Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt1618 matt16182@yahoo.com
In this paper I am responding to the Protestant Calvinist who thought my critique of his outlook affirming Justification by Faith Alone was wrong. In this paper I respond to his assertion that Paul does teach faith alone. In most of his work, he goes to Paul most in asserting justification by faith alone. Here, you will see in my original critique of him, my writing is in red. He gives very short quotes of me, which does not give the whole context of my arguments. His response is in green. (My original paper is here: Paul and Justification by Faith Alone: A Response) The blue that follows is my response to his assertions. In this paper, unlike my other papers, I do not provide footnotes, but the citation I will give immediately after the quote. In this paper, I will attempt to give a fuller display of his arguments, and respond to them. Since like most Protestants who believe in justification by faith alone, he refers to Paul most often, this will be an extensive paper. Now, one thing you will notice that he quotes from and criticizes Robert Sungenis on his book 'Not By Faith Alone' and claims his arguments are new. This position that Sungenis and I put forth, is historic. To buttress the Catholic arguments to show that this is not only biblical, but ancient and historic, I will quote occasionally from St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom in analysis of particular passages that are in dispute between Catholics and Protestants. I also cite these Fathers because in his original paper attempting to defend justification by faith alone, he cited these Fathers in support of justification by faith alone. These Fathers support the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, with it being a true propitiatory sacrifice, purgatory, and baptismal regeneration, totally at odds with the 'Reformed' view of justification. But here I am not focusing on those issues, but they also believed that obedience and works are a cause, not just a byproduct of justification before God, which I will focus on here.
I wrote:
A little common sense reveals that the cornea in both eyes "work together in love" with the toes on both feet. Nevertheless, it is only the eyes that see! (Romans 12:3). Consequently, faith and works may be present in the believer, but it is faith alone that justifies!
Paul specifically writes that works added to faith justifies (Gal. 5:6).
You replied:
ANSWER: No he does not! I don't care if I sound like a broken record, but you are forever reading into the Text, a propitiatory, sin-cleansing, saving efficacy to that coin you dropped in the collection plate, and true Christians will have none of it. That it may be true that faith must work through love as stated in G-5 presents no problem to your opponents whatsoever. As I said in the essay:
No, that is not correct. One of the things that is deficient, is the way that you explain that faith alone justifies. Nothing else contributes to one's justification before God. The whole premise behind this is that Christians are robots. I have seen this premise behind all of your arguments, which makes Paul's words, Jesus' words, Paul's warning, and Jesus' warnings in many circumstances is of no value. You say if you have true faith I guess that you get to heaven only based on Him dying for you, and believe that faith alone is the only instrument salvation, you get the imputed righteousness of Christ, you will automatically have good works. You will automatically love, you will automatically obey, you will automatically not go into a bad life of sexual sin, you will automatically try to keep the commandments though you will fail, etc. However, you think neither obedience, or works, or love is justifying, or anything else contributes to one's justification. Then when I say you downplay obedience, works, commandments, you get offended and say, of course we obey, we have works, and we try to keep the commandments, but our justification is not dependent on that. However, Scripture does not say that if you have faith, love, works, obedience automatically flows from that. In actuality, love is justifying, in Gal. 5:6. Jesus approves of the answer that one must love God and with all ones might & love neighbor, Lk. 10:26-28, in order to be saved. So, if that is the main answer to the question how one is saved, love is justifying for sure, Lk 10:25-29, 30-37. Jesus shows how the Samaritan was an example of salvation, love for a stranger. But I do not want to be a hypocrite as I accused you of using Paul to interpret Jesus, but I will not do that with you here. We know Paul says that if one has the greatest of faith, and has not love, that faith will do one absolutely nothing, 1 Cor. 13:2-3:
2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.So it is possible to have great faith, but not have love. If God gave eternal life through faith as the only instrument, you would get eternal life, according to your theology. Paul here says no right here to this false theology; he says instead of at least getting eternal life, which is your theology as faith is the only instrument of salvation, you get nothing. Paul does not presume the Calvinist automatic thing that love automatically follows. We are not robots. When writing in Galatians 5, he is aware that love must follow, and one must work at it, of course only with God's grace, in order to be justified. And in the whole context in Galatians 5, he is condemning works of the law. In that context he is talking about circumcision, dietary laws, etc. Gal. 5:6-13. But right when he says one fulfills the law by love, Gal 5:14, at the same time it is not the law that saves us, Gal. 5:18. However, love must be active because sins of the flesh are a lack of love towards neighbors and Paul specifically gives a list of sins, adultery, etc. that he warns that if you engage in, you will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, Gal. 5:19-21. Also, it shows breaking the commandments cuts one off from salvation, thus keeping the commandments, like Jesus said, is grounds of getting to heaven, or hell. Paul does not have your presumption. So, Paul is warning that if you fail in love, going back to Gal. 5:6, you will not inherit that kingdom. So, love does contribute to, and is not merely a byproduct of, justification.
Paul says we can fulfil the law in Romans 13 by the law of love. He just wrote of the law of the Spirit, Rom. 8:2-4. So that is what we can fulfill and that love is justifying, Rom. 13:8-11. If you truly love, you will not fulfill the debauchery that leads to spiritual death including quarreling and jealousy (which is a lack of love), that leads to damnation, Rom. 13:12-14. The warnings from Paul are real, and not having love can lead to your damnation, exactly as Jesus says in Mt. 5:22. Even though he condemns works of the law as not justifying, Rom. 3:20, 28, and law in and of itself does not justify, he specifically spells out that love contributes to justification.
In fact, every Protestant, dead or alive, would agree that our works not be void of love and would agree with Trent when they say, "the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of those that are justified" (Session 5, chap 7). It is simply silly on an elementary level to think otherwise, but Trent is guilty of a grievous sin on an adult level due to a gross misrepresentation and a complete misunderstanding of Sole Fide in general, and what Luther said in particular. As I said in the essay, when Catholics hear Protestants teach justification by faith "apart" from works (Romans 3:28) they typically don't listen when we explain that "apart from works" means " apart from the salvific, sin-cleansing merit of works", not apart from the presence of works!". Hence, "The doctrine of a free justification, by grace, through faith alone, is miserably misunderstood or perverted"(Buchanan, p. 400).
No, Trent is exactly correct because it is contesting that you said love is not justifying, and that is what you are repeating right here. You say faith is the only instrument of salvation and in effect those who have true faith are robots that love automatically flows from. Scripture shows through Jesus, and Paul, who I am concentrating on here, that love is a cause of salvation. Paul specifically writes Love fulfils the law of the Spirit, Romans 8:2-4, Romans 13:8-11. Trent says love contributes to justification, you, Buchanan, and Calvin say that it does not. Your argument is that love is the automatic consequence of having a true faith, but Paul specifically says you can have a true faith but not have love in 1 Cor. 13:2. Trent and Scripture emphasizes that it is a part of the cause of justification, see also Galatians 5:6, which you and your cohorts strenuously say it is not. So, Trent is accurate.
I wrote:
Prior to being put in God's grace, no deeds in righteousness avail before God.
ANSWER: But this is still yet another example of building your argument on a false pretense.
No one in the history of the world ever once claimed their pre-salvation good deeds would impress the Lord to open heaven's gate. The salvific grace we find in the Bible is his undeserved favor, "FREELY" given, as a gift per Romans 3:24 & Eph 2:8.
No, here my specific issue right here was giving a background to Titus 3:5. What vantage point is Paul coming from? I am not knocking down a straw man, just showing the background to the statement in Titus 3:5 about deeds in righteousness. Let us look at the background.
Titus 3:3-7:
3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; 4 but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richlythrough Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.
He writes that outside of grace, v. 3, says we were all doing ungodly stuff, slaves to various passions. That is the background to v.5. So, what puts us into his grace? Attempting to do good stuff, righteous deeds in that state, are not justifying. Paul had just written in Titus 2:11-14, that He came to make us godly & live to make us have good deeds in salvation. To renounce irreligion v. 12, live soberly, upright and godly, v. 12. His whole purpose is to purify for Himself to redeem us from all iniquity, zealous for good deeds. V. 14, and that is how He would save us. He specifically explicated that, which your theology must downplay and say has little to no relevance in assessing Titus 3. So, He already told us his whole purpose in salvation. Now, Paul already told he would save us by purifying us from iniquity; that is the means He gave us. Now, Paul in Titus 3 has no need to repeat what he just said, Paul takes us back to where we were from. What are we without Jesus? We are foolish and disobedient, led astray by passions. How did we get out of those passions? Did our deeds in that out of grace state put us in His grace? No. That is the background to Paul's specific status in Titus 3. So, whatever good we did in that out of grace state was worthless. That did not put us right before God. What put us into His grace? His mercy, the washing of regeneration, and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, that is when we are saved. Thus, it is the washing that puts us into His grace. So, the washing, which Paul relayed
'Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins', Acts 22:16. Wash away sins by baptism, as Paul writes also in Rom. 6:3-4. This is initial justification, that is the beginning, not end of the process. Then, we have the hope of eternal life. We have the hope, but no guarantee at all. It also puts to shame your idea that washing and cleansing of sin, is not a part of how one is justified, which puts to lie the idea that justification is not an interior change. No necessary byproduct, but instead the cause. You are doing a surface level of finding one statement and forgetting the background. It is like you read Titus 3:5 A, and forget the whole background to the passage, Titus 2:11-14, 3:1-4, 3:5b through 7.
The exact same thing in your quotation of Ephesians 2:8, but leave out the whole point of Ephesians 2. Jesus came to set us free from sins bondage. I will borrow from my work in Ephesians 2, as you take Ephesians 2:8, out of context, just like you do with the surface level take on Titus 3:5 A.
I will again, take from my paper on Ephesians 2 and take a look at the whole background, which dismisses your surface level reading of Ephesians 2:8. Because it actually is very similar to the Protestant surface level reading of Titus 3:5, which is missing all of Paul's point:
God, who is rich in mercy (v. 4) makes us alive together with Christ by grace (v. 5). How is He rich in mercy, by just turning away from how sinful we are and instead looking at Jesus Christ's perfect righteousness, as the Protestant apologists & Confessions say? No, He did not declare us alive, He made us alive. By what? His grace. So, verses 4 and 5 show us that there is a real ontological change, not a mere declaration of a change. This is a change of being into an ontologically righteous person. Thus, infusion of grace, in order to make us truly righteous (see also Rom. 5:19), is specifically implied.
He also raises up with Christ in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (v. 6). He does not declare us raised up with Christ, we are actually raised up to be with Him. We are now in the heavenly places. We now reign with him. We are not just filthy rags that somehow have a relationship with God in spite of being filthy rags, but someone who is intimate with God the Father based on us reigning with God. Notice that He really breaks the power of sin over believers. Thus, He does not merely make a forensic declaration of breaking that bondage, God actually breaks that bondage.
That is the background to the verses we are keying in on here. Remember grace is what makes us alive together in Him. It detached us from the bondage of sin, according to verse 5. That explicitly coincides with both Trent and the Catechism.
Then we go to verse 8: For by grace you have been saved by faith. We remember that when Paul wrote that we are saved by grace in v. 5, he wrote that this grace made us alive, and separated from the bondage of sin (similar to when Paul wrote: He who has died has been justified (freed) from sin (Rom. 6:7). He has thus already laid down the transformative nature and power of grace. Grace is not a covering, or a mere imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account. Nonetheless, it is not our own doing. This transformation is a gift indeed given to us by God. It originates from God and is not our own doing, as Paul writes in v. 8. We do not work our way to heaven. We can not approach God through boasting, as he writes in v. 9. This shows that foundational to our relationship with Christ is our total reliance upon Him to transform us. We can't transform ourselves by our own power. Thus, we can not boast. Thus, when it says, it is not of works, lest anyone should boast, it says we do not work to earn salvation. It is God's gift to us that ontologically transforms us, not us transforming ourselves. If we did it by ourselves, then we could boast. If we approach God through our own boasting and self-reliance, we are condemned (v. 9). When Paul condemns work salvation schemes, he condemns those who approach God through boasting (Rom. 2:17, 23, 3:27, Rom. 4:2). However, Paul never condemns works when done through God's grace as achieving salvation. In fact, elsewhere he says that grace empowered works are necessary to achieve salvation (Rom. 2:4-13, Gal. 6:8-9, 1 Tim. 6:18-19, etc). Nevertheless, the point here by Paul is that we must approach God humbly and be utterly reliant upon His mercy and grace, before we can approach Him for salvation. We are saved through His power alone. We do not boast about ourselves. But God raises us up to be sons called to holiness.
In v. 10, Paul continues this outlook on salvation. He writes that we are His workmanship. Our work in his grace is His work in our lives. In v. 10 here, Paul does not write, OK, now I move on to sanctification, and thus, now we do good works to prove that we are already saved, or something to that effect. Verse 10 is not some new category from which Paul digresses from the whole section on salvation. Instead, he now states the kind of works which do profit unto salvation, as opposed to that which does not. We are God's workmanship created in Christ Jesus for good works, according to Paul. Now in His grace and under His mercy, and in His power, we shall now walk in Him. This is what profits unto salvation. It is by grace that we are saved. It is not by works done under our own power. The gift of God which profits to salvation is thus not only faith as mentioned in v. 8, but works empowered by grace as well.
My take on Ephesians 2:1-10:
Now we can go to the whole context of Ephesians 2, as the verses 8-10 are in the midst of Paul's teaching on the issue of God's grace. Tearing verses away from the context does an injustice to Paul. As noted before, Protestants who focus on verses 8-9, and sometimes will take into account verse 10, still ignore the larger context. Catholics, when they look at the issue will often just focus on v. 10 and overlook this context. I will focus on the context, Here is Eph. 2:1-10:
This whole background to the verses 8-10 tells us a lot. First, Paul explicates that He made us alive (v. 1) (not declared us alive), when in the past we were dead in trespasses and sins, v. 1. Before Christ came, and before being made alive in Christ, we were dead because sins separated us from Him. We once lived according to the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind. By our actions, we were by nature children of wrath. So thus, ontologically we were truly unclean. Both Catholics and Protestants use this verse (v. 3) to show the effects of original sin. Apart from Christ we walk according to our passions. Protestants will sometime use this verse to show that man is totally depraved. Man is totally incapable of responding to God. Now Catholics will just say that apart from God we are in a spiritually estranged state, but not depraved. It is not the purpose of the paper to go into that debate, just point out that the state we are in apart from God, is one is truly estranged from God because of sin. As Paul writes in verses 1 & 3, trespasses and sins controlled us, we walked in the passions of our flesh. We did not have God's grace to counteract those passions. One is not 'declared' sinful, but is ontologically unrighteous before God. That is the state from which we begin our life when estranged from God. 1 And you he made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God-- 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
What about you citing Romans 3:24, does that really fit your theology at all? Look at Rom. 3:24-25:
24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
V. 24 it is a gift of redemption. But we just saw in Titus 2:13-14 one more time:
13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. Believers are justified as a gift. This redemption is a redemption from iniquity. To do what? He purifies us to be zealous for good deeds!! This is His grace and salvation, Titus 2:11. So what He writes in Titus 2:11-14, is applicable to when Paul writes about the redemption noted in Rom. 3:24. He is a sacrifice for our sins. Yes. Here he shows God's righteousness. It is a gift from God, He had passed over sins in the past, this gift is to deal with and erase, not merely pass over sins for believers. This gift was to purify us from those sins. What is this righteousness, to look at Christ's perfect righteousness and pass over sins in the future? Of course not. He wants to do away with it. But as Paul notes in Romans 3, the law does not provide power to get rid of sins. As he specifically says in Rom. 5:19, that gift in justification is to make us righteous. Let us look at what St. John Chrysostom says in his commentary in Rom. 3:24-25, to get a better view of what Paul is arguing:
To declare His righteousness. What is declaring of righteousness? Like the declaring of His riches, not only for Him to be rich Himself, but also to make others rich, or of life, not only that He is Himself living, but also that He makes the dead to live; and of His power, not only that He is Himself powerful, but also that He makes the feeble powerful. So also is the declaring of His righteousness not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He does also make them that are filled with the putrefying sores of sin suddenly righteous.
St. John Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series Vol. 11, Epistle to the Romans, Homily VII., p. 378.
This gift of God is not in just continuing to look away from sin, but instead that gift is so much a gift to make righteous. What God declares, he makes, as part of that justification, as the Saint so aptly demonstrates. The law, and works of the law provides no such power, Rom. 3:20, 28.
It is a singular grace, the "grace in which we stand", that "we have access to by faith" (Romans 5:2).
Rejoice in hope of the sharing of the glory of God, Roman 5:2b. Another reading of half a verse. You have a bad habit of reading half verses. Hope, no guarantee, and a part of that is the love being poured out in our heart, Romans 5:5, i.e., infusion, not alien righteousness. In the same chapter He again shows that in justification is one who is made righteous, Rom. 5:19, his whole purpose is to undo sin in actuality, not cover it over.
The plurality of graces that Catholicism offers complicates the gospel and" frustrates the grace of God" (Gal 2:21). We do grow weary hearing of assisting grace, aiding grace, co-operating G, operating G, special G, superior G, prevenient G, deifying G, sanctifying G, habitual G, sufficient G, actual G....and I probably forgot a few! Sheesh! What a racket.
No, grace does not frustrate grace. But there are indeed different types of grace, as you yourself have acknowledged. Spiritual life is complicated, there are many aspects of a spiritual life, whether you want to admit it or not, and God gives helps in different ways, but it is breaking things down. There are different aspects of a spiritual life which anybody who is honest will admit. I guess you have the right to be simplistic and not look at different ways that God provides grace, but that is your prerogative.
Worse still, the grace that Catholicism offers is not free, but is essentially earned whether you like it or not as previously shown. God's free gift comes to those who rejoice to " excel in the Lord's work, knowing that our labor in the Lord is not in vain" (1 Cor 15:58) but who don't have the mindset that performing these labors are salvific, stated otherwise as, "to the one who does not work" per Romans 4:4, and that one statement by itself brings down the curtain on the fool-hardy claim that " in Paul's view, God saves or condemns based on the works performed by the individual" (NBFA, p. 36). NO, HE DOES NOT. Yes, Paul speaks of "works of the law" not justifying in R-3-20 & 28, but when he comes to R-4:1-8, he no longer refers to works of the law. Yes, the boundary marker issue of circumcision surfaces in 9-12, but not in 1-8. So when he asked the question if Abe was justified by works in 4:2, the immediate context is works in general, of whatever sort they are, and that man was not justified by even one of them.
It is a shallow reading of the verse and your reading of it denies the reading of other passages in Romans. We are justified by works in Romans 2:6, which you conveniently disregard, and relegate that to 'types' of people. Paul does not say anywhere 'types' of people. Doers of the law will be justified, Romans 2:13. The righteous requirement of the law is met by those who walk in the Spirit, Romans 8:2-4. One is made righteous in justification, Romans 5:19, and since life is a process, and the end of sanctification is eternal life, Romans 6:22. Obedience or disobedience, leaves to heaven or hell, Rom. 6:16. Works, any type of works, when one is not within the grace of God, does not lead to salvation. As mentioned, Paul pointing to Abraham, absolutely destroys the one-time forensic legal exchange that your theology requires you to buy. The whole context is works of the law, both before and after. I understand works of law as works outside His grace. He is talking about works that do not justify, unlike the ones that he says that do, Romans 2:6-7, 10, 13, 23, 27, Gal. 6:8-9, 1 Tim. 6:18-19. Any works outside of his grace are works of the law, not limited to circumcision. Rom. 3:20 talks about works of the law related to awareness of sin, with the Gentiles in Rom. 3:20. In Romans 4:2, Abraham talks about those works are those one can boast about, as the one he condemns. Thus, it is works, outside of His grace, that he does on his own, that he highlights. It says right in Romans 4:4: 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.
The exact wording shows what Paul is talking about. As his due. As his due means God owes me. It is that view Paul is condemning, which does not recognize his graciousness. To the contrary, here Paul says His grace is the grounds of salvation. So, it is exactly talking about works that Paul is condemning is where one obligates God to give him salvation. To the contrary, Paul says work out your salvation with fear and trembling for it is God at work within you, as looked at in Phil 2:12-16. Paul specifically had written in Rom. 2:10: but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. Everyone who does good, gets glory honor and peace. So just reading Romans 4:4, and ignoring and explaining away these other passages, explaining everything as 'type' just doesn't work. It is also not an honest way to examine the passage in Romans 2. Besides that, in Romans 4, you must ignore the very person Abraham, who Paul points to. Unrebutted, is the fact that I point to the fact that Abraham was not initially justified in Genesis 15. In Hebrews 11, (I regard Paul as the author of the book of Hebrews), Paul specifically notes that Abraham is an example of the man of faith, back in Genesis 12. As a man of faith, he left house and home to follow God, and His promises, built altars to God (Gen. 13:4, 18), and was called the man of God by the Priest Melchizedek, the forerunner of Christ as High Priest, Genesis 14:19. Your premise must be that he is an unjustified person, and is preposterous. He was already a justified person, so this belief in God, was just a continuation of his justification before God. This shows that justification is a process. And the Romans 4:5 example points to David. I have examined that and the example of David exactly undercuts the faith alone, one can not lose justification premise.
Romans 4:6-8:
6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."
The example of David absolutely destroys the idea that justification is only a one-time event. An important question that concerns us, is this the time of David's one and only justification, as a Protestant of your persuasion must hold? On the contrary, David since his youth called on the Lord to defeat Goliath. He was not unregenerate then. In 1 Samuel 13:14, years before 2 Sam. 11-12 and Psalm 32, David is called a "man after God's own heart" a distinction given to no other man in the bible. The Psalms prior to Psalm 32 were also written well before the events of 2 Sam. 11-12, which were the occasion for Psalm 32. This shows indeed that David was a true child of God before the events of Psalm 32. Otherwise, we would have Psalms written before Psalm 32 to be written by an unregenerate pagan who had no real relationship with God.
Although David earlier in his life was a true child of God, he did something to make himself ungodly. He committed major sin with Bathshebe and Uriah to make him become ungodly (2 Sam. 11-12). That is how he was ungodly coming into Psalm 32. How was he forgiven? By sincere repentance given in the grace of God as so heartfelt put in Psalms 32 and 51. He did not earn his way back through law, as Paul clearly states. In this state of mortal sin, he responds to Gods' grace and is rejustified. He is put back in God's grace. However, it is not David earning his way back into God's grace, not as an employee from an employer. It is a Father-Son relationship. Paul shows that works do not earn his grace back, but his justification is won back by repentance, the point of Rom. 4:4-8. Paul's sees David's acknowledgement and confession of his sin, a total reliance and recognition of God' benificience, grace and mercy, reflecting the Catholic position.
Moreover, it makes perfect sense that Paul drops the phrase "works of the law" in this case, for Abraham wasn't under the Mosaic law, which wouldn't see the light of day until 430 years later! Therefore, Paul is asking whether Abe was justified by works in general. Was he? The answer is NO, in or outside God's grace, and it's the same for each one of us. That damnable little twist of 4:4 by Sungenis does not accurately reflect the apostle's thought. He no where indicates that the justification of the ungodly in 4:5 results from
the "the favor" of God's undeserved "help " (1996) infused into our soul (1999)
Oh yes it does. Is the quoting of Psalm 32 in Rom. 4:6-8, a quoting of one who is actually unrighteous, but declared righteous, solely through God's imputation of an alien righteousness, which is the way that you must read it? Or does it quote David, recognizing himself to be a sinner, who through God's grace and forgiveness. becomes a righteous person? As you would have to agree if you believe Scripture is inspired 2 Tim. 3:16, Paul would not wrench scripture out of context. The best way to figure this out is looking at Psalm 32 itself. Paul quotes 32:1-2. David thanks God for his forgiveness and acknowledges himself to be a sinner. He shows his utter reliance on God's grace, no question. The question is whether now that David is forgiven, is he an actually righteous person, or is only declared such? You declare that there is no subjective change in the individual and He is only righteous in the sense of being declared so. Look at the context of Psalm 32, which Paul uses. David writes that his sin is covered, and not imputed (vv. 1-2a). When David was a sinner outside of God's grace he admits that his spirit was wasted away. However, David acknowledged his sin and confessed them to God. The question - "Is David and God's people unrighteous sinners who are only declared righteous?" Not only does he have no deceit (v. 2b), but every one who is godly offers prayer to God (v.6). God preserves David from trouble and is the means of deliverance (v. 7), not merely a covering. David next contrasts the wicked from the righteous (vv. 10-11). No courtroom language. Your theory holds that there are none intrinsically righteous before God. According to David "Steadfast love surrounds him who trusts in the Lord. Be glad in the Lord, and rejoice, o righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart." God's people are actually righteous, godly, and have no deceit. God's people are actually upright in heart! Apparently when God imputes his righteousness, it is not external. He imparts his own life into the individual. Where is the subjective change taught by Roman Catholic theology you may ask? In the very text that Paul quotes from! We see in this very psalm a man who is not only declared, but actually upright in heart. That is Catholic theology at heart. God's grace transforms, makes this change in the individual, and is the means, not consequence of justification.
It shows that at the time of justification, inherent righteousness is a part of this justification. His acts of repentance thus give a crediting of righteousness. Thus, a crediting of righteousness is not a one-time thing. When God justifies David, he returns him to a state of actual righteousness. The Catholic position is this in Trent. No, we do not dispute that God justifies the ungodly. As Trent says one is born a Child of Adam (and ungodly) but at the point that the ungodly child of Adam is justified, this ungodly person becomes godly, specifically shown by Paul.
"Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but what is due!" 2) performing "supernatural" good deeds (2010) which then make us "worthy of obtaining [synonym: EARN] the promised inheritance of eternal life"
I am not saying that the good deeds is explicitly taught in Romans 4:5, but it is consistent with it. Repentance from mortal sin, that David had committed with Bathsheba and the killing of her husband, is the focus of Paul's citation. He then gets forgiving grace, taking him from a state of mortal sin, and outside of His grace, where even good works that one does in that state is useless. Repentance from sin gets back into His grace, where he becomes godly again. After that point in time, good works can then become righteous in God's eyes.
3) "grace [going] before us and now we are given what is due " (i.e., due to our performance, eternal life is granted for "the good works accomplished with his grace" (CCC 2009, 2016).
Neither CCC 2009 nor 2016 says we are given what we are due. As 2009 rightly notes, our merits are God's gifts, and divine goodness, far from saying we are due. Your understanding is destroyed by the very example of David & Abraham, both of whom had previously been justified before the citations from Paul, so it shows that justification is a process, not a one-time event. Imputation nowhere to be found, anywhere in Romans 3, 4, or anywhere, which your whole hope is on. He had already written in Romans 2:10 that one only gets "glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek."
By saying "we are given what is due", I insist that Rome totally contradicts Romans 4:
You keep on insisting we are saying it is due, no, it is not due. It is God giving of His own good will the rewards to faithful sons. The faithful son will not dare say it is due, but is a reward from a loving Father. Also, you act as though this is coming from Sungenis, as though he invented this in the 1990s when he wrote his book. St. Augustine about 1600 years before that, shows this indeed we do not say it is due:
Well, now, has he not pointedly so defined grace as to show that it is so called because it is bestowed gratuitously? These are his own very words: And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. Romans 11:6 In accordance with this, he says again: Now to him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. Romans 4:4 Whosoever, therefore, is worthy, to him it is due; and if it is thus due to him, it ceases to be grace; for grace is given, but a debt is paid. Grace, therefore, is given to those who are unworthy, that a debt may be paid to them when they become worthy. He, however, who has bestowed on the unworthy the gifts which they possessed not before, does Himself take care that they shall have whatever things He means to recompense to them when they become worthy.
St. Augustine, NPNP first series,volume 5, Anti-Pelagian Writings, On the Proceedings of Pelagius, chapter 33, p. 198.
So again, St. Augustine quotes Paul even quoting Romans 11:6, where it talks about works that do not justify, is when one is not in His grace. If it is thus due him, it ceases to be grace. The church never says it is due. As the saint says, grace is given to those who are unworthy and they will get rewarded when they become worthy. He bestowed on the unworthy the gifts that they possessed not before. God rewards those he makes righteous when he transfers his children from unworthy to worthy. Only then one will get the reward of heaven based on when one is made worthy. That is Catholic to a tee. It actually comes from Paul himself.
His purpose is not to eliminate a "contract" bond with God, but to eliminate all boasting beginning in 3:27 thru 4:5. That being so, I say that excludes each and every kind of work, under any circumstance whatsoever, in order to make plain that God justifies the one "not working " (i.e., having the mindset that works simply cannot justify us!) so that it might be shown to be a favor throughout all eternity (Eph 1:5-6; 2:4-9).
A Catholic does not boast, because as the very passage in CCC 2009 says, it is based on God's gratuitousness. You have Paul contradicting not only all of Romans 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, and 14, but the very lives of Abraham and David. We have already looked at the context of Ephesians 2:1-10, which totally undercuts your premise.
So while it's true Scripture is rife with the language of "reward", what exactly is that reward which is said to follow from our works? Is it the forgiveness of sins or is it eternal life? Catholics say both. But if those two benefits are dependent on our works, what in the world has become of grace being free? Answer? It has been made void. God's energizing grace certainly may induce us to believe the gospel (Acts 16:14), but it does not have the power to christen our good works with an element of sin-cleansing efficacy!
It is free in the sense that God really came to cleanse us from the bondage of sin. That is what is free. It is a powerful grace that is not deficient. Your assessment is that God is unable to transform, he has to look away from how horrible we are. Your premise is that in actuality, the sin of Adam continues to reign in actuality, even for believers, who God chooses. He can only declare one righteous, he can't make one righteous. God is unable and impotent in dealing with sin. What is the purpose of God sending His Son? Jesus said He came to set us free from sin's bondage, Jn 8:31-36. If He came to set us free from that bondage, part of that gift is what He does in lives, in reference to our justification before God. Paul writes this:
Titus 2:11-14:
11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, 12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
Paul right here tells us what grace does and what salvation is. It is not a looking away. God came to appear for the salvation of all men. Now, true, not all people get to heaven, but he died for every single person, they all have a chance. You think he only died for the elect, not for Catholics, who according to you, do not abandon Catholicism. Or anybody else not elect. Your theology starts off at odds with this passage. Paul tells us what grace and salvation is: It does the training and renouncing irreligion; it renounces worldly passion. So, grace is not just a looking away from sin, it is an active force that causes us to change our lives. Grace renounces worldly passion, i.e., infusion of grace. How is one saved? Paul tells us by living soberly, righteously and godly, by God's power. You think me believing what Paul writes here, as he says it, sends me to hell. I'll take God's purpose in sending His Son, and Paul's proclamation of that, over your false proclamation.
"Lazy Catholics apparently don't realize that anyone who is seeking glory, honor and immortality already show that the general tenor of their life is "setting their affections on things above, and not on things in the earth" (Col 3:2). It is these types of people, those who manifest this hope, to whom God will give eternal life."
There is Scriptural support for this....shown in Trent, Chapter 10 of session 6, [where they quote places such as we ought to be virtuous, die to the flesh, etc, and I reminded you of Titus 2:11, that we ought to renounce
worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly...]
So for all their talk of grace, Catholics have in fact " fallen from grace" (Gal 5:4). The ground of our forgiveness and of our eternal life is the work of Christ alone , and for you to think that conclusion is "dangerously false, and indeed, demonically false" is unconscionable.
The problem is that you undervalue the work of God, in justification. It is the work of Christ, in the life of a believer. You say the work of Christ, is insufficient to cleanse us from sin in God in justification. Paul writes that God's. purpose was to undo Adam's, in actuality, Romans 5:12-19. Undoing sin means taking us from the bondage of the sin of Adam. Adam's sin called making us unrighteous, Rom. 5:12, not declaring us unrighteous. He undoes it not by declaring us righteous, but making us righteous. The Protestant view makes God too weak to truly undo that sin, and killed Jesus, only to declare us righteous, not actually make us righteous. And the reason why I said that it is demonically false, is because every single book in the New Testaments warns of falling away from one's justification because of sin. 1 Cor. 9:21-10:12, 2 Pet. 2:1-3, 20-21, Eph. 5:2-6, Romans 11:20-22, 1 Cor. 15:1-2, etc. Those are real warnings. Your theology fends off all these warnings as not real in actuality, because of the imputed righteousness of Christ, one can not lose that salvation. Those warnings are not true, according to your theology. That is what is demonic. In actuality, it does not deal with the reality of sin.
Or, as I said in the essay in reply to Romans 2:7 (where Catholics think the point is that God gives eternal life to those who imitate Florence Nightingale)...
What I see in your response is a lazy diversion from the text itself that totally destroys your outlook, and this passage must be consistent with Romans 4. Look at the passage itself, Romans 2:
6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life
God judges based on works. And those who by patience in well doing he will give eternal life. Well doing equals good works. He is not talking about types of people, as the main consideration of this passage. You make type of people as the way to interpret this passage, Paul nowhere gives a hint that he is talking about type of people at all, or if he is at all, that is pushed to the background. After saying God will render according to works, it is those by patience in well-doing, showing it is the means of achieving immortality. That is the cause of it, which he reiterates, through this whole section until v. 13. And not even there, because he talks about fulfilling the law even through Romans 2:27. Nowhere in Romans 2, is that he is talking about types of people, as the way to interpret this faith alone destroying passage.
In my essay, I stated that your theology forces you to read Romans 11:6 as, "if it is by grace, that means it is no longer on the basis of works void of his actual grace. Conversely, good works that are aided by actual grace in conjunction with our free will, do count for salvation".
I rebuked such thinking, taking it to be an ingenious twisting of the Text. To which you replied,
Unfortunately, you are leaving out most of my argument. I first took a look at the whole context of the passage in Romans 11. The background to that passage is showing that Paul is condemning works that are out of grace. The specific works that Elijah himself condemned in the Old Testament were not works in grace, that is why those were indeed works devoid of grace. Also, the whole context of Romans 11, shows that believers are told to persevere in faith or one can get cut off, Roman 11:20-22. Paul warns that one can do that. You do not that think Paul's warning is a real warning. He does not hint that one does the robotic perseverance that one will do if one is in a justified state, which is the whole demonically false presumption.
ANSWER: NO. As I've been before and hereafter ruthlessly retorting, any admonition that we "conduct ourselves accordingly", does not amount to "scriptural support" that God waves a magic wand and anoints our model behavior with a ticket to heaven. As someone has wisely said, "Protestants trust Christ to save them - and the Catholic trusts Christ to help them save themselves. It is faith versus works. Romans 4:16 solves the problem: "Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace". Now if Catholics want to be saved by grace alone, it will have to be by faith alone. You can't be saved "sola gratia" except "sola fide." We agree with Roman friends- -salvation is by grace. That is the reason it must be by faith. But if it is a salvation based on works that come from grace, it is not based on grace but on the Christian's works that come from grace. The works that come from grace may be derivative of, may be a consequence of, and may actually prove grace, but they cannot BE grace."
Titus 2 exactly described grace as us doing in the context of salvation. The grace wipes out sin. Your view and whoever the author of that piece is, devalues what God actually does in justification. Grace acts. Sanctifying grace is an actual grace. That is why obedience leads to one's justification, Rom. 6:16. Now in Romans 4:16 it says that faith is paramount indeed, no doubt. The Law brings no salvation in and of itself. Law provides no power but grace does. Faith is the grounds of all salvation. It goes back to what Paul said when he justifies the ungodly. He does not stay ungodly. As St. John Chrysostom writes on Rom. 4:5:
Ver. 5. "To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly."For reflect how great a thing it is to be persuaded and have full confidence that God is able on a sudden not to free a man who has lived in impiety from punishment only, but even to make him just, and to count him worthy of those immortal honors. Do not then suppose that this one is lowered in that it is not reckoned unto the former of grace. For this is the very thing that makes the believer glorious; the fact of his enjoying so great grace, of his displaying so great faith. And note too that the recompense is greater. For to the former a reward is given, to the latter righteousness. Now righteousness is much greater than a reward. For righteousness is a recompense which most fully comprehends several rewards. Therefore after proving this from Abraham, he introduces David also as giving his suffrage in favor of the statement made. What then doth David say? and whom doth he pronounce blessed? is it him that triumphs in works, or him that hath enjoyed grace? him that hath obtained pardon and a gift? And when I speak of blessedness, I mean the chiefest of all good things; for as righteousness is greater than a reward, so is blessedness greater than righteousness. Having then shown that the righteousness is better, not owing to Abraham's having received it only but also from reasonings (for he hath whereof to boast, he says, before God; he again uses another mode of showing that it is more dignified, by bringing David in to give his suffrage this way. For he also, he says, pronounces him blessed who is so made righteous.
St. John Chrysostom, NPNP, First Series Vol. 11, The Epistle to the Romans, Homily VIII, p. 386-387.
Justification is being made righteous; the example of Abraham is added on by pointing to David. If it is being made righteous, ipso defacto, it is a process. The very examples of David and Abraham, pointed to by Paul himself, show that justification is a process, by the fact that each of the examples shown, had already been justified at a previous points in time.
I said:
God gives us heaven as a reward of Christ working within us.
You replied:
ANSWER: NO. It was not through any obedience to the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he'd be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith (R-4-13). It is the same for each one of us. Popery has no choice but to agree with R-4-13, but what they've done is simply replaced one law (works of law) for another; namely, the law of grace-produced-good-works done in faith (NBFA, p. 31). Catholics would argue that this "new law" refers to Romans 8:2, "the law of the Spirit", which is to love in the same manner as Christ loved us (NBFA, p. 75). But again, this shift from "apart from works of the law" (R-3-28) to being justified by good works done in faith, is nothing but a replacement theology which brings into play a paradigm deviation which goes from one law keeping effort to another; the first cautioned that "whoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all "; and the second cautions likewise: "This is the teaching of the Catholic truth from which no one can depart without loss of faith and salvation" (Scroll to #46 and see Footnote 17).
No, Rome has not done it but it reflects, Paul, and Scriptures, in Genesis 12, 15, & 22. He obeyed based on faith, but that obedience, and following God's call he went forth and obeyed. Now, justification is a process. However, we know he fell short when he doubted after that call in Genesis 15 when he took on Hagar, and impregnated her. He had ups and downs in faith, and it was ultimately his obedience to God, when he was justified when he offered Isaac to God in Genesis 22, where he was justified by his works and obedience. One thing that is your premise on this belief does not match the event. First, as noted Abraham was already a justified person, so him being justified at this point in Genesis 15, points to justification, being a process. The other thing, is what was his belief in? His belief was that God would provide a son from his loins. It is not faith that God will provide him an imputed righteousness, that an alien righteousness will be imparted to him, and that is the only ground of salvation. It is totally absent from Abraham's belief.
The notation of James 2:10 about you offend against the law in one point, one is condemned. Look at the context, James 2:8-12:
8 If you really fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well. 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," said also, "Do not kill." If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
Notice James does say one can fulfill the royal law. This is just before he says one is justified by works, James 2:14-26. When talking about not keeping the law and fails, the specific instance is do not commit adultery & do not kill. Of course, as we know, if one commits adultery and one kills, that is breaking of the law that does send one to hell, as reflected in 1 Cor. 6:9, Galatians 5:19-21. There is a law of liberty but that does not mean you can kill or steal and get away with that. You think that does not separate one from God's inheritance, because there is no such thing as mortal sin. James and Paul in numerous places says otherwise. As noted in Hebrews 12:5-17, lesser sins can lead to discipline, greater sins are mortal, which lead to separation from God.
Of course, in this whole epistle he has declared one can not be saved by works of the law in multiple places. [And so, as I said in my paper, "The Necessity of Grace-Empowered Works"] any kind of law, in and of itself will not save. Even the moral law will not save, per se ...
You say in response:
ANSWER: Your "per se" is disingenuous. For if the catechism is going to say, point blank and without any qualification, that the 10 commandments are necessary for salvation and that the justified man is still bound to keep them (i.e., 100%) "for salvation" (#2068) then you do believe you can in fact, (not per se) be saved by works of the law!
No, works of the law in any way does not save. The moral law, in and of itself, does not save. However, as noted time and time again within the Holy Spirit, as an adopted son, the 10 commandments are still necessary to abide by for salvation. I have already gone over that in my discussion of Jesus and the commandments. You go against both Paul and Jesus when you say they are not necessary for salvation. Paul specifically says breaking the commandments mortally send you to hell, even if in His grace. He says the Law of the Spirit and Christ, one must meet, Rom. 8:4, Gal. 6:2. Which is totally different from the Works of the Law. You know the Church does teach a distinction in sins.
Romans 8:2-4: 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Paul specifically says going by the law, in and of itself leads one to death. The law provides absolutely no power. If one goes by the strict law, with no leeway, one indeed goes to hell. However, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, where one has the power of the Holy Spirit, one is an adopted son. Then after this passage Paul writes that one must put to death the deeds of the flesh, Romans 8:12-13, and if you fall into those sins, you do not get eternal life. So even though the law provides no power, the Spirit provides power, and we are adopted sons, and only if we suffer, do we inherit eternal life, Romans 8:17.
On the one hand Paul says that we are not under the law, in Galatians 5:17. Strict law provides no salvation. However, the law of the Spirit, we can keep, we can fulfil the law of love, specifically just a few verses earlier about loving neighbor as oneself, Gal. 5:14. That law of love is not the same as works of the law. Paul specifically then itemized the list of sins that if one is guilty of, and dies with them on their soul, sends them to hell, Gal. 5:19-21. He specifically warns the proto-Calvinists, the automatic perseverance of believers theorists, he specifically condemns that outlook; That there is no mortal sin. Or you would try to explain it away by saying they were never justified in the first place. Paul does not write that. He follows that up by saying loving one another thus fulfills the law of Christ, Gal. 6:2, and one can keep that. The law of the Spirit and Christ is different from the works of the law, and even the moral law itself, because there is no power in the law. In the law of Spirit and Christ, one has power in Christ, as new creations.
I suggest you sleep on the fact that Paul labored more than all his friends, and even though explicitly stating that the grace of God enabled him to carry on (1 Cor 3:10; 15:10) he was adamant that all was to be counted loss except for the excellency found in Christ (Phil 3:8) and hence, we are not saved by any works of righteousness whatsoever, in or outside a state of grace (Romans 3:20, 28, 4:2-8, 4:13-14, 10:4, 5:1, 11:6; Galatians 2:16; 3:11, 5:4; Phil 3:9; Titus 3:5; 2 Tim 1:9; Eph 2:8-9). Essentially, you think germinating within all those verses, is a declassification going on of only those righteous deeds which we obligate God to reward us for in a prideful state of mind (i.e., the infamous Sungenis scheme, unknown to mankind until he came along some 60 odd years ago). The amount of people down through time who took all those verses to mean that the only works that don't carry a salvific efficacy are those things we do outside of God's grace and/or obligate him to reward us for - may be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Again, I have looked at all those texts, you reading surface level looks at the verses, I looked at the context of all those verses, and none of them teach faith alone. Do These Scriptures Teach Faith Alone? Phil. 3:9 is right after he just mentioned one must work out salvation with fear and trembling, Phil 2:12-16. I have looked at in depth the Phil 3 passage. I have already posted St. Augustine's take on Romans 4. It was simple, one who is out of grace, that person's works do not bring salvation. Once in His grace, the works do point to salvation.
Here is a fuller explanation and the correct way to address all the passages that speak of the importance of faith, and grace, with the importance of faith and obedience, including four of your favorite verses, Eph. 2:8-9, Rom. 11:6, Romans, 3:28, Rom. 4:4, that I have already debunked as teaching faith alone, though the great Saint does it more concisely:
St. Augustine: On Grace and Free Will, 426-427 AD.
Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle's statement: We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, Romans 3:28 have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed a vessel of election by the apostle, who, after declaring that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, Galatians 5:6 adds at once, but faith which works by love. It is such faith which severs God's faithful from unclean demons - - for even these believe and tremble, James 2:19 as the Apostle James says; but they do not do well. Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives - - the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life. But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great teacher of the Gentiles has designated eternal life itself as His gracious gift. Romans 6:23
chapter 19: How is Eternal Life Both a Reward for Service and a Free Gift of Grace?
How is Eternal Life Both a Reward for Service and a Free Gift of Grace? Chapter 18.- - Faith Without Good Works is Not Sufficient for Salvation.
And hence there arises no small question, which must be solved by the Lord's gift. If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares: Then He shall reward every man according to his works: Matthew 16:27 (but also Romans 2:6) how can eternal life be a matter of grace, seeing that grace is not rendered to works, but is given gratuitously, as the apostle himself tells us: To him that works is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; Romans 4:4 and again: There is a remnant saved according to the election of grace; with these words immediately subjoined: And if of grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace? Romans 11:5-6 How, then, is eternal life by grace, when it is received from works? Does the apostle perchance not say that eternal life is a grace? Nay, he has so called it, with a clearness which none can possibly gainsay. It requires no acute intellect, but only an attentive reader, to discover this. For after saying, The wages of sin is death, he at once added, The grace of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23
Chapter 20. - - The Question Answered. Justification is Grace Simply and Entirely, Eternal Life is Reward and Grace.
This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: Without me you can do nothing. John 15:5 And the apostle himself, after saying, By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast; Ephesians 2:8-9 saw, of course, the possibility that men would think from this statement that good works are not necessary to those who believe, but that FAITH ALONE suffices for them; and again, the possibility of men's boasting of their good works, as if they were of themselves capable of performing them. To meet, therefore, these opinions on both sides, he immediately added, For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:10 What is the purport of his saying, Not of works, lest any man should boast, while commending the grace of God? And then why does he afterwards, when giving a reason for using such words, say, For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works? Why, therefore, does it run, Not of works, lest any man should boast? Now, hear and understand. Not of works is spoken of the works which you suppose have their origin in yourself alone; but you have to think of works for which God has moulded (that is, has formed and created) you. For of these he says, We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Now he does not here speak of that creation which made us human beings, but of that in reference to which one said who was already in full manhood, Create in me a clean heart, O God; (Psalm 51:9) concerning which also the apostle says, Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new. And all things are of God. 2 Corinthians 5:17-18 We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, in the good works which we have not ourselves prepared, but God has before ordained that we should walk in them. It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God's grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously, even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward - -grace is for grace, as if remuneration for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God shall reward every man according to his works, Mt. 16:27, Rom. 2:6.
Chapter 21 [IX.] - - Eternal Life is Grace for Grace.
Perhaps you ask whether we ever read in the Sacred Scriptures of grace for grace. Well you possess the Gospel according to John, which is perfectly clear in its very great light. Here John the Baptist says of Christ: Of His fullness have we all received, even grace for grace. John 1:16 So that out of His fullness we have received, according to our humble measure, our particles of ability as it were for leading good lives — according as God has dealt to every man his measure of faith; Romans 12:3 because every man has his proper gift of God; one after this manner, and another after that. 1 Corinthians 7:7 And this is grace. But, over and above this, we shall also receive grace for grace, when we shall have awarded to us eternal life, of which the apostle said: The grace of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, Romans 6:23 having just said that the wages of sin is death. Deservedly did he call it wages, because everlasting death is awarded as its proper due to diabolical service. Now, when it was in his power to say, and rightly to say: But the wages of righteousness is eternal life, he yet preferred to say: The grace of God is eternal life; in order that we may hence understand that God does not, for any merits of our own, but from His own divine compassion, prolong our existence to everlasting life. Even as the Psalmist says to his soul, Who crowns you with mercy and compassion. (Psalm 103:4) Well, now, is not a crown given as the reward of good deeds? It is, however, only because He works good works in good men, of whom it is said, It is God which works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure, Philippians 2:13 that the Psalm has it, as just now quoted: He crowns you with mercy and compassion (Psalm 103:4), since it is through His mercy that we perform the good deeds to which the crown is awarded.
It is not, however, to be for a moment supposed, because he said, It is God that works in you both to will and to do of his own good pleasure, that free will is taken away. If this, indeed, had been his meaning, he would not have said just before, Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Philippians 2:12 For when the command is given to work, their free will is addressed; and when it is added, with fear and trembling, they are warned against boasting of their good deedsas if they were their own, by attributing to themselves the performance of anything good. It is pretty much as if the apostle had this question put to him: Why did you use the phrase, 'with fear and trembling'? And as if he answered the inquiry of his examiners by telling them, For it is God which works in you. Because if you fear and tremble, you do not boast of your good works- - as if they were your own, since it is God who works within you.
I wrote:
Paul writes that the only way that one can take hold of eternal life (he is speaking to the rich, but the rich are not different from us), is that he must be rich in good deeds
(1 Tim 6).
You responded:
ANSWER: So good dee are the "only way", huh? However, Christ said HE was the only way (John 14:6). I will take his direct, crystal clear statement over your obvious misunderstanding of Paul.
We read: "As for the rich in this world, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on uncertain riches but on God who richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed".
Amazing you quote Christ from John 14, when He says if you love me you will keep the commandments, John 14:15, and if you love Him you will do and keep his word, John 14:22-23. You reject His way when you reject His teaching. Jesus says to enter life you must keep the commandments, but you quote selected portions of Paul to do away with what Jesus said on exactly how you get eternal life. So, Christ of course said He is the only way, truth & life, but He himself said those who enter the pearly gates are those who fed the poor, etc. Mt. 25:31-46, enter life by keeping the commandments, Mt. 19:16-17, Luke 10:25-28, Luke 18:18-20, Mk. 10:17-20, those who get to heaven are those who do good, Jn 5:28-29, etc. But since we are discussing Paul, of course it is God who richly furnishes us, it is those good works done in His grace that lays the foundation for getting eternal life, 1 Tim. 6:18-19.
Your 70 page essay does not point to this passage. Why not?
ANSWER: Well I suppose I could have, but considering the fact that the quintessential point of my epistle was that we should not rest our hopes on being good enough, I tend to think no judge or jury would convict me for not mentioning 1 Tim 6. I began my essay with a man who had just died and was hoping he was good enough as he was ushered to judgement, and followed that with Pope Francis who went on a rant that we should be ever so...good, and followed that with JPII saying that a good life is the condition for heaven!
Of course, Jesus said he is the way, truth and life, and what he teaches is that way that He speaks of. When He says judgment is when he awards Heaven to those who do good, and those who do bad, get to hell, John 5:28-29. Those who do good, go to heaven, those who do not, get to hell, Mt. 25:31-46. Jesus says He will render according to our works, Mt. 16:27. So how can you follow Him but ignore what He says? Oh, you seriously responded by diverting to Paul, and we can see that diversion is not holding up so well here.
What does Paul write?
Romans 2:
10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
2 Cor. 5:10:
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body.
We all have to give an account for everything that we do. One that does good, gets to heaven, one that does not, gets to hell. That is the criteria that Scripture says. Yea, good life is condition for heaven. Absolutely every judgment scene shows that. John 5:28-29, Mt. 25:31-46, Rom 2:6-13, 2 Cor. 5:10, Rom. 14:12, Revelation 20:12-13, 21:6-8, 22:11-15.
The point being that Catholics are trusting in their goodness and "right conduct" (CCC 16) as the hinge upon which the door to heaven swings. Nevermind that Scripture tells us that "there is none righteous, no not one" and "there is none good". You take verses like 1 Tim 6 and pump them up with so much salvific air, that if they were a balloon, they'd pop. Essentially, you're simply "not rightly dividing the word of truth" (2 Tim 2:15).
No, it is trusting that Paul, and Jesus mean what they say. Just as it is God at work within us, in order to stand before God, per all the Scriptures, already presented by me, and as summarized much more succinctly by St. Augustine. Now, in reference to No one is righteous no not one, it is Romans 3:10. Now quickly, Paul in Romans 3, is letting those Jews who were haughty, thought they had the advantage over others because they had a covenant with God, and they had the Mosaic laws. Paul is just saying that being born a Jew does not make you better than the Gentiles, all were born with sin. Your premise is that Paul contradicts himself, contradicts the Psalm which he is drawing from, etc. For examination of that passage, Rom. 3:10, actually the whole context, Rom. 3:9-18, and the Psalms/Isaiah which is drawing from, there is new paper right here on this : No One is Righteous No Not One: An Examination of Romans 3:9-18. The Psalm Paul draws from points to righteous people. Paul Himself in justification writes one is made righteous, Romans 5:19, and in justification one is made free from the bondage of sin, Rom. 6:1-7. After writing that obedience leads to righteousness, he writes Rom. 6:18
'and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.' Christ's whole point is to make believers become slaves of righteousness. You have Paul contradicting himself, I don't.
Rightly dividing the word means to recognize that when we read in 1 Tim 6 about laying a foundation, it cannot mean laying a foundation of good deeds that have salvific merit! Why? Because you cannot lay a foundation more secure upon which to build than Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Cor 3). Or, as 1 Tim 6 says, to set our hopes on God. Hence, there cannot be two foundations to set our hopes on; one for him and one for good works. The former is built upon the latter.
You are blinded to the fact that his whole purpose is to eradicate sin, not play your pretend game. Then the works can be meritorious. He wants people to be purified. Building on Christ, and Him providing all the grace, you set against Christs Himself, who said He came to set us free from sin's bondage. It is the way one builds that foundation. Paul specifically says this in 1 Tim. 6:18-19:
18 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, 19 thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.
It is both/and, not either/or. Paul specifically says that those good works are necessary so that one can take hold of eternal life. Me saying what Paul says, is somehow my ticket to hell? That is preposterous. On top of that, your presumption renders God unable to deal with the root of sin, and make God get killed, accounted Himself as a sinner, only to not do away with sin. He is too weak to get at its root. You just argue that Paul can not mean what he says about good deeds lay the foundation for achieving eternal life, because you said so!! Paul is the one who said that, you misreading of other passages does not account or explain away what he wrote in 1 Tim. 6:18-19.
I wrote:
What he accomplished on the cross was to redeem us from all iniquity, and to cleanse us (Tit. 2:11-14) so our works could be truly pleasing.
You responded:
ANSWER: NO. This is the "Sungenis Manifesto", pulled like a rabbit out of a hat 25 years ago - and as Paul said, "We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved (Gal 2:5). When you say Christ died in order to make our works pleasing to him, you're simply saying that his death burst open the floodgates of heaven by raining down his "assisting grace" in order to "obey the law and its commandments as our gateway into eternal life" (N BFA, p. 185), prescisely the opposite of what we read in Acts 13:39! This obedience to the Mosaic law, as well as the many other laws the magisterium demands, are now claimed to have salvific value and are pleasing in his sight.
But no one in the history of the universe has ever answered the question to, "Why did Christ die for us?", with, "In order to give our righteous acts a propitiating, sin-cleansing, salvific efficacy equivalent to what was accomplished on the cross."
It is ingenious speculation, and it is "of your father the devil" (John 8:44).
Amazing I quote what Paul writes, and your answer is 'NO'. It tells me you do not go by the Bible, but what you've been taught by others. Besides that, Jesus said to enter life keep the commandments. Jesus said He came to set us free from the bondage of sin, John 8:31-36. You go by the Luther/Calvin manifesto that Christ was killed to take part in a lie. Paul said we must meet the righteous requirement of the, law via the Holy Spirit, Romans 8:2-4. The Catholic Church goes by the Jesus, Paul, James, and Peter manifesto. I just quoted Titus 2:11-14, and you spin, and dance away from the import of that passage, and you word it in a way I never said, and knock down a straw man. And you have Jesus getting killed just so He can take part in a lie, with your imputation premise that no one ever believed, or came close to believing, until the 16th century. The only thinking that you can get close to, is someone using the words 'faith alone', but nowhere having the meaning, you guys have. God is too weak to cleanse us from sin, He has to cover it over. That is not a god that I worship. I worship a God who said He will set us free from the bondage of sin, but we have an ongoing struggle to fight against the deeds of the flesh, Rom. 8:12-13, and that struggle is ongoing. You are calling not just me, Sungenis, the popes, but St. Augustine, and St. John Chrysostom, a follower of the devil. It sure ain't us following the father of lies.
I wrote:
Now it is undeniable that God has an interest in our good works. It is undeniable he will grant eternal life to the types of people who have good works and eternal punishment to those who are not that type. But what is the nature of God's interest in our moral virtues? It's a question that revolves around whether he gives eternal life "because" of good works or in "accordance" with good works. Catholics say the former; non-C's says the latter. For example, he talks about works in a state of grace in Romans 2:5-13
ANSWER: Under no circumstances whatsoever does he say anything about our labors being in a state of grace (!) or even contrast them with those outside it. You shamefully read that into the Text and then go off riding on a pony, and like Yankee Doodle Dandy, stuck a feather in your hat and called it macaroni.
In Romans 2:4 Paul specifically says 'Do you not know that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?' So, it is those who recognize God's kindness. What does that mean except God's grace? That lays the foundation for the rest of the statement in Rom. 2:6-13. Paul nowhere says this manufactured, unseen in the history of the world, until you came along, where somehow, he is talking about 'types' of people. He renders according to works, v. 6, those who have done good get eternal life, v. 7, & 10. Of course, he is contrasting those in grace from those who aren't, v. 8-9. That is why those who are obedient, get to heaven, those in v. 7, 10 are those who do good and are obedient, those who are disobedient, go to hell, v. 8-9. So, of course Paul is giving the contrast to those who recognize God's kindness (his reference to v. 4), are those who do good. So that is the background to the bottom line is that those who are the doers of the law who will be justified, v.13. Paul's emphasis is on who gets justified. It is that obedience, under the umbrella of God's grace, v. 4 so noted in v. 14 for the Gentiles that gives him justification. And we know that, because Paul later on in the same chapter, mentions contrasts those who keep the law (and we know of the Spirit), Romans 2:26-27, from those who don't, 2:24-25. It is those who boast who are condemned, v. 23. Paul is speaking of that as the means of justification. Exactly as St. Augustine said in his analysis of Romans 4, Ephesians 2. It is not the law in and of itself of course because the law gives no power, but the law of the Spirit, shown in Romans 8:2-4, does. One empowered by the Holy Spirit, is enabled to not give in to the lust of the flesh, which brings eternal life or death, Romans 8:12-13. He specifically says that the righteous requirement of the law is met by Christians in Romans 8:2-4. Nowhere is his main concern only 'type' of people, manufactured by you and you alone, Paul's main concern. Though probably borrowed from Chemnitz or White, or Piper.
To further show that Paul means in Romans 2 that works are salvific, but also come totally God's grace, is not only v. 4, but where he draws this passage from 'render according to works', Rom. 2:6. Paul is drawing this from Psalm 62:12. The whole Psalm, says God is my Rock and my salvation, Psalm 62:1-2, 6. He contrasts those who totally rely upon God, Psalm 62:1-2, 5-8, from those who don't, 3-4, 9-10. That is exactly like those who do good in His grace, Rom. 2:6, 7, 10 from those who do evil, 8-9. Those works are judged to be in obedience, and God rewards those who are faithful in the Psalm Paul draws this from. He is saying the same in Romans 2. Nowhere is there anything approaching a Protestant/Calvinist look at Romans 2.
For Paul, the concept of "works of the law" entails the notion of those who try to gain approval with God by trying to comply with the law's demands, " to perform them " (Gal 3:10). I have already shown Catholic paperwork that proves your camp is bent on the idea that their "performance" rituals in the realm of the Mosaic law is their ticket to heaven. Such efforts are doomed to failure because the law was not given to establish personal righteousness, but rather to tutor us to the righteousness which comes from faith (Gal 2:24).
I have examined Galatians 3:10-14, verse by verse. I do not argue that in Gal. 3:10-14 is speaking about circumcision, Mosaic rituals, though other Catholic apologists may limit it to the Mosaic law. You argue that Paul condemns all works as non-justifying. I actually do not even fully disagree with your statement above. Trying to go by purely law, and obligating God to reward with me by salvation by me keeping the law, does not justify anybody before God. As I mentioned time & time again here, the law does not save. Keeping the law, in and of itself, does not save. I go over this passage in detail here GALATIANS 3:10-14, WORKS AND LAW: Works of the Law and Galatians 3:14. However, fulfilling the Law of Christ, or the Spirit, that is when seen through the eyes of grace, where 100% perfection is not required, as we are adopted sons, Gal. 4:5-7, Rom. 8:14-17, is required. And to deny that is indeed demonic. Remember, justification where one is made righteous, Rom. 5:19. Tutor to righteousness? Sure, faith tutors to a righteousness, where one is made righteous, Rom. 5:19, that is the whole means of justification. That is ongoing. Breaking those commandments, that Paul specifically says at the same time that the law in and of itself does not save, Gal. 5:17, sends one to hell, Gal. 5:19-21. He warns those who would teach the Calvinist manifesto that law is done away with, you are false teachers. Only those who by the Spirit, crucify the flesh, Gal. 5:25, will go to heaven. Then in Gal. 6, Paul writes about fulfilling the law of the Spirit, and good works by His grace produces eternal life, Gal. 6:1-9, and is necessary for salvation.
Your zombie-like dedication to the energizing power of God's grace to perform, and then merit eternal life, is the wrecking ball that will swing you right past the Judgment Seat and straight into hell. True Christians know that the law of God has been " established " by our faith (Romans 3:31); that is, the righteousness of Christ fulfilled the law to its zenith, and has satisfied its curse for any non-compliance on our part. Thus, Christ has become the "end of the law for righteousness" (i.e., he put an end to the idea of seeking to establish righteousness by law).
But what is established by faith? By faith one is justified, but what is justified except God making one righteous, Rom. 5:19, as followed through in all of Romans 6, by baptism one is justified from sin, Rom. 6:7. And the end of holiness, i.e. sanctification is eternal life, Rom. 6:22
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Sanctification's end is eternal life! Only when you pursue that will you get it! Not type of people. Absolutely none of the passages you reference say your conclusion. Amazing you refer to a judgment where you have what looks like a Jack Chick cartoon, and a John Piper video, where the judgment is Jack Chick and John Piper imagination. You might be able to pass the Jack Chick and John Piper is God scene, but neither one of those fit the actual judgment scenes that are actually played out in the Bible. Like Matthew 25:31-46. 2 Cor. 5:10. Like Paul who specifically writes For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. Everybody gets judged for good and bad. Absolutely everybody. Your theology rejects specifically what Paul writes here. You and your cohorts rejects the words of Paul.
Again, as usual you find a passage in Romans 10:4, that ignores the context of what Paul is saying. St. Augustine again reiterates what Paul is talking about, in Romans 10:4, that you, Calvin, Piper, do not get:
St. Augustine in his Commentary On the Spirit and the Letter, when dealing with Pelagius, wrote the following which helps to go over this passage and the surrounding context:
And do we suppose that they are circumcision and the other like ordinances, because some such things in other passages are read concerning these sacramental rites too? In this place, however, it is certainly not circumcision which they wanted to establish as their own righteousness, because God established this by prescribing it Himself. Nor is it possible for us to understand this statement, of those works concerning which the Lord says to them, You reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition; Mark 7:9 because, as the apostle says, Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Romans 9:31 He did not say, Which followed after their own traditions, framing them and relying on them. This then is the sole distinction, that the very precept, You shall not covet, Exodus 20:17 and God's other good and holy commandments, they attributed to themselves; whereas, that man may keep them, God must work in him through faith in Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:4 That is to say, every one who is incorporated into Him and made a member of His body, is able, by His giving the increase within, to work righteousness. It is of such a man's works that Christ Himself has said, Without me you can do nothing. John 15:5. For the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith, Romans 9:30 - - - by obtaining it of God, not by assuming it of themselves. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. And why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works Romans 9:31-32 - - - in other words, working it out as it were by themselves, not believing that it is God who works within them. For it is God which works in us both to will and to do of His own good pleasure. Philippians 2:13 And hereby they stumbled at the stumbling-stone. Romans 9:32 For what he said, not by faith, but as it were by works, Romans 9:32 he most clearly explained in the following words: They, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:3-4 Then are we still in doubt what are those works of the law by which a man is not justified, if he believes them to be his own works, as it were, without the help and gift of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ?
St. Augustine On the Spirit and the Letter, Chapter 50, Nicene & Poste Nicene Fathers, Series 1, vol. 5, p. 105. Also available online here: St. Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter
The whole context destroys your whole premise. Christ fulfils absolutely everything he was meant to fulfil, and in no way does he fulfil it so the commandments are not necessary for salvation. Through Christ, the righteousness comes from Christ, infused into the person himself. St. Augustine, as Sungenis does also, rightly notes speaking Paul is not speaking of circumcision and old covenant ritual laws, but establishing righteousness on one's own is useless, that is what is condemned in Romans 10. One works out salvation with fear and trembling with God at work within him, Phil 2:12-13, as an elaboration of Rom. 10:4, from St. Augustine. Increase in righteousness, exactly as Trent affirms.
Once that is grasped, our general tenor begins to abide by the nature of the law (yes, by doing good works) wherein we become "doers of the law" (Rom 2:13), "law-keepers" (2:27), "doers of the word" (Jms 1:22) and "effectual doers" (1:25). In that sense, we keep the commandments.
But as detailed those are necessary for salvation. Doers of the law will be justified, that is how the Righteous requirement of the law of the Spirit is met, Romans 8:2-4.
"The second part of that Titus 3:5 saving - is by the renewal of the Holy Spirit, not that renewal is a necessary by-product or necessary consequence of justification, but it is the means to salvation ...Is sanctification only a nice by-product, but not a means of that salvation?
ANSWER: First, we say that yes, our renewal is a consequence of salvation, not a means to it. Second, I already addressed that when one of my objectors asks, "But Titus 3:5 says God saves us by the renewing actions of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we are saved by faith AND by our ethical transformation by the Holy Spirit."
Essentially, renewed and heavenbound people are the types of people who will be in heaven; they are the ones living "righteously and soberly" (2:11) and may indeed be classified as the "doers of the law who will be justified" (Romans 2), but not that their morality was the means to get there!
You may have addressed that, but you have a wrong and false address. Return to the Calvinist sender. It does not say it is a consequence. It specifically says one is saved by the washing, regeneration, and renewal in the Holy Spirit.
[Let me quote Titus 3]...For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit , which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.
You are missing the whole context, which is shown right above. Look how unrelatable is the whole premise of the Westminster Declaration.
Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.
Contrary to this Declaration, this Scripture shows it is infusion, it is poured out as the rest of the passage says. Notices Titus 3:5b says it is only by the virtue of his mercy by the washing and regeneration and renewal in the Spirit, it is only when one gets the infusion of mercy, the washing, being poured out. Once that is done, only then is one justified. Of course, it is talking about taking out of the state of sin, and getting into that grace, is only when the renewal comes. Only after the infusion of grace, that is when one is justified. After the washing, is one justified. Paul specifically is not condemning works done in righteousness after one is justified. Paul relates here that good works do not merit initial forgiveness. Once the regeneration happens, that is when one is justified. Which shows the Reformed Baptist/Wesminster Confession of Faith, is a false gospel.
ANSWER: What is your point?
I originally said:
Prior to this he said that we are saved by grace, by us living righteously and soberly, (2:11) so he can't say something totally contradictory, just a few verses later.
You replied:
ANSWER: He is not saying anything contradictory a few verses later! Yourrrrr problem is the wayward definition of grace which you anachronistically read back into T-2 & 3. As I said in the essay (and which you agreed with in your reply), grace is one of two things: either it is God's subjective disposition to show unmerited favor towards those who don't deserve the least of all his mercies, or it's giving someone the energizing power to either believe the good news, accomplish a certain task or overcome some obstacle.
I agreed with both of those types of grace. However, I disagree that it is either/or. First, we don't deserve it but He graciously awards His sons and daughters salvation to those who do not deserve, it, your first mention of grace. But also, with the whole second type of grace, that you mention, the grace that transforms, is the whole reason Jesus was sent, as it is explicitly stated in Titus 2:11-14. It is not either or, but both and. St. John Chrysostom noted as well, it is both/and, not either/or. And in fact, both passages show each aspect. In Titus 2:11-14, I am not reading anachronistically anything. What I said is your reading of Titus 3:5 makes him contradict what he said in Titus 2:11-14, of course not Paul himself. It is you who read Titus 3:5A and do not take into account the whole section that he is speaking of, from Titus 2:11-3:7. You are snatching one part of Titus 3:5 A out of the whole context, to ignore what Paul is saying previous, and after Titus 3:5A. So, in Titus 2:11-14, He shows how salvation and grace works in justification. He shows what grace does in the life of the believer, when Paul specifically says how one is saved. He shows in grace and salvation that one renounces irreligion, and worldly passions, he is not merely talking about sanctification or what one does to demonstrate salvation, but in salvation one renounces irreligion and worldly passions, live soberly, upright and godly, and the whole purpose that Jesus is sent is it have people purified by God Himself, zealous for good deeds in salvation, via grace. So, the second part of your identification is explicitly cited by Paul in Titus 2:11-14. That is the whole purpose Jesus is sent. So that is the second aspect of grace you highlighted. And nowhere is he hinting at, this is only a byproduct of salvation, it is a means of salvation. He already said that in grace, works are meritorious and salvific. Then in Titus 3, Paul takes a step back to where we were without him. All in the state of sin, so now he shows the first part of the grace, how He takes us out of that state of being bound by Adam's sin, without God, we are sinful people bound to passions, hate and anti-God. How do we get out of that state? Is by his mercy, that it is not doing stuff on our own, that earns it. It is God saving us by His washing through baptism and takes us out of that state of sin, and cleanses us. That is Titus 3:5, when it is His mercy that washes us clean.
St. John Chrysostom in speaking of salvation this is his comments on Titus 2:11-14, he writes much more than to fit into a critique but I will take a couple of sections:
"That we should live godly in this present world." And what is this hope? what the reward of our labors? "Looking for the blessed hope and the appearing." For nothing is more blessed and more desirable than that appearing. Words are not able to represent it, the blessings thereof surpass our understanding. . . .
Ver. 14. "Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar people." "Peculiar": that is, selected from the rest, and having nothing in common with them. "Zealous of good works." Dost thou see that our part is necessary, not merely works, but "zealous"; we should with all alacrity, with a becoming earnestness, go forward in virtue. For when we were weighed down with evils, and incurably diseased, it was of His lovingkindness that we were delivered. But what follows after this is our part as well as His. HAVING demanded from servants so great virtue, for it is great virtue to adorn the doctrine of our God and Saviour in all things, and charged them to give no occasion of offense to their masters, even in common matters, he adds the just cause, why servants should be such: "For the grace of God, that bringeth salvation, hath appeared." Those who have God for their Teacher, may well be such as I have described, seeing their numberless sins have been forgiven to them. For you know that in addition to other considerations, this in no common degree awes and humbles the soul, that when it had innumerable sins to answer for, it received not punishment, but obtained pardon, and infinite favors. For if one, whose servant had committed many offenses, instead of scourging him with thongs, should grant him a pardon for all those, but should require an account of his future conduct, and bid him beware of falling into the same faults again, and should bestow high favors upon him, who do you think would not be overcome at hearing of such kindness? But do not think that grace stops at the pardon of former sins--it secures us against them in future, for this also is of grace. Since if He were never to punish those who still do amiss, this would not be so much grace, as encouragement to evil and wickedness. . . .
St. John Chrysostom, NPNF, Series, 1 Volume 13, Homilies on Titus, Homily 5, p. 536, 537.
The Saint points to grace in both ways, forgiveness of sin, but also the sanctifying grace, which is a prevention of sin. And the grace is there to wipe away sin, it is to stop one from falling back into sin. He says your idea that one can't lose salvation is impossible with actual grace, going back into sin brings punishment, which you do not think happens. The Saint thinks your no punishment for believers idea leads to encouragement to evil and wickedness. He says we get a reward from our labors, as salvation. Notice that he looks forward to the 3:5A part that Paul speaks of we are weighed down by sins and it is His mercy that delivers us from those sins, but our works/obedience is necessary, in salvation, per Titus 2:11-14. Also, He specifically says salvation is our part as well as His!!
At the end of the day, you would have to read T-3 as, "he saved us not by works of righteousness which we have done outside of his grace, but according to our works of mercy we accomplished with his grace."
That, sir, is "another gospel" (2 Cor 11:4).
No, I would not have to. He already proclaims that works are salvific in Titus 2:11-14, why would he have to repeat it? He said rejecting ungodliness and the reason God sent Jesus was to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify himself those zealous for good deeds, in salvation. He already mentioned the works of mercy he accomplished in Titus 2:11-14. God purifies his people, what is that except God's grace in action, which Paul specifically says is grace and salvation, in v. 11. Paul here in Titus 3 says what brings him out of the state of sin, and into God's grace is baptism, which you reject, the washing of regeneration. What puts us into salvation? Works do not put us into the state of grace, or regeneration. He had just mentioned all were bound to sin, and slavery to sin, Tit. 3:1-4. What saves us? The washing of regeneration. Which we know Paul's language is baptism, as noted previously in Acts 22:16. That is what puts unto into the state where he had spoken of in Tit. 2:11-14, where afterwards the life that one lives after that initial state of grace, in order to achieve it. Since he is talking about what puts us into His grace in Titus 3:5a, he wouldn't be talking about what is necessary after one is justified. St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom speak extensively about how this is talking about initial justification, how works don't get into his grace, but the laver of regeneration is baptism. St. Augustine specifically speaks of this, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 5 On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism, Book 1, chapter 23, p. 23-24, chapter 33, p. 28-29, where he relates that also that one must eat flesh and drink blood, as necessary for salvation as well, On Forgiveness of Sins and Baptism, Book 2, chapter 9, p. 48. Now in the passages he speaks of hope, as one is not saved yet, and one must persevere in the faith in order to get saved. The person is saved but not yet saved, Chapter 10, p. 48. St. Augustine keys on the word 'hope' in Titus 3:7, as pointing to the fact that salvation is not guaranteed after one is justified. St Augustine, On Forgiveness of Sins, and Baptism, Book 1, chapter 23, p. 23-24, and Against two Letters of the Pelagians, chapter 5, p. 404. He points to Romans 8:24-25, to show that one only has hope, if it is not guaranteed, there is no guarantee of it, if it is only hope. Clean, washed interior means in justification, the righteousness is not imputed but infused, totally against the Reformed Baptist/Westminster Confession of Faith declaration. And since justification is a process, one can sin their way out of by mortal sin, as elaborated on multiple times, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Eph. 5:3-7, Gal. 5:19-21.
I wrote:
Every time that Paul writes about non-salvific works, it is always when those works are not done in grace.
ANSWER: Every time? Produce a Bible scholar who has ever said that anytime we read we're not justified by works, we must make an addendum and proclaim, "only those works not done in grace". Or, produce a Bible scholar whoever read Romans 4:4 as, "For if Abraham were justified by works [that were obligatory] he hath whereof to glory".
I have already shown St. Augustine in his analysis of Rom. 11:6, Rom. 4:4-8, Rom. 3:28, Eph 2:8, I could point to other passages as well, but this is already an extensive work. I could have done the same with St. John Chrysostom.
You run to Paul as the proclaimer of justification by faith alone. (Now I will not dispute that even Popes have mentioned the term faith alone, just like the Fathers used the term justification by faith alone), but you know that they have not abandoned the Church teaching on justification, that is why you are still criticizing the Catholic teaching. It is a tangent. You know that the way that you teach faith alone is considered heretical. The way that the Church Fathers used the term faith alone including belief in the Sacramental means of salvation, and works and obedience are a necessary cause of salvation. You know that is different from your heretical view. If you thought that the Church was teaching the way you taught, you wouldn't give Jack Chick cartoons showing you and Jack Chick and John Piper think Catholicism is false, whether the term faith alone is used or not.
Now, what is the problem with your view of justification by faith alone? It is an antibiblical heresy that leads people to hell. Now, it denies Jesus meant what He said 'My Flesh is true food and My Blood is true drink.' You think 'Unless you eat my flesh and drink my Blood you will not see eternal life' means only believe when that terminology had never been used to mean believe. When Jesus says 'This is My Body', He actually means 'This ain't My Body.' But that is a debate we've already had.
For this analysis of Paul, I want to summarize and make some final comments on how your view is heretical, anti-biblical, and lead people to hell. The following is in reference to Paul's teaching:
1) You deny that obedience is a necessary cause of justification. Scripture says otherwise. Romans 1:5, 6:16, Eph. 5:6, Hebrews 5:9. Obedience is a cause of justification. Your argument just that true Christians will attempt to obey, but disobedience is not a cause of justification, or the magic word Christians are the 'type of people', who will obey, just doesn't cut it.
2) You deny that keeping the commandments are necessary for salvation. Paul says what matters is keeping the commandments, 1 Cor. 7:19. Then your 'type of people' that will attempt to keep the commandments, but keeping the commandments is not necessary for salvation. You refuse to allow a distinction between the law that Paul says does not save, and the Law of the Spirit, which one must keep in order to get to heaven. Scripture on the other hand says that though the law provides no power, the law is not done away with in reference to salvation. Paul specifically says that the 'doer of the law' will be justified, Rom. 2:13. We must meet the righteous requirement of the law of the Spirit, Rom. 8:2-4, with the rest of the chapter saying the battle of the flesh and Spirit is the distinction between going to heaven and go to hell. Your theology denies that.
3) You believe that imputation is the means of justification before God. I will tackle that issue separately. You have God and Jesus taking part in a lie. Jesus is offered as a propitiatory sacrifice for sure, but Jesus is an unblemished Lamb of God, who was never imputed with sin. You have divine injustice supposedly offering divine justice. That is false.
4) Paul says a judgment of works for salvation is necessary. Romans 2:6, 1 Timothy 6:18-19. We are judged going to heaven or hell based on what we do on earth, not merely on whether we believe. Rom. 2:6-10, Rom. 14:9-12, 1 Cor. 3:10-17, 2 Cor. 5:10, 1 Thessalonians 3:3-9. Your view it is Christians are only the 'type' of people who believe in your particular faith alone theory. Works are only a consequence of one's belief. The dividing line in these particular writings are based on what one does and does not do. There are many Scriptures that reflect this in the gospels, the book of Revelation, etc. but that is outside the scope of this piece.
5) You deny the actuality of mortal sin, by reflecting a supposed 'type' of people. Based on the unbiblical imputation, you are unable to come to the reality of sins that can stop you from entering the kingdom of heaven. Paul speaks of the reality of being adopted sons, Rom/ 8:14, Gal. 4:4, but also the distinction of sins that are venial, from sins that are mortal, Heb. 12:5-17, and sins that separate one from God. He warns that unrepented sins cause one to go to hell, and warns one from not being so deceived into thinking those sins can't separate one from heaven, Eph. 5:3-7, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21.
6) Although this has not been my main focus, the voluminous warnings that Paul gives that a justified believer can fall away from salvation you are unable to honestly deal with. Rom. 6:12-13, 8:12-13, 11:20-22, Cor. 9:24-27, 1 Cor. 10:1-13, 1 Cor. 15:1-2, Gal. 5:4-6, Col. 3:5-6, 23-25, 1 Tim. 4:1-2, 5:8, 6:20-21, Heb. 2:1-3, 3:12-14, 10:23-29. Just a few examples, many more Scriptures can be found here: Scriptures that Show you can lose salvation: Romans through Hebrews. Warnings to believers are real ones. Not the theory these were never Christians in the first place.
7) Sanctification is not just a byproduct but a cause of salvation. The whole purpose of sanctification is eternal life. The description of justification is Romans 6:7, For he who has died is freed (justified) from sin. That is the whole means of justification, being freed from sin. Not a byproduct but a cause. Your view has it backwards. It doesn't account in any way possible for Rom. 6:22- But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. Thus Paul says it is the cause, not result. That is what makes 1 Cor. 6:11 true when Paul writes 'you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified.' Sanctification, then justification. This fits with the Titus 3:5 passage we have looked at, saved through the washing, cleansing. That is why without holiness no one will see the Lord, Heb. 12:14. No rationalizing from these passages, to 'types' will suffice. No defense, 'well, a Christian will pursue holiness, but that is not the cause of justification', holds up under any scrutiny at all.
8) You assert that love is only a consequence, not a cause of justification, as though love automatically follows if one has a true faith. However, Paul specifically says it can be separated, because he writes that if one has all the faith in the world, but has not love it profits one absolutely nothing, 1 Corinthians 13:2, meaning faith alone does not bring salvation. That is why in Galatians 5:6, Paul says that love must be added to faith in order to be saved, is causative. Paul then gives a list of mortal sins, in Gal. 5:19-21, which reflect a lack of love, brings damnation. Paul also says we must and can fulfill the law of love, Rom. 13:8-14, if we do not, and get into quarreling & jealousy, that will bring damnation.
The Protestant/Calvinist theory on justification does not hold up under Paul's scrutiny.
Paul and Justification by Faith Alone: A Response...by Matt1618... This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.