared to be righteous in God's sight').

Thx,

FA

 

[James_Newman]

It's called an analogy to help you understand the concept. Let's suppose you owed a debt you could not pay. The same analogy holds true, except it is salvation that is offered, not a billion dollars.

The problem is, it is a bad analogy. We make a mess when we try to reconcile things that don't need to be reconciled. There is a prize to be had, call it a billion dollars if you like. But that is not analogous to the free gift of eternal salvation. Becoming an heir through faith, by believing, is not the same thing as recieving the inheritance. But there are promises afforded a believer simply for believing, no purchase necessary. Christ promised that whoever believed would be raised up on the last day. Christ also said that if we suffer, we shall reign with him. These are not the same thing. That is why you can't take James 2 and Romans 3 and mash them together, they are talking about two different things. Just because they sound the same doesn't mean we can just assume they are. One is the justification of a lost sinner by faith alone. The second is the justification of a believer by adding to faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge temperance, to temperance patience, to patience godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity.
2 Peter 1:8-11 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
How can he be purged from his old sins if he doesn't have works? By faith.

10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
How will he enter the kingdom of Christ? By works added to faith.

The gift (purged from old sins, raised up on the last day) and the prize (crowned in Glory to reign with Christ in His kingdom) have to be kept separate.

 

[Linda64]

Definition of "Justification" from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

justification

JUSTIFICA'TION, n.

1. The act of justifying; a showing to be just or conformable to law, rectitude or propriety; vindication; defense. The court listened to the evidence and arguments in justification of the prisoner's conduct. Our disobedience to God's commands admits no justification.

2. Absolution.

I hope, for my brother's justification, he wrote this but as an essay of my virtue.

3. In law, the showing of a sufficient reason in court why a defendant did what he is called to answer. Pleas in justification must set forth some special matter.

4. In theology, remission of sin and absolution from guilt and punishment; or an act of free grace by which God pardons the sinner and accepts him as righteous, on account of the atonement of Christ.

Justification is through faith in Christ (Ro 3:25-28; 4:3-6; 5:1). Man's part in justification is to repent of his sin and to trust Jesus Christ.

 

[mman]

The problem is, it is a bad analogy. We make a mess when we try to reconcile things that don't need to be reconciled. There is a prize to be had, call it a billion dollars if you like. But that is not analogous to the free gift of eternal salvation. Becoming an heir through faith, by believing, is not the same thing as recieving the inheritance. But there are promises afforded a believer simply for believing, no purchase necessary. Christ promised that whoever believed would be raised up on the last day. Christ also said that if we suffer, we shall reign with him. These are not the same thing. That is why you can't take James 2 and Romans 3 and mash them together, they are talking about two different things. Just because they sound the same doesn't mean we can just assume they are. One is the justification of a lost sinner by faith alone. The second is the justification of a believer by adding to faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge temperance, to temperance patience, to patience godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity.
2 Peter 1:8-11 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
How can he be purged from his old sins if he doesn't have works? By faith.

10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
How will he enter the kingdom of Christ? By works added to faith.

The gift (purged from old sins, raised up on the last day) and the prize (crowned in Glory to reign with Christ in His kingdom) have to be kept separate.

The analogy is fine. It fits perfectly. Obviously you understand the concept in the analogy, you reject the conclusion.

The same event is discussed in Rom 4, Heb 11, and James 2, dealing with Abraham. I understand your need to separate these three passages, but they are in perfect harmony. You force Abraham to be "the lost sinner" and the "believer" by the same events in his life.

Again, Heb 11 is the key to understanding this. Read Heb 11 and everywhere you read the word faith, insert belief only. Read it again and insert the idea "belief plus obeying any instruction from God", with the knowledge that faith comes from hearing God's word (Rom 10:17), and see which make sense.

Only one will.

 

[James_Newman]

You are still redefining faith to mean believe + work. That is not what faith means. The faith of those in Hebrews 11 is what enabled them to obey, it is not the act of obeying. Hebrews 11 is speaking in regard to believers acting on their faith to obtain the promises given to believers. Let me try an illustration here.

God says 'If you believe on my Son, you will be raised up on the last day to be with me for eternity.' If you believe that, you have faith in what God said, that it is true. If it is true, what will happen if I believe on Jesus? I'll be raised up on the last day, right?

God says 'If you obey my Son, you will recieve a crown that fadeth not.' If you believe that, you have faith in what God said, that it is true. If it is true, what will happen if I believe it, but I don't obey Jesus? I will not recieve a crown, because this is a conditional promise. I have to believe it, then act on that belief. This is where James can say 'faith without works is dead'. What good does it do to believe that I will be rewarded for obedience, and then not obey?

If you insist that 'faith is belief + works', you have made Paul to be a liar.
Romans 4:4-5
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
The man that does not work, but believes, has faith, therefore faith cannot be belief + works.