Hebrews 9:14
English Standard Version (ESV)
14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our[a] conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
From this infection [the soul] works dead works, which are without the [presence of the] enlivening Holy Spirit, who is called Love.from comment 48 here: http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/how-the-church-won-an-interview-with-jason-stellman/#comment-39984
Therefore, by the death of Christ the soul is freed from this union by
which a man’s spirit clings to the spirit-of-death, through which his
works are dead.
But that aside, what we have here is a clash of paradigms with one of us not realizing it (you). Your entire operating assumption is that it is the Law that defines obedience, which is why you say, “even the holiest of men is disqualified from the perfection demanded by the Law.” Now if I were a Pharisee I would agree with you and the Reformed tradition that it is obedience to the letter of the Law that defines the obedience that God requires. But as long as I am a Catholic who doesn’t share your assumption on that point, you simply can’t expect to use it as a premise that doesn’t need defending.
So you’re either unaware of the basic Catholic position on this issue (that God’s will is fulfilled by Spirit-wrought love of God and neighbor and not by perfect obedience to the letter of the law), or you’re unwilling to fairly represent the position you’re trying to refute. But in either case, debating is pointless until you stop begging the question
quote below found here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/st-augustine-on-law-and-grace/#freewill
St. Augustine continues:
And that you may know that he designated as theirs the righteousness which is of the law, and as God’s that which man receives from God, hear what he says in another passage, when speaking of Christ: “For whose sake I counted all things not only as loss, but I deemed them to be dung, that I might win Christ, and be found in Him — not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, which is of God.” (Philippians 3:8-9) Now what does he mean by “not having my own righteousness, which is of the law,” when the law is really not his at all, but God’s, — except this, that he called it his own righteousness, although it was of the law, because he thought he could fulfil the law by his own will, without the aid of grace which is through faith in Christ? Wherefore, after saying, “Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law,” he immediately subjoined, “But that which is through the faith of Christ, which is of God.” This is what they were ignorant of, of whom he says, “Being ignorant of God’s righteousness,” — that is, the righteousness which is of God (for it is given not by the letter, which kills, but by the life-giving Spirit), “and wishing to establish their own righteousness,” which he expressly described as the righteousness of the law, when he said, “Not having my own righteousness, which is of the law;” they were not subject to the righteousness of God — in other words, they submitted not themselves to the grace of God. For they were under the law, not under grace, and therefore sin had dominion over them, from which a man is not freed by the law, but by grace. On which account he elsewhere says, “For sin shall not have dominion over you; because you are not under the law, but under grace.” (Rom 6:14) Not that the law is evil; but because they are under its power, whom it makes guilty by imposing commandments, not by aiding. It is by grace that any one is a doer of the law; and without this grace, he who is placed under the law will be only a hearer of the law. To such persons he addresses these words: “You who are justified by the law are fallen from grace.” (Gal 5:4) (chapter 24)
from comment 128 below---http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/how-the-church-won-an-interview-with-jason-stellman/#comment-40172 here
Joey wrote:
“Luke 1:6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, following all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly. –> I’ve heard you talk about this in your interview. Luke, often times, used the word “righteous” in a practical and relative sense describing the pattern of living shown by believers. This means that generally, they were in exemplary conformance with the Law in the way that they lived relative to other Israelites and the pagan nations. The passage never said that they were not sinners before God (Rom 3:23). It never said that they were justified before God, as sinners, on the ground that they were generally Law abiding. Paul explained in Romans 3:19-20 that “no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the Law, for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin”. What justifies is a work not done by the sinner but by Christ who propitiated sin in our behalf on the cross. In fact, just like John’s parents, Paul also walks blamelessly in the commandments and ordinances of God (Philippians 3:6). But, he never saw such righteousness as the righteousness that justified him before God. He sought that righteousness which is found in Christ; not his own inherent righteousness (3:9).”
The above is pure eisegesis… there was nothing ‘relative’ about the righteousness of Z&E, this is inserted this into the text to mitigate cognitive dissonance. Further, appealing to the word ‘righteous’ in other areas of Luke’s gospel does nothing to address the uniqueness of Luke 1:6, another basic exegetical misstep. Let’s review the verse again:
“6 They were both righteous in the sight of God , walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.”
Z&E b(and as we’ll see later, the Publican) are to this discussion what the black swan represented to David Hume. Not exactly of course, but there is a somewhat of a parallel between the classic problem of induction and the Reformed paradigm with regards to the meaning and intent of the Mosaic law.
Righteous in v 6 is actually dikaioi (just, from which we get the word justified), and it’s not just (pun intended) that they are called dikaioi, but much more than that, they are described dikaioi in the sight (in view) of God. There is simply no way around that. So the question then becomes: how could Luke 1:6 exist in a Reformed paradigm where the word ‘law’ automatically always and everywhere conveys the notion of legalistic, God indebting nomism? Well that’s precisely the problem and precisely the issue (albeit tangentially) that Jason Stellman is raising, an incredibly important one at that.
The problem for the reformed paradigm is this: Luke 1:6 is ironclad: they weren’t simply called ‘righteous’, but rather righteous in God’s sight! This is impossible under reformed theology because of the straitjacket into which the Mosaic law has been placed. Hence Jason believing that the catholic paradigm provides better explanatory power for such a verse. (I cannot blame him for doing so, even though I know he knows it is not the only other paradigm that does so.) So what is this other paradigm? Well for starters, it is one in which we begin to realize that the Mosaic law was given to the Jews not as a list to keep to earn salvation, but actually as a handmaiden/attendant to mature the Jews to the obedience of faith (see D.A Carson’s stunning admission at the end of Justification and Variegated Nomism). This obedience of faith was not one in which nomism put God in debt when one kept the commands (or attempted to, no one could in fact keep all 613 commands), this was in fact a twisting of the law by the Jews in the ultimate cosmic reversal borne out of pride: they were trying to reverse the roles, they as patron and God as client, and trying to put God into their debt (think Pharisee vs Publican here), hence Paul’s unique term ‘works of the law’ (which btw, does not only include ceremonial boundary markers contra NT Wright/Dunn/NPP, sizeable faux pas there). But, by contrast, the obedience of faith was obedience that found its genesis in humility and love for God. Remember, both Pharisee and Publican stood at the temple where sacrifices were made. They were both involved with the law, but one went home justified and the other not. The Publican approached the law and the sacrifical lamb/atonement provision at the temple with humility and faith. And that is precisely the paradigm that does the best job of explaining the existence of Luke 1:6 in the NT, i.e., one in which the Mosaic law was all along meant to be a law of faith (think Rom 8:1-4). Now, if you’re thinking well, who needs Christ then if the Mosaic law was so great? Well, think again, was Jesus in the picture in the story of the Pharisee and the Publican? No, He wasn’t. Did He say that the Publican was justified because of the extra nos imputation of the Messiah’s merits? No, He didn’t. Christ simply says that the Publican went home justified that day. The publican is a black swan of his own, in a land where we are told all swans are white (all law keeping is legalistic in nature). You’re only way out of this quagmire is DTS style dispensationalism, but that is jumping out of the frying pan into the fire, it is very easily dismissed.
Z&E were righteous in God’s sight in the same way in which the Publican was. They approached the law with the obedience of faith. Were they one of the very few who did so? Most likely very much so, much like Joshua and Caleb were the ‘very few’ who made it into the promised land, by faith. So how is all this reconciled with Romans 3:23? Well, no one is denying that Z&E sinned, this is a red herring/straw man. The law made provision for sin, and when this provision was made with a heart full of faith as opposed to a heart full of pride, it was accepted by God (think about the Publican again). What about Romans 3:19-20 then? That’s the better objection:
Romans 3:19-20 is dealing with the ‘works of the law’, i.e., the mindset that the Mosaic law was a law of works. But here’s the point again: it wasn’t meant to be a law of works! It was meant to be a law of faith, where every attempt to keep the law was clothed in humility and in faith that it was God who justified, and not one’s attempt to put Him in our debt. But of course, the Jews (as we would have done), turned that on its head and infused a spirit of legalism into the ordinances and commandments of God. Instead of thinking, “how can law #34 draw me closer to loving God”, they thought “how can I make sure to keep law #34 to have something to present God with and demand repayment at the judgment”. Cue in Phil 3:6, that’s exactly where the artist formerly known as Saul was!
So there is absolutely no contradiction between Luke 1:6 and Rom 3:19-20 or Rom 3:23! You are dealing with apples and oranges. But the problem, as Jason has astutely raised, is that we are dealing with two different paradigms, one of which is fatally flawed. I adduce Romans 9:30-32 here:
“30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law.
There, straight from the horse’s mouth. Now that Christ has atoned for the sins of the world, there is an infinitely better way to the obedience of faith. But let’s not lose sight of what the existence of Z&E in the NT has to teach us: the proper paradigm for our covenantal relationship with God is not one which posits that God desires that we keep a list of laws perfectly. The proper paradigm is that God desires for us to mature to the obedience of faith. And this is the GOOD NEWS:
“There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”
Peace to All,
SS.
from comment 48 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/holy-church-finding-jesus-as-a-reverted-catholic-a-testimonial-response-to-chris-castaldo/#comment-46784
Second, you claim that the Catechism’s claim (CCC 2027) about the possibility of meriting grace contradicts Romans 11:6 and Romans 4:4-5. In these verses in Romans St. Paul is speaking of dead works, i.e. works done apart from grace. In this particular context he is teaching that no one is justified merely by following the Jewish law, without grace. God has not rejected the Jews. But merely carrying out the Jewish law is not sufficient for salvation; the remnant are (as always) those who have been given grace. Likewise, in Romans 4:4-5 St. Paul is speaking of works-done-apart-from-faith. But when the Catechism speaks of the possibility of meriting grace, it is referring only to works done in a state of grace, by those having living faith. So there is no contradiction between what the Catechism says, and what St. Paul is teaching in these verses. I’ve written a post on the subject of merit titled “The Doctrine of Merit: Feingold, Calvin, and the Church Fathers,” which addresses this objection in much more detail.
No comments:
Post a Comment