Romans I and 2, 4 faith and works, 3--non-righteous

http://www.creedcodecult.com/oddly-enough-paul-echoed-jesus/

http://www.creedcodecult.com/the-folly-of-pro-semitism/

Go to the links above--here below are a couple of random quotes from the comment section of Rom 2 :

All one has to do is turn to the next two vv: 

“14 for when Gentiles , who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts ” 

Jer 31:33“33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts ; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” 

Paul is making the argument that Gentiles who are believers in Yeshua have the law written in their hearts! So this ordinary dikaiosness eisegetical distinction immediately falls apart. As does McCallum’s argument that the gentiles are actually NOT doing the law in the sense of obeying the law synergistically. People like Westerholm and others who cling to the idea that the gentiles spoken of in Rom 2:13 are not actually doing the law are desperately trying to avoid the Gospel rich conclusion that yes, we can obey the law by keeping Christ’s commands! That’s the greatest irony here: those who pay lip service to the glory and grace of God deny that same grace and glory when they say “I cannot obey the law”, ignoring the fact that it is precisely to that end that Christ united Himself with us in His incarnation, to enable us to be healed and saved. Not just at the forensic declaration of being forgiven and reconciled, but also in the praxis of day to day life. The perfection that Christ commanded is a perfection of growth to maturity made possible by the synergistic walking after the Spirit and not the flesh.This is why Paul boldly puts forth the radical idea that gentiles doing the law, by nature of being In Christ, are actually true Jews! 

“28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God ”SS.

and:

Paul says in 2:16 that what he just said is “according to his gospel.” Your insistence that Paul does not preach the gospel until ch. 3 is the result of a prior-held paradigm, not the text itself. The text itself says the opposite.

And concerning 3:21, ch. 2 is describing this very “righteousness apart from the law,” because the justification gained by the Gentiles is completely irrespective of Moses, but achieved through the NC gift of the Spirit, as Paul explicitly says....

Rom. 2:13 is not an imperative, it is an indicative (“the doers of the law will be justified”). And your claim that “no one does this” is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by what Paul immediately says! Just read the text, Adam: “Those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code, but break the law.” Nothing could be clearer, but instead of interacting with my argument, all I am getting is people stomping their feet and parroting back their systematics.

So please tell me how it is, if “no one does” what Paul describes in v. 13, that Paul could explicitly say that there are Gentiles who do....................

and

My response was intended to convey the notion that the believer’s participation in Jesus’ work and our insistence that our Spirit-wrought works are contributory to our final salvation are, in the mind of a Catholic, nothing more than a testimony to the power of Christ and the holistic nature of our salvation. It’s not a monergistic work in which we are utterly passive, and in which any active involvement in sanctification is still sinful and acceptable only because our Spirit-wrought works are covered by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

So I appealed to the healing of a cripple to show that Jesus’ intent was not merely to heal the man’s lameness, but to restore him to full health and the ability to actually live his life as it was naturally meant to be lived. It seems to me that the objection that it robs Christ of his all-sufficiency if a sinner is healed by the gospel to the point where he actually can imitate his elder Brother and exhibit a righteousness by participating in the divine nature that pleases his Father, is similar to saying that it robs Christ of his all-sufficiency if he heals a cripple and restores him to the point where he can live up to his intended potential.

In other words, from a Catholic standpoint there’s no reason why the cross is devalued by how exalted the sinner-saved-by-grace becomes upon embracing Jesus. To the contrary, this exalted state testifies to how powerful we think the cross really is.

 {JS]

and

Paul is now in full shock mode (the truth is shocking) when he says that gentiles will judge jews. Imagine being a jew and hearing that a filthy goyim will one day judge him… No wonder Paul called the gospel scandal to the jews and foolishness to the greeks.

That’s a great way to put it, and it’s what N.T. Wright argues as well. In fact, there is nothing hinted at in ch. 2 that is not said more explicitly in ch. 8, where Paul connects the “no condemnation” of the NC with the fulfillment of the law’s purpose in us who walk after the Spirit.

IN comment 268  here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/

the question is posed:

 how does a Roman catholic interpret Romans 4:
4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”[b]

9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.”

This seems to contradict Trent that says righteousness is infused instead of reckoned. Also Paul is clear that works cannot be added to faith in order to justify. But Trent says we need to prepare our selves for justification.

and it is answered in the next comment: 269

You asked:

Bryan how does a Roman catholic interpret Romans 4:

In this passage St. Paul is teaching that justification has always been by faith, and not by dead works. He is showing this by revealing that this was the case even for Abraham and David. God counted Abraham righteous on the basis of his faith, and this righteousness was a divine gift, because Abraham’s faith was a divine gift. The case of David too, demonstrates that forgiveness from God is not by works meriting forgiveness from God, but by divine mercy which effects repentance out of love for God, a love that belongs to living faith. This righteousness by living faith, says St. Paul, is not just for the Hebrews, but for all peoples of the world. It is catholic, because Abraham had it by faith before receiving the circumcision of the flesh that sets the Jewish people apart from the Gentiles.

You wrote:

This seems to contradict Trent that says righteousness is infused instead of reckoned.

Trent never says that righteousness is infused *instead of reckoned.* See the paragraph that begins “First, Catholics believe in imputation” in comment #140 of the “Imputation and Paradigms” thread.

You wrote:

Also Paul is clear that works cannot be added to faith in order to justify. But Trent says we need to prepare our selves for justification.

In this passage of Romans St. Paul is not talking about preparing for justification, but about what it is fundamentally that justifies: faith or works. And the answer is faith. And this living faith is a divine gift, which we receive through the sacrament of baptism, which St. Paul describes in Romans 6, as I have explained in the last section of “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration.” St. Paul in no place says that for those who have attained the age of reason, repentance is not necessary for receiving the gift of faith in baptism. If you take ‘works’ to mean ‘any human action’ you will fall into monergism, and then even you are not the one believing, in ‘your’ act of justifying faith, but God is doing the believing for you. Rather, St. Paul is using the term ‘works’ in a qualified context, referring to that on the basis of which we are justified. We are not justified on the basis of works, but by faith, even though for those who have reached the age of reason, repentance and baptism are necessary for receiving the sacrament of baptism by which this divine gift of faith is implanted deeply within us.

and from part of comment 140 which he refers to:

The list-paradigm denies that the agape we have been given is in itself the righteousness required by God’s holy law. It does this by implicitly positing two forms of agape: perfect agape and imperfectagape. Only perfect agape is the fulfillment of the law, but in this present life no one receives perfectagape. In this present life we’re given only imperfect agape, and imperfect agape is not the fulfillment of the law. This entails that agape in itself is not the righteousness required by God’s law. The list-paradigm conceptually defines “perfect agape” in terms of perfect law-keeping, rather than defining perfect law-keeping in terms of agape. The agape paradigm, by contrast, defines perfect law-keeping in terms of agape, holding agape itself to be God’s standard to which the law as external only points, as to something greater than itself.

............................

First, Catholics believe in imputation. God forgives our sins, and in that sense does not impute our sins. (Rom 4:8) God also imputes righteousness to us (Rom 4:5), by counting as righteousness the living faith He has given us, by which we truly are righteous. From a Catholic point of view, the problem is not imputation per se, but the extra nos conception of imputation, which, from a Catholic point of view makes God out to be either a liar or self-deceived.

Lane claims that the Protestant doctrine of imputation does not assume the list-paradigm. But, here’s why it does. If agape were recognized as the fulfillment of the law, there would be no need for extra nos imputation. God would count us as righteous because we are (by His doing) truly internally righteous. So in this way, the need for extra nos imputation depends on the list-paradigm notion thatagape is not the fulfillment of the law.

...............................

Lane then adds

Cross’s claim that when Paul uses Abraham as a paradigm for believers in Romans 4 and Galatians 3, that it was not in every respect that Abraham was a paradigm is an evasion. The particular aspect in which Abraham is a paradigm is with regard to imputed righteousness apart from any aspect of his own law-keeping and apart from any ceremony or sacrament! This is explicitly true in Romans 4:11

Merely asserting that what I said is “an evasion” does not show it to be false. Likewise, merely asserting that the particular aspect in which Abraham is an example is with respect to [extra nos] imputed righteousness is question-begging, in that Lane presupposes that the imputation going on in Gen 15:6 is extra nos imputation, and not imputation by way of infused living faith. Nothing about Romans 4:11 is incompatible with the Catholic doctrine, as was explained in the comments above.

Lastly, Lane claims that Abraham was justified only once, and that it took place at the time recorded in Gen 15:6. He writes:

Secondly, Abraham was not reckoned righteous before God in the justificatory sense more than once. … So, in Abraham’s case, he was declared to be justified in Genesis 15.

The purpose of my post was not about demonstrating how many times Abraham was justified or when he was justified. So this is a bit of a rabbit trail. But it is worth considering. In Reformed theology, the unjustified person is said to be dead in sin, bereft of faith, hope, agape, living only in sin, having “wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation,” and “being altogether averse from that good.” (WCF IX.3) In Reformed theology, unregenerate man is “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” (WCF VI.4)

However, that’s not the picture we get of the man Scripture calls ‘Abram’ in Genesis chapters 12-14. Scripture says in Gen. 12:1-4 that God spoke to Abram and that Abram obeyed the Lord’s call to leave Ur. Then the Lord appeared to him at the oak of Moreh, and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” How did Abram respond? “So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.” (Gen 12:7) The verse doesn’t say that he worshipped the Lord there, but in the context (as shown below) we can presume that he did. (Why else does one build an altar to the LORD?) Abram’s worshipful response to God’s promise is one of trust in the Lord’s promise, just as he responded to God’s promise in Gen 15:6.

Then in Gen 12:8, on the mountain east of Bethel, Abram “built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD.” Is this really the picture of a man dead in trespasses and sins, “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good”? How is a man who is completely dead in trespasses and sins responding to the Lord’s promises by building altars to Him, and calling upon His Name? Was Abram faking it, merely pretending to worship God, while actually hating God in his heart? There is no sign at all in the text of such a thing.

Then in Gen 13:4 Abram returns to the altar on the mountain east of Bethel, and there again he calls on the name of the LORD. That’s not the behavior of one dead in sins. Ten verses later God speaks to Abram again in Gen 13:14-17, promising him and his descendants the land. Abram accepts God’s promise, and moves to Hebron, letting Lot have the seemingly better land. Does a man dead in trespasses and sins trust God’s word in this way?

Then in Gen 14, Melchizedek says, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High.” Melchizedek was not merely saying that Abram was one more piece of God’s property, as are trees and flowers and birds. Abram was “of God” in the sense that he was a man of faith, a friend of God. Abram then participates in a proto-typical Eucharist, receiving the bread and wine from the priest Melchizedek. Should we think that the proto-typical Eucharistic event involves the reception of this prefigurement of the sacrament by an unregenerate man dead in sins? Then Abram, this man allegedly dead in sin, with no faith and noagape, pays a tithe to Melchizedek, “the priest of God Most High.” Abram then reveals that he has made an oath to God, and keeps his oath. (Gen 14:22) Should paying his tithe to the Lord, and keeping his oath to God be construed as the activity of one dead in sins and at enmity with God, “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good”? Which is more difficult to believe, that Abram is only faking love for God in all this, or that he is in fact a man of faith?

How does Lane respond to all this biblical data that points to Abram already having faith in Gen 12-14? He writes:

I am not sure what Abraham’s doings in Genesis 12-14 have to do with the discussion, either. Chronology is tricky in those chapters.

Lane believes firmly in the Reformed system of doctrine, because he believes that it is the biblical system of doctrine. He is so committed to this system, according to which justification can happen only once within a given person’s lifetime, and that faith is the sole instrument of justification, that in the face of all the data in Genesis chapters 12-14 indicating that Abram was already a man of faith in God, Lane suggests (implicitly) that the chapters in Genesis have not been placed in chronological order, and that the justification event described in Gen 15:6 might have occurred before the events of Genesis 12-14, or at least before all the events in Gen 12-14 indicating that Abram had faith, even though the inerrant Scripture explicitly states that the events narrated in Genesis 15 temporally followed those of the preceding chapter(s) when the author writes in Genesis 15:1, “After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision.”

In philosophy, Lane’s [implicit] suggestion that the chapters are out of chronological order, based on no internal evidence but only to save the paradigm, is what we sometimes call “adding epicycles.” The paradigm must be saved at all costs, even if it means positing a rearrangement of the chapters of the Bible, based on an assumption that the author must not have put them in chronological order. It seems to me, however, that a better response is to allow the biblical data to revise the paradigm. If Abram was already a man of faith in God prior to Genesis 15:6, then our conception of justification must be made compatible with that. Genesis 15:6 then can be understood as an increase in justification, as described in Trent VI.10, through the act of faith whereby Abram believed the promises God made to him in Gen 15:1-5.

end of quote

Also from comment 239 which discusses this subject from Romans 2

 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/05/the-witness-of-the-lost-christianities/

I looked at Kaufman’s article on “the jealousy narrative.” There was much in the text I agree with. I find the major thesis (that there is a jealousy narrative) unobjectionable. However, I think things get more difficult when Kaufman tries to move to his conclusions about the meaning of justification. The fact that Paul seeks to excite Jewish jealousy does nothing to advance the claim that faith justifies by means of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

Paul argues that “it is not those who hear the law, but those who obey” who will be declared righteous. Mere possession of the mosaic law, mere “Jewishness,” does not guarantee interior righteousness, the love that is the fulfillment of the law.

By contrast, Paul says in 2:25-29 that those with circumcised hearts (gentile Christians) are fulfilling the dikaiomata tou noumou (RROTL), even though they lack the letter of the Mosaic legislation. Paul says not a word about imputation here. In fact, he says the exact opposite. He says that circumcision of the heart brings about obedience to the RROTL. Kaufman, however, overlooks the agape paradigm and simply assumes the doctrine of imputation here. He assumes that the fulfillment Paul speaks of (RROTL) comes by way of imputed righteousness, even though Paul never says that.

One reason for his oversight, I believe, is that Kaufman assumes the “obedience to the law” in view in 2:13 is the same as “Works of the law” (ergon nomou) in Romans 3 and 4. But Paul distinguishes “Works of the law (ergon nomou) from the RROTL (dikaiomata tou nomou). The one fails to justify. The other does justify, does “receive praise from God,” (Rom. 2:25-29) when fulfilled through the circumcised heart via the spirit.

That there is a difference between “works of the law” and “RROTl” is evident in that the one distinguishes Jew from Gentile and is uniquely Jewish (Rom. 3:29), while the other characterizes the moral life of righteous Gentiles who lack the mosaic legislation.

(see also discussion on Romans 10 here http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2013/06/romans-10-righteousness-of-law.html

from 454 comment
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/

* Romans 3 quotes the Psalms in saying that “None is righteous, no, not one”; however, the Psalms which Paul quotes (Ps 14:3, Ps 5:9, Ps 140:3, Ps 10:7, Is 59:7, Ps 36:1) distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, and this suggests that Paul is not condemning all _without exception_; rather, he is saying that the wickedness referred to in the Psalm can be found in all nations, both Jews and Greeks.

Answering a question on Rom. 3.  from comment 470 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

How do you interpret Romans 3:25? That God had to show his own righteousness by presenting Christ as a “propitiation” (satisfaction), because he had overlooked former sins? In other words, it seems that, for God to be righteous, he must punish sin in one way or another.

The righteousness of God that has now been manifested apart from the law (v. 21), and which we (both Jews and Gentiles) receive by faith in Jesus Christ (v. 22), is a gift to us procured for us by the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ (v. 24) whom God put forward by sending His Son into the world to suffer and die upon the Cross, such that through this blood sacrifice He would be a propitiation for our sins (v. 25) — this righteousness is to be received by faith, in contrast to the righteousness of the law, which was by works. In sending His Son to make propitiation for our sin through satisfaction, God showed His own righteousness, by making satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, both past, present, and future, rather than continuing to ‘overlook’ (as it were) sins by not punishing them. In this way, in this one action, He shows Himself to be both just and the justifier of those who have faith in Christ (v. 26).

God does not have to punish sin in order to be righteousness, because another way to make satisfaction is to offer something of great value to God, in this case, Christ offered Himself as a gift of love to the Father, even unto death. The notion that in order for God to be righteous He must punish sin presupposes the falsehood of the satisfaction position, and thus just begs the question (i.e. presupposes precisely what is in question). Also, regarding the necessity of punishment, see the quotation from St. Thomas in comment #19 above.