Nevertheless, Saint Paul includes the moral precepts (for example, “thou shalt not covet”) as belonging to the “works of the law” (Rom 7:6-8). Consequently, the Catholic Church has officially followed the interpretation of Saint Augustine, who taught that the phrase “works of the law” refers to the entire Law of Moses—to the moral precepts, to the ceremonial precepts, as well as to the judicial precepts. Augustine recognized the “works of the law” referred specifically to the ceremonial precepts in their Jewish context, but he also understood that the message extended to a general interpretation of “works........
Corresponding to this Augustinian tradition, the Catholic Church, at the Council of Trent, declared with Paul that none of the works of the law could justify a man:end
Canon I. If any one says that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ—let him be anathema.This canon from the Council of Trent demonstrates that the Catholic Church does not distinguish between “works” and “works of the law” when stating that a man is not justified by “works of the law.” Instead, the Catholic Church condemns anyone who attempts to justify himself “by his own works,” regardless of whether the works belong to the moral precepts or to the ceremonial precepts of the law. Hence, one cannot be justified even if he perfectly fulfilled the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments, since these do not equip a man for the beatific vision of God’s essence. The ceremonial precepts (“do not eat swine’s flesh”) cannot transform us into the righteousness of Christ. Moreover, not even obedience to the moral precepts (“thou shalt not kill”) can fill us with the Holy Spirit. The Council of Trent elaborates: (go to the link given above)
Jesus says, If anyone loves Me, he will keep my word and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him" Jn14:23
Jn 15:10 If you keep My commandments , you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments, and abide in His love."
15:2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away"
When Jesus indwells us and we are abiding this fruit is not considered unrighteous. This is because we are indwelt by God himself and we by abiding in him produce this fruit. This is why it can be stated in Rev 19:8 And it was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen , bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints."
These, I stress, are deeds done in the power of the Spirit and because of our relationship to Him.
According to John 15:2 if we don't bear fruit--he takes it away--if we don't abide, verse 6, they are cast into the fire.
So when we are regenerated God cleanses us , makes us new creations that are enabled to have faith and works that please him. both are gifts, both are of grace, and both are necessary.
Augustine explains the difference between works done in the flesh and works done by the Spirit:
Therefore the blessed Paul casts away those past attainments of his righteousness, as “losses” and “dung,” that “he may win Christ and be found in Him, not having his own righteousness, which is of the law.” Wherefore his own, if it is of the law? For that law is the law of God. Who has denied this, save Marcion and Manicheus, and such like pests? Since, then, that is the law of God, he says it is “his own” righteousness “which is of the law;” and this righteousness of his own he would not have, but cast it forth as “dung.” Why so, except because it is this which I have above demonstrated, that those are under the law who, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and going about to establish their own, are not subject to the righteousness of God? (Rom 10:3) For they think that, by the strength of their own will, they will fulfil the commands of the law; and wrapped up in their pride, they are not converted to assisting grace. Thus the letter kills (2 Cor 3:6) them either openly, as being guilty to themselves, by not doing what the law commands; or by thinking that they do it, although they do it not with spiritual love, which is of God. Thus they remain either plainly wicked or deceitfully righteous — manifestly cut off in open unrighteousness, or foolishly elated in fallacious righteousness. And by this means — marvellous indeed, but yet true — the righteousness of the law is not fulfilled by the righteousness which is in the law, or by the law, but by that which is in the Spirit of grace. Because the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those, as it is written, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. But, according to the righteousness which is in the law, the apostle says that he was blameless in the flesh, not in the Spirit; and he says that the righteousness which is of the law was his, not God’s. It must be understood, therefore, that the righteousness of the law is not fulfilled according to the righteousness which is in the law or of the law, that is, according to the righteousness of man, but according to the righteousness which is in the Spirit of grace, therefore according to the righteousness of God, that is, which man has from God. Which may be thus more clearly and briefly stated: That the righteousness of the law is not fulfilled when the law commands, and man as it were of his own strength obeys; but when the Spirit aids, and man’s free will, but freed by the grace of God, performs. Therefore the righteousness of the law is to command what is pleasing to God, to forbid what is displeasing; but the righteousness in the law is to obey the letter, and beyond it to seek for no assistance of God for holy living. For when he had said, “Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of Christ,” he added, “Which is from God.” That, therefore, is itself the righteousness of God, being ignorant of which the proud go about to establish their own; for it is not called the righteousness of God because by it God is righteous, but because man has it from God. (Bk III, chapter 20)
Then from a comment
[comment 49 here:http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/st-paul-on-justification/#comment-48510\
You wrote
[comment 49 here:http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/st-paul-on-justification/#comment-48510\
You wrote
So we have a couple of problems which stand right out at the surface here that “seems” to work against the Catholic position. Faith and Works are here being contradicted.
You state that this is a “problem” for the Catholic position, but then you don’t explain why you think it is a problem for the Catholic position. You merely say “Faith and Works are here being contradicted.” But as I have explained in “Justification: The Catholic Church and the Judaizers in St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” the justification in view here is justification-as-translation. And the Catholic Church does not teach that justification-as-translation is by meritorious works, but by living faith, which is received in baptism as a gift from God poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit.
Secondly, faith being credited as righteousness is a gift of grace. Now why is that? In the book of Hebrews 11, the author demonstrates how the faith of the Patriarchs and Old Testament Saints made them approved before God. In other words, faith was what made them pleasing to God. But how can we say that faith makes us pleasing, acceptable, and approved before God and at the same time call faith a “non-work” (Rom 4:5)?
Why is living faith said to be a gift of grace? Because living faith is a supernatural gift, not a natural virtue or a set of natural virtues that man can attain or achieve by his own natural powers.
It almost seems like Paul is saying that because faith is credited as righteousness, and because this is supposed to be diametrically opposed to gaining righteousness by works, then faith must not be any kind of quality that merits anything.
Or that it is living faith, not dead works, that is truly pleasing to God. You’re drawing a conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the premise. Merit is only by living faith, and this living faith is itself the gift of God.
How should we understand faith being something that makes Abraham righteous and at the same time understanding faith as a “non-work” (Rom 4:5).
This is what I’ve been explaining at various places on CTC, including not only the links provided just above, but also “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?” and “Imputations and Paradigms: A Reply to Nicholas Batzig,” “St. Augustine on Law and Grace,” and “A Reply from a Romery Person.” Faith is a “non-work” because it is in the heart, where God looks and sees. St. Paul’s point in his epistles concerning justification is that works done without faith do not justify a man, because God looks at the heart. What justifies us before God is living faith in the heart, and this living faith by which we have friendship with God, is a gift of God, not something we worked up ourselves. I recommend taking some time to read through those posts and the comments following them.
from comment 191 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/hermeneutics-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#
Regarding whether the concept of being justified by faith alone was a “totally new concept” in the sixteenth century, we need to be careful not to equivocate, because the “alone” has a different with-respect-to-whatness in the two cases. The Fathers, as I mentioned, were speaking of living faith, i.e. faith informed by agape. We are justified (initially) not by works of the Law, but by faith-informed-by-agape, and this [i.e. faith-informed-by-agape] is the fruit of the grace we receive in baptism. But the early Protestants took the ‘alone’ [in initial justification] not only to exclude works of the Law, but also to exclude the presence of agape in us as an instrumental cause of our justification. They claimed that we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. But the Catholic Church believes (and has always believed) that it is agape that makes faith to be living faith, and hence that we cannot be justified by faith that is not informed by agape. That is why last year Pope Benedict said, “For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.” So to claim that these patristic passages give a precedence for “justification by faith alone” [in the Protestant sense] is to equivocate on the ‘alone’. We have discussed this issue in more detail in the “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?” post. This present thread is about hermeneutics and the authority of Scripture. So if you have thoughts or comments about sola fide, I recommend that you comment on that thread, to keep this present thread on topic.
comment 102 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/signs-of-predestination-a-catholic-discusses-election/from comment 191 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/hermeneutics-and-the-authority-of-scripture/#
Regarding whether the concept of being justified by faith alone was a “totally new concept” in the sixteenth century, we need to be careful not to equivocate, because the “alone” has a different with-respect-to-whatness in the two cases. The Fathers, as I mentioned, were speaking of living faith, i.e. faith informed by agape. We are justified (initially) not by works of the Law, but by faith-informed-by-agape, and this [i.e. faith-informed-by-agape] is the fruit of the grace we receive in baptism. But the early Protestants took the ‘alone’ [in initial justification] not only to exclude works of the Law, but also to exclude the presence of agape in us as an instrumental cause of our justification. They claimed that we are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. But the Catholic Church believes (and has always believed) that it is agape that makes faith to be living faith, and hence that we cannot be justified by faith that is not informed by agape. That is why last year Pope Benedict said, “For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.” So to claim that these patristic passages give a precedence for “justification by faith alone” [in the Protestant sense] is to equivocate on the ‘alone’. We have discussed this issue in more detail in the “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?” post. This present thread is about hermeneutics and the authority of Scripture. So if you have thoughts or comments about sola fide, I recommend that you comment on that thread, to keep this present thread on topic.
First of all, Jesus Himself makes it unequivocal that good works are necessary to remain in salvation. This is stated in positive statements in John’s Gospel, chapters 14 and 15:
“Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.” (Jn 14:21)“Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.” (Jn 14:23)“Remain in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.” (Jn 15:9-10)“You are my friends if you do what I command you. … This I command you: love one another.” (Jn 15:14,17)
The Apostle John, in turn, makes the same concept clear in negative statements in his first letter:
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him. (I Jn 3:15)If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in him? (I Jn 3:17)
And as if all the above were not enough, there is this gem from Paul:
And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (I Tim 5:8)
from comment 128 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/signs-of-predestination-a-catholic-discusses-election/ :
It doesn’t take much to expose the charge that Catholic doctrine is semi-Pelagian, despite the Church’s solemn condemnation of semi-Pelagianism, as altogether bogus. It’s just one more instance of people thinking that they know better than the Magisterium what the Magisterium really means. I don’t need to supply the appropriate label for that attitude. But with that said, we need to ask ourselves why so many people find the charge plausible.
I believe the answer lies in the attitude of many faithful, churchgoing Catholics, and in how that attitude is reinforced by the usual tenor of preaching at Mass. The main outline of the spiritual life is typically presented and understood as moral improvement. Grace is usually spoken of as though it were some sort of unseen fuel for the journey of becoming “a better person.” For that, we pull up, tank up, pay up, and pull out; just observe the parking lot of a typical Catholic Church before and after Mass. Among the better Catholics, the attitude in question often has the effect of causing people to believe that God owes them heaven as a reward for taking his demands seriously. Or so I’ve observed. We must frankly admit that such an approach is a distortion that kills enthusiasm, especially among the mass of lazy, ignorant, worldly Catholics who think they’re good people just as they are, thank you very much. As a distortion, it is not downright false, but it only gets half the picture.
As most guys around here know, the reality of the life to which are called out of darkness is to become “partakers of the divine nature” (1 Peter 2:4), by which we become “gods” (cf. John 10:34). That implies three things: we are nowhere near what we are meant to be, we cannot become that by ourselves, and yet we can gradually get there with the help of the God who dwells within us by virtue of the sacraments and prayer. Can you imagine the effect on many Roman Catholics if the theme of divinization were regularly sounded from the pulpit? I don’t know about you, but I’d be inspired. Which is the opposite of what one finds at many Sunday Masses.
As long as the spiritual life is thought of primarily as moral improvement, most people will be discouraged. Some will just give up; others will hang in there, depressed. That is no way to evangelize. Let’s pay more attention to our true doctrine. If we did, we wouldn’t hear the semi-Pelagian song so much.
from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/st-augustine-on-law-and-grace/ :
also from comment 144 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/do-you-want-to-go-to-heaven/#comment-50320
end of quote
and from comment 170:
from comment 146 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/apostolic-succession-and-historical-inquiry-some-preliminary-remarks/
In your response to De Maria, you state, “This life experience makes it very difficult for me to comprehend salvation by grace plus works, to use the Protestant description. My salvation was truly by grace alone. His power changed me. Any concept of personal merit for my good works since that time would, for me, seem totally arrogant.”
The word “plus” is misplaced, when referring to good works done in Christ (“the obedience of faith”). Salvation includes sanctification, and sanctification includes our good works. So these works are not added to God’s grace, but are the fruits of God’s grace operating from within. I think that you have already allowed for synergism in sanctification (#57, above). I have shown (#52) that sanctification has the same end as justification, namely, the free gift of eternal life. So, while works are opposed to grace in one sense (Romans 3:20-31; 4:4-5; 11:6), there is another sense in which grace gives rise to works, which leads to justification and eternal life (Romans 2:6-13; 6:15-23).
and here a quote by brent at the same reference , but comment # 185
We can talk over each other until we are blue in the face if what you think we are saying is that it’s me + Jesus. But, really what we are saying is me in and by and for and throughChrist. He is working in us what we are working out with fear and trembling (synergy).
from 189:
from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/st-augustine-on-law-and-grace/ :
By contrast, for St. Augustine (and the Catholic Church), being under grace does not mean that our justification (or condemnation) does not depend on our law-keeping. Rather, being under grace means having received grace from God into our hearts, and the infused virtues of faith, hope, and agape such that with this divine help we are enabled to keep the law, it being written on our hearts. This is what it means to walk in the newness of the Spirit. For St. Augustine, by the gift of infused grace and agape, the law is fulfilled in us, because agape fulfills the law. By grace we are enabled to love the law, and not be hearers only, but doers of the law. Grace does not take away our obligation to fulfill the law; it does not mean that Christ fulfills the law so that we do not have to do so. Rather, grace enables to us to keep the law, and so truly fulfill the law, not by extra nos imputation nor, like Pelagius, by ourselves without grace, but through grace by God working in us to will and to do what is pleasing in His sight, i.e. living in accordance with His royal law. The Reformed conception of grace is in this respect a weaker conception of grace, because such grace is unable to make us capable of fulfilling the law. But St. Augustine’s (and the Catholic Church’s) doctrine of grace is a more powerful or higher view of grace, because for St. Augustin grace is the power of God in us enabling us to keep the law and so be truly well-pleasing in His sight.
also earlier in the post
Overview of the Reformed and Catholic positions on Law and Grace
Before turning to St. Augustine, consider briefly the Reformed and Catholic doctrines concerning the relation of law and grace. According to Reformed theology, justification is by an extra nos (i.e. outside of us) imputation of the obedience of Christ. In other words, God justifies us by counting us as righteous not because of any righteousness infused into us, but by crediting Christ’s righteousness to our account, and crediting Him with our sins. God counts Christ’s suffering and death as punishment for our sins, and God counts Christ’s perfect obedience as our obedience. By this double imputation, nothing we do can bring us into condemnation.1 That is what it means, in Reformed theology, to be no longer under law, but under grace. The law remains normative and binding on believers as a guide to living correctly, but no one who has been justified by grace through faith can be condemned by the law, nor justified by law-keeping. Believers are not under the law for justification or condemnation; they are under grace. Grace and law are, in that respect, mutually exclusive.
According to Catholic doctrine, justification is by an infusion of sanctifying grace and agape. God does not count-us-as-righteous-even-though-internally-we-are-unrighteous; by infusing grace and agape into our hearts at the moment of regeneration He instantly makes us righteous. God does not count (or impute) our sins against us (Rom 4:8), not by leaving us with a wicked sinful heart and merely overlooking our sins, but by mercifully transforming our heart through the infusion of sanctifying grace and agape such that there is no mortal sin to overlook. The person with agape in his heart is in friendship with God, and thus is righteous before God. When Abraham chose to believe God’s promise (Rom 4:3), this act not only showed that Abraham had a faith working through agape and thus was in friendship with God, but it also deepened that friendship, and so God counted it to him as righteousness. Agape fulfills the law (Rom 10:8-10), because agape is the spirit of the law. Withoutagape, no one is righteous in His sight. But through Christ agape is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). By this agape in our hearts, we walk in newness of life; this infused grace and agape produces the “obedience of faith” of which St. Paul speaks (Rom 1:5, 16:26). This infused grace and agape is the gift of righteousness (Rom 5:17) by which we have been “freed from sin and made slaves of righteousness” (Rom 6:18,22). By this gift we are made “doers of the Law” (Rom 2:13), such that the requirement of the Law is “fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit,” (Rom 8:4). By this gift we subject ourselves to the law of God (Rom 8:7). By this gift of infused sanctifying grace and agape, our spirit is made alive (Rom 8:10) and the law is written on our hearts (cf. Rom 2:28-29), truly in our hearts (Rom 10:8, 10), as the prophet Jeremiah prophesied long ago concerning the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:33-34). So according to the Catholic doctrine regarding law and grace, by the infusion of sanctifying grace we receive the gift of agape by which we truly fulfill the law. Here, grace and law are not mutually exclusive; grace orients us to God in divine love such that we fulfill the law, and are truly justified in our hearts.
I’d like to ask,
First, am I right that you don’t believe that anyone who has once professed Christ in faith, can turn away from Him?
Second, am I also right in understanding that you believe that Christ’s sheep know who they are and that they are assured of salvation?
I, like you, only read the Scriptures in English. I don’t go to the underlying Greek and all that. And here is what Scripture says to me:
Matthew 7:21-23
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’
Now, it seems to me, anyone calling Jesus, Lord, is doing it by the Holy Spirit. Am I right? 1 Corinthians 12:3
It seems to me, they had faith and were indwelt by the Holy Spirit and therefore, they called Jesus, “Lord”. Does my logic follow, so far?
will enter the kingdom of heaven,
Let me back up a bit. The entire idea which Jesus just pronounced is this:
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven,
Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven,
That says nothing about rewards. Nothing about eternal life. It just says that they will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. But it is in the Kingdom of Heaven that the elect dwell and enjoy their rewards, one of which is eternal life, isn’t it? Or does one enjoy these rewards including eternal life, outside of heaven in eternity?
It sounds rhetorical, but its a serious question. I answer, “No. One can not enjoy his crowns and rewards (i.e. sit on thrones, Luke 22:30) nor eternal life outside of heaven. Or at least, they are not permanent until they reside in Heaven, with God.”
but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
This expression sounds very clear. Those who do the will of the Father will enter heaven. Of course, the will of the Father is to believe in Christ. But then, these people called Jesus, Lord, so purportedly, they believed in Christ. Is there more to the Father’s will than merely proclaiming faith in Christ?
Here’s what the Father said directly to the People of God,
Luke 9:35
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”
Luke 9:35
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
35 Then a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is My Son, My Chosen One; listen to Him!”
This would seem to me to be an expression of His Will. Listen to Him. In other words, it is the Father saying, “Obey my Son.” And that is the Father’s will. Do we agree?
In terms of Scripture interpreting Scripture, it also agrees with this verse:
Hebrews 5:9
New American Standard Bible
And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,
Hebrews 5:9
New American Standard Bible
And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation,
So, there’s more to this, isn’t there? These folks should have been secure. But they seem to have received the surprise of their lives. But let’s continue.
22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord,
Jesus says that “Many” will call Him Lord.
did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
But He will say to Him, “I never knew you.”
So, even though, they thought they knew Him, He did not acknowledge them.
So, just from a simple study of those verse, I come to the conclusion that a simple profession of faith in Christ is not enough to assure one’s eternal salvation. And, that many who think they are followers of Christ, are not acknowledged by Him.
What do you think? [end of comment]
ME--from comment 141 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/do-you-want-to-go-to-heaven/#comment-50320
I believe the key to all of this might be an understanding of what kind of faith saves. Is it a faith “alone” ? I think we have touched on this earlier.
As stated in comment 248 here here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/
The point of disagreement is whether the faith that saves is faith-informed-by-agape, or faith-not-informed-by-agape. According to Catholic doctrine, Abraham was saved by “living faith,” i.e. faith-informed-by-agape. The agape visible in his actions (e.g. his willingness to sacrifice his son) is not merely an outward sign of faith alone within him, but is the visible manifestation of living faith within him, that is, faith-informed-by-the-divine-gift-of-agape. It is this living faith within Abraham that God reckoned as righteousness, because that’s just what righteousness truly is, agape that in itself already fulfills the law, as explained in “Imputation and Paradigms: A Reply to Nicholas Batzig.”
and from comment 247:
The pattern marked out in Deuteronomy 30:6 is also the pattern that St. Paul identifies in Romans 2:7 and 6:22 (which we have discussed before):
Who will render to every man according to his works. To them indeed who, according to patience in good works, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life….
But now being made free from sin and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting.The problem for your position is that these verses are not compatible with your claim that “our actions of agape love do not impact our salvation.”
In other words–the claim that our actions of agape love ( works ) have no impact on salvation is a problem. We are talking of the actions of agape love. These are referred to in the passages in Romans and in many more passages. The faith that saves can not be alone. It can not be without this love in action. James makes it clear. ..living faith has to have this . Hebrews 11 makes it clear that it is a faith that acts. It makes clear in Hebrews 12 that while Jesus is the perfecter of faith,this does not mean that we are then not responsible to “do” for it states that we are to (14) “strive for peace with everyone , and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. ” Note that it does not say without which no one will receive a reward in heaven. No, again it is speaking of eternal life. There is this combination–of Christ doing and also Christ enabling action on our part. Not actions like that of a stone that is moved, for we are people–our actions are not that of robots being programmed.
I am wondering what you do with Matt 25:31-46. He does not say that what we do to feed the hungry , visit those in prison, etc have an effect on our reward “in” heaven. No, this is not what he says. He says the results of not doing this is not a matter of reward ” in heaven” but Instead– it is a matter of eternal life or eternal death–45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” This would correspond to the passages mentioned in Romans above.
I am wondering what you do with Matt 25:31-46. He does not say that what we do to feed the hungry , visit those in prison, etc have an effect on our reward “in” heaven. No, this is not what he says. He says the results of not doing this is not a matter of reward ” in heaven” but Instead– it is a matter of eternal life or eternal death–45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” This would correspond to the passages mentioned in Romans above.
It would also correspond to what Jesus says in John 14:21–”Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him. There has to be this infused love– John 15 is all about this–this chapter speaks about abiding in Him and producing fruit—and it does not describe fruit as an option. Those who do not bear are not going to be saved. —verse 6–”throw them into a fire and they will be burned” …. Again the reward is either eternal life or death—not the type of reward to which you were referring which you said are rewards “in heaven”. The fruit , the works, have a bearing on this judgment that is being made for eternal life or death.
When James says, in chapter 2 verse 14, What good is it, my brothers , if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? ” He is not talking about rewards “in heaven”. He is talking about salvation.
The same appears in the letters to the churches as I have stated in Revelation. These are not talking about degrees of reward in heaven, but to whether they get eternal life. Take the first letter in Revelations 2:
4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first. 5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
This again is referring to life eternal and not to rewards “in heaven”.
To the one in Thyatira he writes in 2:23 “I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.”
Again he is speaking to the fact that unless they repent the consequences will be life or death– not simply a reward “in heaven”.
It feels to me as if we are nit picking at the differences. The reformed usually believe that works will necessarily flow out of true faith. They are linked. But scripture makes it clear that there is not salvation to those who do not have fruit at the judgment.
In Galatians 6 : 9 “Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up”. He is not talking about reward “in heaven”. Because the sentence before this says ” ..the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.” Notice….it is about eternal life and not rewards “in heaven”. It is speaking about salvation and the fact that one needs to sow to the Spirit, and not grow tired of doing good. A person has to sow.
Gal 5:21 also speaks about those who “do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God”. Again it is not talking about rewards “in heaven” , but eternal life itself and death. The works of the flesh that he lists bring death– one does not inherit the kingdom if he is doing these things and living that life.
Walking in the spirit, having this living faith is necessary, not just for rewards “in heaven” but for heaven itself. We are not talking about works done apart from grace or works done in our own strength, but we are talking about works from grace—living faith (or faith working).
I know many of the reformed say that if one is saved then the works will necessarily follow. But the question is can a person be saved without fruit? James says no. These passages say no. I John, James, Galatians, Romans, Revelation, Matthew, etc all say no. The reformed say they necessarily follow or will be present. So are we just talking from different perspectives? Scripture says this kind of faith is necessary for salvation. A faith informed by love. Thus a faith that works.
Westminster Confession:
II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is
the alone instrument of justification:237 yet is it not alone in the person
justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no
dead faith, but works by love.238
and the WCF also says:
III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly
from the Spirit of Christ.316 And that they may be enabled thereunto,
beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual
influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His
good pleasure:317 yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they
were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the
Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in
them.318
In many respects there are similarities. But Scripture makes it clear fruit is needed at the time of judgment. It is not referring to rewards “in heaven” in the passages I mentioned above. It is referring to fruit being needed in order to enter heaven. 2 Cor 5: 10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ so that each one may receive what is due for what he had done in the body, whether good or evil. 11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others.” Therefore it is a faith informed by love , a fruitful faith, a living faith and not a dead faith without works. WCF says they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them. We “do”–we don’t sit like a rock. We are not rocks. We are given grace and act with grace , from grace. I feel the Catholics do justice to the verses that speak to the rewards that are in regard to eternal life. They do not say these come from ourselves, but because we participate in the divine nature 2 Peter 1. We speak of a living faith that saves. One informed by love.
Again , Curt, I sometimes feel our perspectives are closer than we think and sometimes I feel it is almost semantics. Co-redeemer–the terminology may be a hindrance. Christ has given us the ministry of reconciliation. Paul says ..”God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God……2 Cor 5:20 and then 6:1 “Working together with him then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.” There are aspects of us working together with him as Paul mentions here. The historic redemption by Christ is an objective one, and he uses people[preachers, and others] in time to bring people the subjective redemption. God has chosen to use the Word preached by people……lived by people to bring others —as Paul is speaking here.
[end of comment]
from a comment found here: http://www.creedcodecult.com/did-the-rich-young-ruler-hear-the-gospel/
There is a difference between “being justified by the works of the law” (which is impossible), and exhibiting the agape-driven righteousness of the New Covenant (which, as Jesus says, is “possible with God”). But as long as you see Paul’s dismissal of Mosaic works of the law for justification as a dismissal of all works whatsoever (including the work of leaving behind earthly treasure out of love for God and neighbor), then you will always miss my point. In my brief experience, this is exactly what happens when Catholics dialogue with Protestants.end of quote
I Cor 7: . 19 For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, butkeeping the commandments of God
from comment 154 here:
......God can freely establish an economy of salvation under which God obligates Himself by His own promises, and by grace gives to man a genuine role in his salvation. For the person who is not in a state of grace, his works have no merit toward eternal life, because they are not ordered to a supernatural end. This is why there is no salvation by keeping a law that is not internal to us, but only external. Those in a state of grace, i.e. those in whom the law is written on their heart, can truly merit, because by the grace of God within them their actions are ordered by a supernatural principle (i.e. sanctifying grace and agape) to a supernatural end, as explained in “The Doctrine of Merit: Feingold, Calvin, and the Church
and from comment 170:
As for Romans 10, the distinction between “righteousness of God” and a righteousness of “their own” is not between extrinsic righteousness and intrinsic righteousness, but rather between that which has its source in God (but is infused and worked out in us), and that which has its origin in man without grace (ala Pelagianism).
from comment 146 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/apostolic-succession-and-historical-inquiry-some-preliminary-remarks/
In your response to De Maria, you state, “This life experience makes it very difficult for me to comprehend salvation by grace plus works, to use the Protestant description. My salvation was truly by grace alone. His power changed me. Any concept of personal merit for my good works since that time would, for me, seem totally arrogant.”
As someone raised Protestant, and for whom Protestant terms and word-pictures are familiar, I completely understand how you feel there. Indeed, some Protestant word usages seem different from Catholic usages in such a way as to maximize misunderstanding and mutual dismay.
But I think that one can find phrasings, analogies, and word-pictures which help a lifelong Protestant approach the Catholic understanding without hitting the tripwires of how Protestants conventionally use language…and conventionally misunderstand Catholics!
I offer the following, in an attempt to give you some phrasings, analogies, and word-pictures to bridge this terminological gap. If any of the following helps, keep it; otherwise, discard it.
First, let’s define “good works” broadly: These are acts of volition; exercises of free will. If you didn’t have any choice in doing something it can’t be morally commendable or morally exculpable. We don’t blame clouds for raining on our picnics; they don’t have any choice in the matter. But when a person attempts do achieve a good thing through good methods for the right reasons, even if he fails due to no fault of his own, it is a “good work.”
Secondly, remember that the “good works” discussed in Scripture can be described in three categories:
(1.) Attempts to put God in your debt by your own righteousness, as if you were a laborer working for an employer and hoping to be owed heaven as a “fair wage.” This of course is fruitless: No man can boast before God of his imperfect attempts at righteousness, as if they could put God in his debt! And anyway the kind of relationship God desires with us is the spirit of sonship, not an arms-length “hired hand” relationship. This is explicitly not what Catholics have in mind when describing a good work as having merit.
(2.) Attempts to be saved by following some other system other than relying on the covenant in Christ’s blood; for example, by following the Mosaic Code. Ceremonial practices found uniquely in the Mosaic Code (e.g. circumcision and keeping kosher) are called “Works of Torah” in 1st-century parlance. But of course “Torah” is translated to Greek it is the Greek word for “Law,” so our English translation of Greek references to this is “Works of Law.” It is important also to note that even obedience to God’s moral code (refusing to commit adultery or murder or steal) can be a “Work of Torah” if the motive for obeying these moral commands is the desire to be saved through Torah. (But of course if one does the very same works motivated by love of Christ, it is not a “Work of Torah” but a work which is an outgrowth of the grace of God; see below.)
(3.) Opportunities to please God which are put in a man’s path by God’s providence, to which is a man is led by the Holy Spirit, Who also moves the man to want to do them, and for the right reasons. These opportunities themselves are by God’s initiative; Man’s notice of the opportunity comes by God’s initiative; Man’s desire to do them comes by God’s initiative; Man’s desire to do them for the right reasons (love of God) comes by God’s initiative (putting that love in the man’s heart).
Furthermore, because a baptized man in a state of grace is “in Christ,” the deeds themselves, once performed, are not so much deeds of the man but deeds done by a member of the body of Christ; and since it is all initiated by God, it is perfectly sensible and truthful for the man to say, “Christ did it, not me; I could never have had the opportunity, nor wanted to take the opportunity for the right reasons, if it weren’t for Him.”
Nevertheless, in this last category God does not overwhelm the man’s free will, turning him into an automaton. He puts the opportunity in the man’s path; he assists him to desire it but not overwhelmingly; the choice remains up to the man. If the man cooperates and takes advantage of the opportunity, the resulting good work might be called a “Work of Grace” inasmuch as it was only possible by God’s grace: The man could never have done it on his own. Man “cooperates” but God’s grace makes the cooperation possible.
For these works, and these alone, God describes the man’s deeds as meritorious. But God’s pleasure in these deeds is not the pleasure of an employer who hired a worker, is glad the man did the job, pays the man, and then thinks no more of the man. Rather, God’s pleasure is like that of a Father who gives his son $5 to buy a Father’s Day present, and is pleased when his son goes and buys a $5 gift for him. No one is lunatic enough to the Dad is $5 better off than before! But a good Dad is pleased by his son’s deed, even though it would have been impossible without the Dad’s assistance. The Dad is happy because to the extent the son was able to cooperate, he did so, appropriating the grace of $5 to do a “meritorious” work by which the son’s character is matured in goodness.
Thirdly, consider that Christians are not gnostics. We do not believe that men are a soul which merely incidentally inhabits a body. Rather, we believe that matter is good (God made it and said so) and that God made men to intrinsically be both material and spiritual beings. Thus it is not enough that a man be saved so he could merely “go to Heaven,” disembodied. (That would be a kind of eternalincompleteness, for a man without his body is not a whole man, and the separation of soul and body is a thing God never intended, a thing made possible only by man’s sin, and Jesus wept when He saw it.)
No, a disembodied eternity is not Christianity: Christianity believes in the Resurrection of the Dead. Our raised bodies will be immortal, and have miraculous properties different than our corruptible bodies (as exhibited in the Risen Christ) but will still be bodies, capable of being seen and touched and even of eating fish (as exhibited in the Risen Christ, the firstborn among many brothers and the promise of our eventual reward if we eat His flesh and remain in Him).
Because we are both soul and flesh, both mind and matter, and these things are unified or married to form the whole man, it follows that when man has real, living faith, this real, living faith produces deeds which follow naturally from it.
Tell a man there is a bomb hidden in the room about to explode. If he nods and says “I believe you,” then stands there chatting idly, he does not really believe you. His mouth, and perhaps even his mind, are saying one thing; his body is saying something else. But if the whole man believes, he’ll be dashing for the door.
Likewise, consider a man who says he believes that God is all-knowing, and that God loves him and wants the best for him, and that God has commanded him not to commit adultery. Now if you see him commit adultery thereafter, not by some slip which he repents of and tries never to repeat but by some plan he pursues unswervingly, what can you say of his faith?
Well, either he doesn’t really believe that God is all-knowing, but instead believes that he “knows better” than God on this particular issue…; or, he doesn’t really believe that God loves him and that the command to avoid adultery is for his own good, but instead believes that obeying God might not the most beneficial move available to him…; or, he really believes that God did not prohibit adultery. Now in any of these cases, the “God” he believes in is not the Christian God. For the Christian God didprohibit adultery, not for His own selfish benefit but for ours, and really does know best. If that’s not the God you “believe in” then your belief is in some other god.
At any rate, a man may say he believes in the Christian God. Maybe some intellectual part of him does. But the whole man needs to believe, for it to count. If his body and emotions and will don’t have faith, and only that tiny corner of his being which deals with abstract propositions believes in God, then “his faith is dead.” (For of course a soul separated from its body makes a dead body, doesn’t it?)
And this is the gist of James chapter 2, wherein we are told explicitly that “faith without works is dead” and that such a faith cannot save. James is telling us to believe not merely with an inactive intellect but an active will and with our bodies: The whole man. We are not gnostics; the body matters. We are not automatons; the exercise of free will matters.
Of course when James says that “faith without works is dead” he is thinking of what I have previously called “works of grace.” He is not saying that your faith needs to be added to works which are motivated by a desire to do a “job” for God which buys heaven; nor is he saying your faith needs to be added to circumcision or kosher eating (or even moral obedience done for Moses’ sake rather than Jesus’). James is not saying that faith without those things is dead.
But James knows that the Holy Spirit will lead us to opportunities for obedience, for faith, for loving our neighbor, because the Holy Spirit always does that: Paul says we are “created in Him for good works, which He prepared for us beforehand, that we should walk in them.” God has the works planned out, and is granting us the grace to perform them; we just have to play along and cooperate and not resist His grace.
But if we do not play along? If we do not appropriate the grace of good-doing which God is offering us but instead say, “Okay God, thanks for the fire-insurance but now that I’ve ‘accepted Christ’ I figure I’m done?”
Well, that faith is dead, because it resists the Holy Spirit, produces no works of grace. Christ says that the branches which produce no fruit wither, are cut off, and are thrown into the fire to be burned. The grace God wishes to flow through us must be allowed to flow; it is like the sap in the branch.
Fourth, consider the following conception of faith and works: That works (of grace) ARE faith and faith IS a work:
I have already explained how, after a fashion, works (of grace) are faith when faith is resident in the will and the body; that it makes no sense to claim a belief when your actions declare the opposite.
But remember how Jesus answers the man who asks what “good work” he must do, and Jesus answers, “the work of God is to believe in the One whom He has sent.” Belief is the work of God, according to Jesus. Belief is work.
Actually this is not so strange. Belief requires will; and is sometimes difficult. I doubt many mature Christians could say that they’ve never had moments of doubt, or even moments where they’d ratherChristianity were not true! …but the exert effort of will, and by God’s grace, they do not apostasize. Their faith involves work.
So where does that leave us? Here are the bullet-points:
– Faith comes by the grace of God;
– Faith is a work (of grace) in which we cooperate to “do the work of God” of believing in the One He has sent;
– “Works of Grace” (as described in (1.), above) come by the grace of God;
– “Works of Grace” are faith, not merely in the mind, but in the will and the body. (Contra the gnostic conception of man.)
– Faith comes by the grace of God;
– Faith is a work (of grace) in which we cooperate to “do the work of God” of believing in the One He has sent;
– “Works of Grace” (as described in (1.), above) come by the grace of God;
– “Works of Grace” are faith, not merely in the mind, but in the will and the body. (Contra the gnostic conception of man.)
Fifth, consider how easy it would be to selectively quote the New Testament to compose a Gospel Of Salvation By Works Alone, if one chose to do so!
Really, it would be child’s play. You could cut about five verses from Paul, two from John, and suddenly all you’d have left are thirty or so verses (including lots of verses in Paul and John!) that make it sound as if works were all that mattered. Blessed are the dead in Christ “for their works follow them,” you find. You’d find Jesus talking about whatever you did “for the least of these” and saying, “depart you evildoers!” to those who didn’t do such works of charity.
You’d find it prominently in John 6: The injunction to eat His flesh and drink His blood, so as to “have life in you.” However you interpret eating His flesh and drinking His blood, it’s gonna be a work. A work by the grace of God, no doubt, but still a work: Something you do.
Oh, and don’t forget the Lord’s prayer: “For if you do not forgive men’s sins, neither will the Father forgive your sins.” Can a man get into Heaven if God hasn’t forgiven his sins? And, is it sometimeshard work, forgiving someone who sinned against you?
Likewise in Paul, a man is worse off “than an unbeliever” if he neglects to care for his family. Are unbelievers saved? If a man neglects the good work of caring for his family, he is in a “worse” state than an unbeliever. If an unbeliever is not saved, how can a man who is worse off be saved?
So you see that our moral obligations are quite great. They are more stringent than the Mosaic code, of course, as Jesus makes plain: “You have heard it said ‘do not commit adultery. But I say to you that if a man but look at a woman lustfully…!” No wonder Paul speaks of working out your salvation “with fear and trembling!”
But — praise be to God! — that’s only half the lesson. Paul continues, “For it is God who worketh within you.” Whew! The Holy Spirit is supplying to us the daily grace to “do the work of God,” both of believing with our minds (faith) and with our bodies (good works-of-grace). We do not have to panic. Instead, we remember that God has prepared good works for us beforehand, “that we might walk in them.” So our effort is not to earn God’s favor; instead, we cooperate with grace in order that we might not resist the Holy Spirit and willfully separate ourselves from the life of the vine. If we do cooperate with grace by doing the good works which the Holy Spirit is leading us into, then the sap of grace flows from the True Vine out to the tips of us branches, and produces good fruit.
So we do not have to panic. Neither should we be presumptuous, as if we could stop cooperating with grace and still receive life from the vine. That is not how it works: The grace to do good works and to continue believing is the Holy Spirit’s work in us. Reject the Spirit, and you are not receiving the “sap.” You’ll produce no fruit, and wither, and be bundled up and burned. So, we can’t be presumptuous. But neither should we despair as if we had to do it on our own: We are in Christ; He gives us the grace, and we’re just cooperating. We’re just buying Dad his Father’s Day gift with the $5 that Dad gave us.
I hope some of that is helpful.
Sincerely,
R.C.
comment 149:
The Catholic faith does not and never has believed in grace plus works; indeed, it would not be accurate to say that it believed in faith plus works – if, by that, you meant two conjoined things of the same order. The Catholic faith believes in faith working through love – and the faith and works are two aspects of the same thing, and all is of grace. I cannot add my works that are done independently of grace to anything of Christ’s in order to be saved. Salvation is by grace alone; it is not by faith alone.
salvation by faith
“. This was at the very heart of Paul’s debate with the Pharisees: the issue of whether salvation is attained by faith or by the works of the law. Paul rejects the attitude of those who would consider themselves justified before God on the basis of their own works. Such people, even when they obey the commandments and do good works, are centred on themselves; they fail to realize that goodness comes from God. Those who live this way, who want to be the source of their own righteousness, find that the latter is soon depleted and that they are unable even to keep the law. They become closed in on themselves and isolated from the Lord and from others; their lives become futile and their works barren, like a tree far from water. "
Encylical Letter Lumen Fidei http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei_en.html
from the joint declaration [catholic/Lutheran]
4.7 The Good Works of the Justified
37.We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.
38.According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with Christ is deepened. When Catholics affirm the "meritorious" character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.
39.The concept of a preservation of grace and a growth in grace and faith is also held by Lutherans. They do emphasize that righteousness as acceptance by God and sharing in the righteousness of Christ is always complete. At the same time, they state that there can be growth in its effects in Christian living. When they view the good works of Christians as the fruits and signs of justification and not as one's own "merits", they nevertheless also understand eternal life in accord with the New Testament as unmerited "reward" in the sense of the fulfillment of God's promise to the believer. [See Sources for section 4.7].
4. Catholics do not believe that a man can by his own good works, independently of the Merits and Passion of Jesus Christ and of His grace, obtain salvation, or make any satisfaction for the guilt of his sins, or acquire any merit.
The word “plus” is misplaced, when referring to good works done in Christ (“the obedience of faith”). Salvation includes sanctification, and sanctification includes our good works. So these works are not added to God’s grace, but are the fruits of God’s grace operating from within. I think that you have already allowed for synergism in sanctification (#57, above). I have shown (#52) that sanctification has the same end as justification, namely, the free gift of eternal life. So, while works are opposed to grace in one sense (Romans 3:20-31; 4:4-5; 11:6), there is another sense in which grace gives rise to works, which leads to justification and eternal life (Romans 2:6-13; 6:15-23).
and here a quote by brent at the same reference , but comment # 185
We can talk over each other until we are blue in the face if what you think we are saying is that it’s me + Jesus. But, really what we are saying is me in and by and for and throughChrist. He is working in us what we are working out with fear and trembling (synergy).
from 189:
The topic of this thread is synergism. Hitherto, there has been general agreement that sanctification is a synergistic process, along the lines of Philippians 2:12-13.
Given this point of agreement, I have asked (e.g. #52, #183) folks to consider what, biblically speaking, is the end, or goal (telos) of sanctification. I am hoping that we can move forward in agreement, not only that sanctification is synergistic, and that sanctification is included in salvation, but also that the manner of the inclusion of our good works, wrought in Christ, in sanctification, is such that these works result in justification and eternal life (Romans 2 and 6).
Obviously, there are works that do not result in justification and life (Romans 3, 4, 11). But we cannot interpret some parts of Sacred Scripture in a way that renders these in compatible with other parts of Sacred Scripture. It seems to me, following some scholars, that Romans 8 (the Spirit of life within the baptized) is the key that unlocks the harmony in St. Paul’s teaching respecting faith and works in Romans.
comment 195 part--
comment 195 part--
In one schema, sanctification is what comes after justification as a necessary consequence of it but not in anyway necessary for its efficaciousness. In the other schema, sanctification is the process of justification unfolding and as thus must unfold to be meritorious for the reward of heaven.
Which of these two schemas fits ALL of the Biblical data?
and from a comment here http://www.creedcodecult.com/what-counted-as-abrahams-righteousness/
http://www.thesacredpage.com/2013/08/st-augustine-on-role-of-works-at-final.html?spref=fb St. Augustine on works etc---good comments on this post too.
This, Augustine argues, was the teaching of Jesus.
There was also a good illustration about the relationship here (got to find where I found this quote)
To Protestants who aren't used to the Catholic view of justification and sanctification, this picture can seem confusing and even contradictory. In hopes of making it clearer, let me use an analogy: God breathed life into Adam when he was just dust. After having life breathed into him, Adam had to cooperate in maintaining that life by eating. Adam's not alive because he ate: he's alive because God breathed life into him. You didn't somehow merit being alive by eating breakfast. But if Adam stops eating, even when he feels the internal call to, he'll eventually die. So the breath of God is roughly the role that Grace and faith play here, while eating is roughly the role that the expression of faith through love ("good works") takes. Breath precedes eating, and is necessary for it to be of any worth. But once we've come from dust to life in Christ (once He's breathed His life into us, so to speak), we're not to reject that internal call to charity, and if we do, it's damnable: our faith dies, and we die with it. That's how we can simultaneously affirm that Adam's life came from the breath of God, and not anything he did, whether eating, or any other thing (cf. Romans 3:28); and at the same time affirm that if Adam doesn't eat, he'll be dead (cf. James 2:26).
comment on the post "Imputation and Paradigms: A Reply to Nicholas Batzig".
http://www.calledtocommunion.
Author: Cletus
Comment:
Mark,
"Do think that this is the kind of distinction Aquinas is getting at?"
Partly, as his example (that Jonathan echoed) of a man's diet: "charity is about the last end, whereas venial sin is a disorder about things directed to the end: and a man’s love for the end is none the less through his committing an inordinate act as regards the things directed to the end. Thus sick people sometimes, though they love health much, are irregular in keeping to their diet"
"though in some cases the dividing line can be a bit blurry"
True, hence spiritual writers' caution that unattended/neglected venial sin disposes one more and more to mortal sin, though recall that mortal sin is determined not just by the gravity, but also consent and knowledge - one doesn't commit mortal sin by accident or get tricked.
"because they both exhibit an attitude that fails to truly love our neighbors as ourselves or God as God (or both)."
This misses the distinction Aquinas makes of acting "against" the law vs acting "besides" the law. Even in natural relationships we see this between acts that offend or are imperfect but do not sever the relationship versus those that destroy it.
"I think we must also distinguish between both of these kinds of sins on the one hand and mistakes or failings that are not actually sins at all"
My question for you would be how any "mistakes or failings" is not actually a sin at all in your view - if any action that does not truly and perfectly love our neighbor as ourselves or perfectly love God with all our heart, mind, and soul is sinful - how can any act not be sinful? If your theology does not distinguish between mortal sin, venial sin, and concupiscence, and instead equates all 3 as mortal sin, how can any action not be sinful by that criteria? Are not the 2 great commandments (mortally) broken every second of your life since you always could have done more, done better, have purer motives, etc?
"I am concerned that this statement is intended to suggest that grace does not effectually or efficiently produce the good will, but that the very same grace which results in a good will for some might not do so for others, because there is an element independent of the grace involved, coming from the human will, which either cooperates with or rejects the grace. In this case, it could not be said that the cooperation of the will is entirely a work of God’s grace, because there is also required a cooperation of the will of some sort that grace itself does not produce of itself."
If you apply this type of logic and criticism to your view of progressive sanctification, is it cut down just the same? If there are 2 regenerate elect, and one sins and the other doesn't, for the one who did not sin, is it true that "it could not be said that the cooperation of the will is entirely a work of God's grace"? If no and that person's cooperation was entirely a work of God's grace, then how do you explain the one who sinned? Was he simply not offered sufficient grace at all, resulting in his sinful act?
The intersection between man's will and grace touches on mystery - the Thomist and Jesuit views you point out (thankfully as too many over-generalize the RC view of grace) both try to illuminate that mystery, but cannot resolve it. If you think that's a copout, then building upon the last paragraph, I would say the Reformed apparently embrace this mystery quite happily in sanctification. A sampling:
A.A. Hodge: “It must be remembered that while the subject is passive with respect to that divine act of grace whereby he is regenerated, after he is regenerated he cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of sanctification. The Holy Ghost gives the grace, and prompts and directs in its exercise, and the soul exercises it. Thus while sanctification is a grace, it is also a duty; and the soul is both bound and encouraged to use with diligence, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, all the means for its spiritual renovation, and to form those habits resisting evil and of right action in which sanctification so largely consists.”
Jonathan Edwards: “In efficacious grace we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do some and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, we act all. For that is what he produces, viz. [namely] our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors. We are in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active.”
Richard Gaffin: “Here is what may be fairly called a synergy but it is not a 50/50 undertaking (not even 99.9% God and 0.1% ourselves). Involved here is the ‘mysterious math’ of the creator and his image-bearing creature, whereby 100% plus 100% =100%. Sanctification is 100% the work of God, and for that reason, is to engage the full 100% activity of the believer.”
Kevin DeYoung: “Second, we see that, given the right qualifications, either term could be used with merit. “Monergism” can work because sanctification is God’s gift, his supernatural work in us. “Synergism” can also work because because we cooperate with God in sanctification and actively make an effort to grow in godliness….“passive” can describe our role in sanctification, but only if we also say there is a sense in which we are active….God sanctifies us and we also sanctify ourselves”
"Of course, I’m aware that this is a controversial topic within the Roman Church, such as between the Thomists and the Jesuits, for example. The Augustinian or the Thomist view, as I understand them, I find acceptable in that they truly do ascribe the cooperation of the will entirely to grace because they make grace effectual, but the Jesuit view I find to be heretical because it does not."
Yes, intrinsically efficacious grace is a perfectly orthodox view to hold in RCism so a potential convert with your fears need not have that as a stumbling block, but both Thomists and Molinists/Jesuits share the doctrine of sufficient grace offered to all.
"The Jesuit view, in my opinion, brings in the sort of “merit” that I object to, because since the cooperation of the will is not itself produced by grace, the implication is that it is produced by the will and not grace, and this leads to a Pelagian sort of merit and the sort that the Protestant view holds to be unbiblical."
Again, I would ask by this logic how you are not embracing a Pelagian view of your heavenly rewards which are based on your sanctification. If you affirmed sanctification was just as monergistic as justification is, that might make sense, but I doubt you would embrace such a view.
See all comments on this post here:
http://www.calledtocommunion.
Another good article on the meaning of Ephesians 2 and boasting: http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2020/01/not-by-works-so-that-no-one-may-boast.html
and from a comment here http://www.creedcodecult.com/what-counted-as-abrahams-righteousness/
The entire Pauline corpus tells me that the Spirit of the risen Christ enables me to exhibit the love of God and neighbor that Moses required but couldn’t produce, and that spiritual fruit contributes to my final salvation. If this is true, imputation becomes superfluous (which is why, as I’m arguing, Paul never taught it in the first place).
http://www.thesacredpage.com/2013/08/st-augustine-on-role-of-works-at-final.html?spref=fb St. Augustine on works etc---good comments on this post too.
This, Augustine argues, was the teaching of Jesus.
. . . I do not see why the Lord said: If you will enter into life, keep the commandments [Matt 19:17], or why, after He had said this, He listed those which one must keep in order to live a good life [Matt 19:18-19], if one can obtain eternal life without keeping the commandments, by faith alone, which without works is dead [Jas 2:14]. And then, too, how will the Lord be able to say to those whom He will place on His left hand: Go you into the everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels [Matt 25:41]? For it is evident that He rebukes them, not because they did not believe in Him, but because they did not perform good works. [Matt 25:44] (no. 25)a list of some verses on works and faith: http://www.openbible.info/topics/faith_without_works
There was also a good illustration about the relationship here (got to find where I found this quote)
To Protestants who aren't used to the Catholic view of justification and sanctification, this picture can seem confusing and even contradictory. In hopes of making it clearer, let me use an analogy: God breathed life into Adam when he was just dust. After having life breathed into him, Adam had to cooperate in maintaining that life by eating. Adam's not alive because he ate: he's alive because God breathed life into him. You didn't somehow merit being alive by eating breakfast. But if Adam stops eating, even when he feels the internal call to, he'll eventually die. So the breath of God is roughly the role that Grace and faith play here, while eating is roughly the role that the expression of faith through love ("good works") takes. Breath precedes eating, and is necessary for it to be of any worth. But once we've come from dust to life in Christ (once He's breathed His life into us, so to speak), we're not to reject that internal call to charity, and if we do, it's damnable: our faith dies, and we die with it. That's how we can simultaneously affirm that Adam's life came from the breath of God, and not anything he did, whether eating, or any other thing (cf. Romans 3:28); and at the same time affirm that if Adam doesn't eat, he'll be dead (cf. James 2:26).
comment on the post "Imputation and Paradigms: A Reply to Nicholas Batzig".
http://www.calledtocommunion.
Author: Cletus
Comment:
Mark,
"Do think that this is the kind of distinction Aquinas is getting at?"
Partly, as his example (that Jonathan echoed) of a man's diet: "charity is about the last end, whereas venial sin is a disorder about things directed to the end: and a man’s love for the end is none the less through his committing an inordinate act as regards the things directed to the end. Thus sick people sometimes, though they love health much, are irregular in keeping to their diet"
"though in some cases the dividing line can be a bit blurry"
True, hence spiritual writers' caution that unattended/neglected venial sin disposes one more and more to mortal sin, though recall that mortal sin is determined not just by the gravity, but also consent and knowledge - one doesn't commit mortal sin by accident or get tricked.
"because they both exhibit an attitude that fails to truly love our neighbors as ourselves or God as God (or both)."
This misses the distinction Aquinas makes of acting "against" the law vs acting "besides" the law. Even in natural relationships we see this between acts that offend or are imperfect but do not sever the relationship versus those that destroy it.
"I think we must also distinguish between both of these kinds of sins on the one hand and mistakes or failings that are not actually sins at all"
My question for you would be how any "mistakes or failings" is not actually a sin at all in your view - if any action that does not truly and perfectly love our neighbor as ourselves or perfectly love God with all our heart, mind, and soul is sinful - how can any act not be sinful? If your theology does not distinguish between mortal sin, venial sin, and concupiscence, and instead equates all 3 as mortal sin, how can any action not be sinful by that criteria? Are not the 2 great commandments (mortally) broken every second of your life since you always could have done more, done better, have purer motives, etc?
"I am concerned that this statement is intended to suggest that grace does not effectually or efficiently produce the good will, but that the very same grace which results in a good will for some might not do so for others, because there is an element independent of the grace involved, coming from the human will, which either cooperates with or rejects the grace. In this case, it could not be said that the cooperation of the will is entirely a work of God’s grace, because there is also required a cooperation of the will of some sort that grace itself does not produce of itself."
If you apply this type of logic and criticism to your view of progressive sanctification, is it cut down just the same? If there are 2 regenerate elect, and one sins and the other doesn't, for the one who did not sin, is it true that "it could not be said that the cooperation of the will is entirely a work of God's grace"? If no and that person's cooperation was entirely a work of God's grace, then how do you explain the one who sinned? Was he simply not offered sufficient grace at all, resulting in his sinful act?
The intersection between man's will and grace touches on mystery - the Thomist and Jesuit views you point out (thankfully as too many over-generalize the RC view of grace) both try to illuminate that mystery, but cannot resolve it. If you think that's a copout, then building upon the last paragraph, I would say the Reformed apparently embrace this mystery quite happily in sanctification. A sampling:
A.A. Hodge: “It must be remembered that while the subject is passive with respect to that divine act of grace whereby he is regenerated, after he is regenerated he cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the work of sanctification. The Holy Ghost gives the grace, and prompts and directs in its exercise, and the soul exercises it. Thus while sanctification is a grace, it is also a duty; and the soul is both bound and encouraged to use with diligence, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, all the means for its spiritual renovation, and to form those habits resisting evil and of right action in which sanctification so largely consists.”
Jonathan Edwards: “In efficacious grace we are not merely passive, nor yet does God do some and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, we act all. For that is what he produces, viz. [namely] our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors. We are in different respects, wholly passive and wholly active.”
Richard Gaffin: “Here is what may be fairly called a synergy but it is not a 50/50 undertaking (not even 99.9% God and 0.1% ourselves). Involved here is the ‘mysterious math’ of the creator and his image-bearing creature, whereby 100% plus 100% =100%. Sanctification is 100% the work of God, and for that reason, is to engage the full 100% activity of the believer.”
Kevin DeYoung: “Second, we see that, given the right qualifications, either term could be used with merit. “Monergism” can work because sanctification is God’s gift, his supernatural work in us. “Synergism” can also work because because we cooperate with God in sanctification and actively make an effort to grow in godliness….“passive” can describe our role in sanctification, but only if we also say there is a sense in which we are active….God sanctifies us and we also sanctify ourselves”
"Of course, I’m aware that this is a controversial topic within the Roman Church, such as between the Thomists and the Jesuits, for example. The Augustinian or the Thomist view, as I understand them, I find acceptable in that they truly do ascribe the cooperation of the will entirely to grace because they make grace effectual, but the Jesuit view I find to be heretical because it does not."
Yes, intrinsically efficacious grace is a perfectly orthodox view to hold in RCism so a potential convert with your fears need not have that as a stumbling block, but both Thomists and Molinists/Jesuits share the doctrine of sufficient grace offered to all.
"The Jesuit view, in my opinion, brings in the sort of “merit” that I object to, because since the cooperation of the will is not itself produced by grace, the implication is that it is produced by the will and not grace, and this leads to a Pelagian sort of merit and the sort that the Protestant view holds to be unbiblical."
Again, I would ask by this logic how you are not embracing a Pelagian view of your heavenly rewards which are based on your sanctification. If you affirmed sanctification was just as monergistic as justification is, that might make sense, but I doubt you would embrace such a view.
See all comments on this post here:
http://www.calledtocommunion.
Another good article on the meaning of Ephesians 2 and boasting: http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2020/01/not-by-works-so-that-no-one-may-boast.html
No comments:
Post a Comment