The Catholic-Protestant Divide: A Path to Unity
Jan 23rd, 2010 | By Bryan Cross | Category: Blog PostsThe second winning essay in our essay contest is titled, “The Catholic-Protestant Divide: A Path to Unity,” written by Dave Wade. Dave is a lifelong Catholic, a catechist on the RCIA-ACI team and musician at St. Cecelia Catholic Church in Clearwater, Florida. He is also the Catholic Mentor/Moderator @ theCircle.org. Dave is planning to enter the Masters Degree program at the Institute for Pastoral Theology at Ave Maria University.
The Chair of St. Peter
The Catholic-Protestant Divide: A Path to Unity
by Dave Wade
Understanding “what” fundamentally divides Christians is not beyond the intellectual reach of the everyman. It is understanding “why” that splinters and fractures into incomprehensible and disconnected thoughts. The fundamental disagreement that underlies all the other Catholic-Protestant disagreements concerns His Church and its Teaching Authority. The Church…the one Christ imbued upon the Apostle Peter in Matthew 16:18 and its Teaching Authority referred to as the Magisterium, is understood by Catholics as clearly seen in Scripture to be created, instructed, planned and executed according to Scripture.
Why is the Church and its Authority in Christianity the fundamental point of division? The teachings of this visible Authority, The Church, headed by Christ, by Peter and their appointed and initiated chain of Apostolic successors, produce all the other Catholic practices that Protestants claim are not valid — those that fuel long standing disagreements among both. Sacraments, liturgical worship, doctrines, dogmas, sainthood, indulgences, prayer practices, papal infallibility, and all the rest that Catholics and Protestants debate are Catholic teachings from that Authority (i.e. the Church) that Protestants deny have any salvific value. Catholics rely upon this Authority to guide their worship and direct their worship practices to become and remain centered on Christ and His teachings. Reliance on this Authority provides Catholics with a universally consistent application of Fatherhood and the unimaginable benefits promised by Him. The Catholic submission to authority demonstrates an authentic understanding of worship as a permanent love relationship, one that does not dissolve from argument, but calls for obedience and parallels our tangible experience as parents and children. Some of these Catholic individual and liturgical practices are misperceived by Protestants to be heretical, giving them reason to continue remaining separate from the Catholic Church. Protestants view these practices as creating a “performance” or “works” based false salvation, which if true would be tragically misguided. Yet, studied and knowledgeable Catholics understand that salvation can only come from outside of ourselves and that these Catholic worship practices prove to remove the fallible and impure obstacles (that we as humans create for ourselves) that block a progressive personal Christ relationship which is necessary for salvation.
To make ecumenical progress, Christians on both sides of the divide must begin by treating each other with the highest level of dignity and respect possible, especially when communicating about the Faith. The unifying basis of both sides is a common knowledge and experience of relational theology in Christ’s promise of salvation by grace. As demonstrated by the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, Catholics and Lutherans not only agree on the assurance of salvation, but also formally and publicly declare it as permanent evidence of a pre-existing unification point. Paragraph 38 of the Joint Declaration exposes this with such alarming clarity, any Christian apologist should question the very need to defend his Faith to another Christian altogether:
“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.1
If Catholics and Lutherans of authority can by their own free will produce a doctrine having such unifying impact, then certainly their members are able intellectually to participate accordingly.
Historically, Catholic initiated ecumenism is not without its self-inflicted misperceptions. Certain Catholics must cease observing Protestants as “privatizing the Faith” by selectively hearing that they only profess a mandatory personal relationship with Christ. While salvation begins personally and intimately in our adoption into God’s family, it cannot result in a tunnel-visioned and self-guided faith. As we strengthen a communion with Jesus, we come to receive His heart and a genuine compassion for the lost, the poor, and the sinner. Personal relationship with God begins individually, but then pours over into all of our relationships, caring for the least, loving our enemies, and exposing the fruit of that genuine personal connection. This is how Christ ministered, personally and individually. Additionally, this is how the emulation of Christ and relational permanence of Fatherhood produces visible manifestation of His love, and is universal in all the Christian faithful. Protestant ministries have this much in common with the same in Catholic ministries.
When a Catholic or Protestant finds the Christo-centric reality in his separated brother, and in that person’s Faith, a dialogue of unity can follow on the subjects of Christ’s deity, the Trinity and His own teaching of a unified body. Both sides of this divide would enter still further into fruitful ecumenical territory by discussing the progressive nature of the Church, including its human error throughout nearly two millennia. All Christians should recognize the rational truth that “the perfect is not the enemy of the good.” Man was not given religious truth as though from a Scholastic theologian, perfectly organized and tabulated with citations. Nor have we seen a perfect progression of doctrine by perfect Bishops. The Church develops its doctrine by advancement within itself, without changing the core truths. The progression of doctrine also does so in tune with current realities and cultures, and in spite of its entrusted keepers’ faults and the personal or public sin for which they will be accountable. The fact that imperfect humans may have wreaked havoc on other believers at various times throughout history never constituted a truth ending event, or a conspiracy to do so. It must be with this concrete reason and logic that the one true Church is held believable, visible and accessible for all Christians.
Once we share a view that the One Infallible God has left His fallible children a path to seek and find His love for us, the perceived differences become less daunting and we, together, can reach out to unify once again.
- Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, 38. [↩]
It’s not clear to me that “the fundamental disagreement” concerns the Roman-Catholic magisterium’s authority; at least as a *general* rule. (It may and probably is like this in particular cases with many Protestants.) As the author unpacks the claim, the impression seems to be that Protestants either reject or do not see the justification for accepting the Roman-Catholic conception of the teaching magisterium; and hence Protestants reject dogmas the only ostensible justification for which is that they are pronounced by that magisterium. In my own view, which I would imagine is shared by many Protestants, the fundamental reason to believe that Roman-Catholicism’s teaching magisterium is not authoritative when it comes to Christian dogma is not merely that I do not see the warrant for holding the Roman-Catholic magisterium to have this authority; but also – and more fundamentally – that it is clear to me that this magisterium has in fact pronounced dogma that is *contradicted by* the (agreed-upon) Scripture. As I see it, there is an incoherence in the Roman-Catholic position, in that some magisterium dogma (e.g.,, concerning the idea that “justification” is a transformative process) is simply inconsistent with other magisterium dogma (e.g., that certain Scripture that plainly presents justification as a forensic act/event is *also* authoritative).
Obviously, studied conservative Roman-Catholics will disagree with my view that there is an inconsistency between Scripture and magisterium dogma, but my point here is that there are two significantly different kinds of ways to view the “fundamental” point of division. One way, which it seems to me the author focuses his article around, is for one side to fail to see the warrant for viewing a particular teaching magisterium (embodied in what has come to be known as the “Roman-Catholic church”) as authoritative, whereas the other side does see such warrant; and hence one side fails to accept as true certain dogmas flowing from that source (or at least as to be believed in virtue of that source). But there is another way, and that is to judge not merely that there is insufficient warrant for accepting this extra source of dogma but also that this extra source has introduced incoherence and inconsistency (particularly, in light of Scripture that *both* sides allegedly accept as authoritative and inerrant) and hence cannot be a valid source of dogma.
An important upshot of this for Protestant-Roman-Catholic dialogue is this: for one who is convinced that certain Roman-Catholic dogma contradicts Scripture, arguing about Peter and the keys and the nature of the Church and apostolic succession and teaching authority and catholicity and visible unity etc., although important, is, from the perspective of what is “fundamental” to the division, beside the point. This magisterium *can’t* be authoritative (the reasoning goes), however plausible a case might be made that connects it to the apostles, or however pretty a line might be traced through history, etc., because of Scripture. For Protestants of this perspective, any hope of getting them to accept this magisterium will fundamentally have to begin with exegesis of Scripture, particularly Scripture pertaining to doctrine that has divided the two groups since Trent such as the nature of justification.
I don’t know what this sentence means; but seriously? If we are going to pick out a single unifying basis, surely it should be Scripture.
Dan- As I see it, only to the extent that we agree upon Scriptural interpretations can we be unified. And that process itself (of working toward agreement concerning Scriptural interpretation) is a Church activity. So, though the Bible will certainly be central to this process leading toward unity, it’s the “common knowledge and experience” of people, led by Christ, the Shepherd (exactly what Dave Wade describes in the article), that is “the unifying basis” of this process of Atonement. thanks.
Dan,
I can appreciate where you’re coming from. If there is an actual contradiction between Scripture and the Magisterium, as the Protestants claim, then I can’t believe in the Magisterium. And if there is actual contradiction within the Scriptures, as the atheists claim, I must reject them as well. But neither of these things are the case. I’ll convince you of the former as soon as I convince the atheists of the latter. But the atheists can make a much stronger case for their objection than you can for yours; i.e. the apparent contradictions in Scripture take a lot more “creativity” to defend than do the apparent contradictions between Magisterium and Scripture. The latter is a walk in the park.
There can be some of that, but only so much. One problem with this proposed method is that it assumes the entire foundation of Protestant theology to be true while demanding that Catholics drop half of theirs. That is, yes we believe the Scriptures are inerrant, but only as delivered by the Church. Inerrancy of Scripture is unintelligible as a doctrine without Church infallibility. The better method, I think, is for both sides to back up from their positions and examine the issues starting with the more fundamental questions. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing here at CTC.
Tim,
You clearly think that it is more difficult to show an inconsistency between the magisterium’s dogma and Scripture than to show one between Scripture and Scripture, but even so you don’t need to defend the self-consistency of Scripture (vs. the atheist or anyone else) as a step towards defending the consistency of the magisterium’s dogma and Scripture. A Protestant who holds to the inerrancy of Scripture will not challenge Scripture’s self-consistency; and the challenges a Protestant will raise (e.g., that the magisterium got justification wrong) cannot be answered by arguing that certain parts of Scripture are compatible with each other (which parts would one pick?). Further, the magisterium’s dogma and Scripture may be inconsistent whether or not Scripture is inconsistent with itself; the issues are distinct. Of course, if it were really true that Scripture’s self-consistency is easier (for you) to defend than Scripture’s and the magisterium’s consistency, then if you could defend the former you a fortiori could defend the latter; but the Protestant has no reason to accept this ab initio (since at this point he holds both that Scripture is in fact self-consistent on every point and that the magisterium’s teaching and Scripture are not) and hence won’t take your ability to defend the one (granting that you have it) as showing that you could also adequately defend the other. You’re right that my main point was that for at least this Protestant the chief obstacle towards embracing Roman-Catholicism is the view that there is an internal incoherence/contradiction in the “camp.” Yes, Protestants also have to worry about one way in which their camp(s) can fall to an internal incoherence (Scripture’s being inconsistent with itself), but Roman-Catholics have to deal with this same point too; plus several more distinct points of potential incoherence; namely, a larger canon of Scripture’s self-consistency, the consistency of this canon and the magisterium’s dogma, and consistency of the magisterium’s dogma at one point in time and its dogma at a later point in time.
I don’t understand this first sentence. Is the claim that what is inerrant, strictly speaking ,about the Scripture’s is a certain interpretation of them “delivered” by the Church? If the claim is that the Scriptures themselves, i.e., the books and the sentences comprising them, are inerrant, then I don’t understand what it would mean to hold that they are inerrant “only as delivered by the Church.” Would they not still be inerrant if nothing or nobody “delivered” them to anyone? Your second sentence seems patently false. Was any person, group of people, or bit of non-Scriptural writing or preaching of any person or group of people at the time of Christ’s birth infallible when it came to dogma; and if not how could a notion of the inerrancy of the Tanak (God’s word at that time, the Old Testament) be unintelligible without reference to (and a fortiori depend for its truth on) a notion of church infallibility?
Dear Dan,
Reformed Theological Seminary Professor, Dr. Frank James (now at Gordon Conwell) stated in his Reformation Church History class taught emphatically that Luther’s doctrine of forensic justification had never been taught in the Church before Luther. I think Dr. James realized that the sin of the Catholic Church does not justify the Reformation, therefore he wanted to stress the newness of Luther’s doctrine. He also mentioned that St. Augustine would have been “HORRIFIED” by Luther’s doctrine. If Scripture is clear about forensic justification, why wasn’t it taught for the first 1500 years of Church History? Why would Augustine, arguably the greatest theologian in Church History, been “HORRIFIED” by this clearly biblical doctrine?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy,
Since Dr. James, and not me, (allegedly) said Augustine would have been “horrified” by Luther’s doctrine of justification, perhaps you should ask him, and not me, why Augustine would have been horrified by it.
There is (1) a notion of justification as forensic, (2) a notion of justification as forensic that explicitly and consciously dwells on its aspect as forensic, (3) the explicit recognition/affirmation of either (1) and/or (2) as the biblical teaching, and (4) the explicit rejection of (1)/(2) as biblical teaching. From a Protestant perspective as I understand it the peculiar gravity of Trent’s problem was its doing (4); which is not equivalent with the mere absence of doing (3). Anyone who reads and understands the Torah when it says that one should justify the righteous and condemn the guilty at least tacitly grasps (1) in connection with the word ‘justify’ in such places, whether or not they grasp (2); since if one fails to at least tacitly grasp (1) in such places they would completely misunderstand the context in which the statement arises and what is being communicated.
A multiplicity of considerations can be brought to bear to weaken the intuition that were soteriological justification in Scripture forensic then it would have more explicit recognition/exposition of it as forensic in church history (e.g., the distinction between (1)/(2) and(3), between (3) and (4), the fact that for centuries other disputes were more in the forefront – e.g., Trinitarian and Christological disputes, etc.), but in order for any such intuition to be supported one thing that must be done is to make a case that Scripture itself is relatively obscure on the matter. To the extent that Scripture is perspicuous on a matter, to that extent the fact, insofar as it is a fact, that many people have failed to explicitly affirm it is not evidentially significant when it comes to assessing the genuineness of the fact. For example, supposing many people who read Scripture reject the deity of Christ, the degree to which that should lead one to doubt the deity of Christ for themselves must depend crucially on what one thinks pertaining to the clarity of Scripture itself on the matter. If one is not sure whether Scripture teaches it, a noticeable absence of believers of the doctrine in history will be more significant; but if one is certain Scripture teaches it, such an absence will fall far short of providing good evidence to abandon the belief. In other words, the amount of extra-biblical evidence against Christ’s deity (which the absence of belief in the doctrine by certain people in certain circumstances can constitute, to some degree or other) needs to at least be proportional to the apparent clarity with which the doctrine is revealed in Scripture. Since the focus of this thread isn’t whether or not in fact the Scripture teaches that justification is of a certain nature (e.g., forensic), I’ll just say that I’m very confident that Scripture (not to mention lexicons) reveal that it is forensic; and that (naturally, given its brevity and vagueness) when I apply this evidential principle your post hasn’t begun to do any work towards shifting the scales for me.
Dan,
Do you think the Catholic Church was ever a “legitimate” Church? Most of my friends and seminary Professors hold the position that it ceased to be legitimate after the 6th session of Trent when it rejected Luther’s doctrine of justificaon. It seems very strange, however, to insist that the Catholic Church ceased to be a Church for simply rejecting a doctrine which it had never taught in the first place. Furthermore, the traditional Calvinist view of justification is closer to Rome’s in the sense that it wants to insist that a person has to be regenerate in order to be saved. Do you agree that a person must be regenerate in order to be saved? Would you also agree that if a person is regenerate, then the internal disposition of their heart is fundamentally different from the nonbeliever? When we start to answer these question through the lens of Scripture it becomes increasingly difficult to articulate how the Catholic position could possibly be wrong.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Dan,
I have a bad habit of believing that I’m being clearer than I really am. My point really had nothing do with Scripture’s self-consistency. I’m trying to get you to see that even good evidence that there is no contradiction is often not enough to convince someone who believes there to be one. There are good reasons to believe that there are no contradictions in the Scriptures – just good luck trying to prove that to an atheist. Likewise with Protestants & the Magisterium.
I’m not trying to get into a discussion on inerrancy. Just that, like St. Augustine, if it weren’t for the Catholic Church, I wouldn’t believe the Scriptures. A fish can be removed from water, but it’s something different once you do that. Same with Scripture when you wrestle it from the bosom of the Church.
Jeremy,
The question presupposes a definite conception of “the Catholic Church,” but it’s not even clear to me what this is. The Roman-Catholic church has developed over time and space in various ways; what are its precise spatiotemporal boundaries, and can people or places be Roman-Catholic to a matter of degree? There has been a catholic church in the sense of a true redeemed people of God from Adam up till now; though as anyone can tell from reflecting on Scripture it has sometimes been relatively very small (e.g., Noah and his family, and Elijah and the 7000 who wouldn’t bend to Baal); not merely relative to all people on earth at a time but even relative to all people apparently in “the church” or “people of God”. The catholic church did not cease during the patristic era and reappear with the Reformation; it has always been here. Further, there has always been a visible ecclesiastical embodiment of the catholic church; Christ and his apostles instituted a “visible” church with public officers and public (not hidden) doctrine which those in the church are to adhere to and which the teachers are to teach. Although salvation is binary (so I claim) (i.e., one is either saved or not), one’s theological (in)competency can be a matter of degree, and so too (naturally) will the accuracy of the teachings of a church. Is there either a degree or kind of theological ineptitude such that a particular ecclesiastical body’s having it makes it not merely a relatively defective church but in fact an “illegitimate” or “false” one? Presumably there is, and it would seem that a sufficient condition for being a false church is explicitly teaching something that gets the gospel of salvation wrong in an explicit and important way, a way that is portrayed in Scripture as resulting in the teaching’s constituting “another” gospel rather than simply a variation on the same gospel. The Roman-Catholic magisterium satisfied this condition (in the traditional Protestant’s view) when it not only rejected but also anathematized the view that soteriological justification is by faith apart from works; by holding it to be by faith and works. This doesn’t imply that the catholic church lacks ecclesiastical embodiment; but it does of course imply that Christ’s true church is where the marks of a true church are, where, e.g., the teaching entrusted by the apostles is preserved and taught and the church offices instituted by the apostles are filled. Christ has a catholic church, and his church is maintained through visible and ecclesiastical institutions and offices; but it doesn’t follow either that there is a single ecclesiastical institution subsuming the entirety of this catholic church or that ecclesiastical fault-lines express vicious division or disunity in the body.
I already dealt with this point in distinguishing between (3) and (4) in my last post to you, between the explicit affirmation and denial of a doctrine. It doesn’t seem strange at all. Would you seriously maintain that there there is no significant difference between some church’s lacking a specific, precise doctrine of Christ in its teaching and such a church’s explicitly mentioning a particular Christological view (say, the duality but non-conflation of the human and divine nature) and rejecting – no, anathematizing, it? Further, suppose a church not only rejects the view, nor even only anathematizes the view, but also ascribes infallibility to itself in so anathematizing the view; such that it makes it much less likely that it will revisit and re-evaluate its decision.
Closer to Rome than what/who? I’m not familiar with anyone who holds that a person does not need to be regenerate in order to be saved.
Yes and yes.
It seems very easy to me to articulate how the Roman-Catholic position could possibly be wrong, and I don’t see how your questions about regeneration lead the other way; but feel free to explain further.
Tim,
Ok, you succeeded; I agree =]
And without a preacher the word of faith will not reach one. The inerrancy and infallibility and power of the latter hardly necessarily transmits to the former, and likewise the Scripture’s inerrancy in no way implies the infallibility of the church. Again, if you’re going to maintain this, then who/what was the infallible possessor of the Tanak when Christ was born? The word can be communicated even through bad motives (Philippians), how much more through good yet fallible instruments.
No one is trying to wrest the Scripture from the church; but to suppose that the Scriptures stand or fall with the Roman-Catholic church would obviously to beg the question in a Protestant-RC dialectic.
Dan,
Let me encourage you to read Bryan Cross’ article on sola fide. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/
Not to be rude, but I am assuming from your post that you have not thoroughly read the 6th session of Trent on justification. You are characterizing the Catholic position as faith + works, when in reality the Church teaches that we are saved by faith, but only faith conjoined to agape. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is a gift of God’s grace. Period. How is the Catholic Catechism unclear?
2020
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.
Jeremy,
That’s a false assumption.
Instead of faith + works, faith formed by love, eh? Really? This is an utterly false dichotomy, as love is the essence of the law! Hence by characterizing the RC position on justification in terms of faith and works I in no way misrepresented it. Further, I’ll provide below some quotes from Trent’s six session presenting works as justifying, in further defense of my claim. And just to be clear, I never said initial justification was, according to Trent, by faith and works; but rather that justification was. This is simply incontestable.
Citing a catechism passage that does not demonstrate my claim hardly implies that every other piece of magisterium teaching on justification also fails to demonstrate my claim. The RC magisterium has in fact been quite clear; it is you who are being unclear in selective citation and in saying “Period” after saying that “salvation is a gift of God’s grace”. That is misleading at best and simply false at worst, though I can see why you would want to say it to non-Catholics.
Dan,
I am being as clear as words allow. Carefully read through the “causes” of justification as outlined at Trent.
Chapter VII
Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us…
Of these causes, which ones do we do and which one’s does God do? You tell me. A simple clear reading of this passage provides the context to read the rest of the document. You skipped over the first nine chapters in order to reinforce the Protestant assumption that a rejecion of “faith alone” must mean Rome teaches “Faith + Works”. Please read Bryan’s article. Thank you for the discussion.
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Dan,
You said:
I agree that there could be an inerrant book even without an infallible institution (and vice versa). I believed in inerrancy and in sola scriptura for all of my life until I was old enough and studied enough to see that it didn’t work. The combox won’t suffice to explain all my reasons for this but one of the main ones is the canon issue. Tom Brown did a nice job of explaining the issue in our newest lead article. So far as this discussion goes, I only meant to say that given the situation, regarding the Scriptures as we have received them, inerrancy only makes sense if the Catholic Church is infallible.
I’m not begging the question. I am assuming that the Church matches the one we’ve argued for here, here, here, here, here, here, and finally, here.
I can’t expect you to read all of that, but I just wanted you to know that we’ve made a case for our ecclesiology.
Dan,
Also to back Jeremy up, Dr. James is by no means the only Protestant scholar that admits this. Heiko Oberman for one says that sola fide is found nowhere in writing before Luther and Allister McGrath says calls Luther’s doctrine a “theological novum” and also affirms that the Catholic Church, not the Reformers, preserves Augustinian soteriology. James is quite right that St. Augustine and the rest of the fathers would have rejected imputation had they been exposed to it.
You might be interested in Marshall’s “Augustine’s use of Infusion for Justification” and my post, Augustinian Soteriology.
Jeremy,
Certainly as clear as some words allow.
I have. However, it’s not clear at all to me that you have. Chapter VII does not include all that Trent has to say on the matter! Hello? It is describing “justification” in the sense of the initiation into the state of grace by baptism, but as I’ve already documented and yet you’ve ignored, in subsequent sections it is taught that justification is not merely that initiation but also an extended state or process and that good works further justify one and merit eternal life. For the 2nd time, simply citing one point of magisterium teaching that does not teach the justifying role of works hardly shows that the magisterium’s teaching as a whole, and/or in other places, does not teach it. If you want to defend the view that the magisterium does not include works in justification, then engage the quotes I’ve already provided that apparently do bring works into justification and explain how the passages are consistent with your claim.
Are you aware of the fact that for Roman-Catholicism justification is more than the initiation into a state of grace? And need I say again that I am talking about justification as a whole and not merely “initial” justification, or the initiation into that state?
If I “skipped over” the first 9 chapters, then you “skipped over” everything that came after! Instead of expecting each other to cite the entirety of the 6th session whenever we want to call attention to a part of it, one should expect one to cite the parts that are relevant for the claim being addressed. I cited parts that apparently teach that works enter into justification; and you’ve not engaged them. Apparently you thought citing chapter 7 sufficed to show that I misconstrued the parts I cited, but you didn’t explain how this is. Further, you’ve misrepresented what I said in implying here that my argument was that Trent teaches justification by faith and works because it rejects justification by faith alone. My argument was that Trent teaches justification by works too because Trent says precisely that! I didn’t cite places where Trent rejected faith alone, and then infer that it therefore must teach faith plus works; but rather I cited places where it simply brought in works.
Dan,
C.S. Lewis, in The Problem of Pain and elsewhere, often referred to the “complexity of the real” when describing Christian truth. This is certainly true of the Catholic position concerning justification. It is much more complex and nuanced than the reformed view. Why? Because Scripture is. Keep in mind, sola fide was invented by a man who had serious questions concerning the canonicity of the book of James. Luther said he would give his doctor’s barrette to anybody who could reconcile James and Paul. This is an important point. The man to first advocate your position did not believe it to be workable with what most Protestants consider to be the whole council of God.
You are right, in the Catholic Church teaches that there is a distinction between initial justification and final justification. At the heart of the distinction is scripural truth that a believer MUST grow in love for God. It sounds like you don’t believe this. Bryan Cross wrote in his article:
The problem is that you have made a doctrine, which had no place in Christianity for its first 1500 years, the only litmus test to determine whether or not somebody “gets” the gospel. This mentality is sectarian. Even C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, does not try to make Luther’s view of justification part of what a person needs to believe in order to believe the basic message of Christianity. Your view is not nuanced enough. A fish needs to be put back in water if it is to be saved from death, but it must stay in the water, or it will obviously die. That is the Catholic point in the articles you have quoted from Trent. You have failed to admit that EVERYTHING, including the love Bryan speaks of required for salvation, is a GIFT of God. Nowhere does Scripture teach that we are saved by “faith alone.” Instead Scripture teaches that it is “by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.” (Ephesians 2:8,9) This is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy and Dan,
In the December 1999 issue of First Things, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles discusses the Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration which was later joined by the World Methodist Council.
Here is the link to the archived document. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/two-languages-of-salvation-the-lutheran-catholic-joint-declaration–38
Cardinal Dulles, a former Presbyterian, discusses our Catholic view of justification and merited works in terms of both the document and Council of Trent. Cardinal Dulles also summarizes the Lutheran view. Below is a section of the article that clarifies our position on justification and rewards when performing good works.
“Still another issue flagged by the Official Catholic Response was that of merit, the seventh on my list. The Joint Declaration states quite correctly the position of both churches, namely, that nothing preceding justification merits justification. In that sense justification is a totally free gift of God. But Lutherans and Catholics have disagreed about whether one can, after justification, merit the increase of grace and the reward of eternal life. Trent clearly says yes. Lutherans have denied this. The Joint Declaration attempts the following compromise:
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. (para. 38)
This statement seems to fall short of what Catholics believe and what Trent teaches under anathema. The fact that a reward is promised does not make it merited, since one can promise to bestow gifts that are completely undeserved. In the Catholic view, justification makes us capable of meriting in a true sense. Yet eternal life is also a gift because our capacity to merit is God’s gift, which is itself unmerited.”
Thanks.
Jeremy,
Anyone who carefully reads my posts in this thread can see that this is a misrepresentation, a false characterization. Did you read what I said about the peculiar problem with Trent in my view?
Are you talking about according to Trent, or according to my own view? If the latter, I’ve never denied it and hence it would be misrepresentation to imply that I’ve “failed” to make such an admission (as if I had every written anything suggesting that I denied it). If you’re talking about the former, this shows that you’re confused about what is in dispute. The issue is whether according to Trent soteriological justification is in part by works; and this issue is independent of what is or is not a gift of God. One can hold that all good works are gifts, or that some are, or that none are; whether or not one holds that such works enter into what justifies one. And if you’re still talking merely about initial justification, say at baptism, then this “gifts” stuff is even more irrelevant; since, for (at least) the 3rd time, I’m talking about the whole of justification.
More misrepresentation. My view is that we are justified by faith alone.
Are you conceding that works enter into justification, according to Trent, or not? It’s really not clear. Your single sentence about fish and water further down doesn’t clarify anything or justify the claim that works do not justify according to Trent (but maybe you weren’t intending to keep defending that claim – again, I don’t know). It would be helpful if you could state in literal terms what your understanding of Trent is on the whole of justification.
Nothing I’ve said suggests I don’t believe that; and if you had implied that I don’t in fact believe it we would have had another misrepresentation. It’s too bad that the truth that a believer must grow in love for God is “at the heart” of a distinction between initial and final justification, since that Scriptural truth does not entail any such distinction. What would entail such a distinction is the idea that a believer must grow in love for God after initially being justified in order to be, in virtue of or on that basis of such growth, further justified or increase one’s justification. See the difference?
Before I turn to the article you quote, let me provide a definition of what justification actually is, in my (Reformed) view:
Note that this is a technical definition of soteriological justification; it is not a definition of the term ‘justify’ or ‘justification’, which in and of itself is not necessarily a soteriological or even theological word at all. For example, Christ says that wisdom is justified by her children. The catechism here is not giving the semantic content or meaning of the verb ‘justify’ but rather explicating a theological concept “of justification” that is referred to in Scripture with the word ‘justify’; though Scripture also contains different uses of the term.
Turning to the quotations you provide from Bryan Cross’s article, the first thing I note is that you’ve provided no explanation from the article of what justification even is; but this is central to the division between Protestants and Roman-Catholics on justification. How can one engage in a discussion about what the conditions or instruments of justification are if it’s not clear what this thing is, the conditions/instruments of which are in dispute? Is it a forensic declaration outside of one? Is it a process of renovation within one? Is it a bit of both? Is it an act, event, state; and is it punctiliar, or temporally extended? In an argument against sola fide the issue of what justification is will need to be addressed; not only what its conditions are, not only because the former is relevant for the latter but also since Protestants and Roman-Catholics differ on the former and not merely the latter.
I agree. But then this inference is made:
This is ambiguous. Is the claim that (1) faith-working-through-love is an instrument of justification (whatever justification is); or that (2) faith, in being an instrument of justification, must, if it is to be an instrument of justification, be a faith that works through love? (1) and (2) both affirm that justifying faith is faith working through love, but (1) affirms that the faith-and-love is the instrument of justification while (2) affirms that only the faith is; although the faith that is the sole instrument is indeed a faith that is inextricably part of a faith-love complex.
The clearest way to actually get a contradiction with the Reformed view of sola fide would be to go with (1); for according to the Reformed faith is clearly the “alone instrument” of justification. Does (1) follow from what had preceded, the stuff I said I agreed with? No. It hardly follows from the fact that one who is justified is necessarily also with love (and vice versa) that love is part of the instrument of justification. It could be that only one of the pair is an instrument of justification, and yet that there is a necessary connection or correlation or accompaniment between both parts of the pair. This is what the Reformed hold, since the same Spirit that gives faith also gives regeneration and sanctification. So this argument is fallacious on one interpretation ((1)) and no threat to sola fide on another ((2)). Further, if one thought the Reformed actually denied
, this would be a gross misunderstanding of the Reformed view:
The same ambiguity and lack of precision concerning (1) and (2) is shot through the rest of the quotation from the article that you provide.
Again, it would be a misrepresentation of the Reformed view to say that it holds justifying faith to be faith that is not conjoined with love (where by ‘conjoined’ I mean co-present with); and this is one potential interpretation of the claim (again, it is ambiguous).
No argument from silence is needed to demonstrate the falsity of Trent’s position. We don’t merely have passages in Scripture that say justification is “by faith” that do not add love or works (such that we would need to assume anything from silence); we also have passages that say justification is not by works as well as passages that say it is by faith apart from works. Perhaps the article addressed such verses, but what you’ve quoted does not and any robust case against sola fide would need to deal with such verses. I’m tempted to discuss some of these verses, but I think the differences between us are rooted in a great number of closely related issues that can’t be discussed briefly, pertaining to what justification even is (both in Paul and in James), what its ground is, what good works are, what faith is, what it means to refer to it as an instrument, what imputation is, what is imputed, and the difference between a pre-condition or instrument of justification and a necessary correlate of such a condition due to a common cause. But perhaps the Roman-Catholic view of justification is just too nuanced for a Reformed person to grasp anyway. Can we at least get clear on what the magisterium’s teaching is?
Dan,
These are two different paradigms. Hence, you cannot force the Catholic position into the Protestant paradigm. That’s what you are attempting to do when you say the following:
Properly speaking, there is no such thing as “the whole of justification,” because justification does not have parts. To treat it as if it has parts, is to try to push the Catholic position into the Protestant paradigm (by treating anything other than forensic [extra nos] justification as a whole composed of parts. An increase in justification, however, is not a part of justification.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Dan,
Thank you very much for the discussion. I am carefully considering your points. First, I meant, that you have failed to admit the Church’s position is that EVERYTHING is from God’s grace. (Of course I know this is your view). I appreciate you engaging the points I made in my previous post, but I am perplexed that you don’t seem to want to discuss Luther. As a Protestant seminary student, which I still am, I would not have been so alarmed by Luther’s calling the book of James into question had it not been his reason for doing so. He questioned its canonicity precisely because it contradicted his exegesis of the Pauline passages which he believed taught forensic justification. Calvin disagreed with Luther and began the long tradition of creatively interpreting James 2 in reformed thought.
I am also baffled by your last statement, “Can we at least get clear on what the magisterium’s teaching is?” It is the reformed view which is increasingly obscure as there is no established body to interpret the nearly 400 year old document with any authority that people should listen. The CREC crowd and the Westminster west crowd both believe they are best articulating the true meaning of the Westminster Standards. The problem is that those committed to the reformed faith have no option but to listen to each side and go with the better argument. The Catholic magisterium is perfectly clear as it has stated and restated the Church’s position on justification. Who do I talk to get the most accurate interpretation of the Westminster Confession of Faith?
Let me restate one last time the Catholic understanding of justification. I want to let you know though that I will not be able to keep the conversation going. Not that I don’t think its fruitful, but we just found out last night that we’re expecting #3 and I need to get off the computer and be focused on my wife right now as she deals with feeling sick. The Roman Catholic Church clearly teaches that sinful men are justified through grace alone. By grace, the Church means, “favor, free and underserved help that God gives us to become children of God” (CCC 1996). This grace “depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself” (CCC 1998). Finally, justification (I think this is what you’re getting at) also “establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent” (CCC 1993).
So, when we are justified, we are not only forgiven, we are also transformed and brought into a state of grace. You are right, we must remain in this state of grace in order to remain God’s people. How do we do this though? By Grace! I wish I had more time, but I want to tell you that on a personal level, I am becoming Catholic not because I think I need less grace but because I know I need more! I need true access to the fruit of the cross in a sense that no Protestant group can offer. I need to remember the grace of my baptism every time I enter the Church. I need the grace of absolution for my ongoing battle against sin. I need the grace of feeding off Christ in the Eucharist. The power of a thing is measured its effect. The Catholic understands that God’s grace, when present, is always transformative, hence, to have living faith is to be in a state of grace and transformation.
You seem like a brilliant guy and I appreciate your passion for truth.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Hello. I have been “off the grid” for a few days performing my own personal Fatherhood application (a campout) previously committed to my kids who could not care less about “the “meritorious character of good works” other than who is making s’mores that night.
Right up front I must thank Bryan and Tim and CTC for finding my essay worthy reading. I am humbled to be more than an occasional writer among those more learned and eloquent than I, at least for once.
Jeremy, your essay is striking and provocative. As a concept, I think your Authority of Love has a great depth to go further than you were limited within the essay.
Dan, it is a privilege to take your question:
I provided an example, “The Joint Declaration”, which is black and white about how we are saved. Beyond that I cannot help you comprehend it with any more ordinary language or official content, though I really wish I could. Maybe you will find my further comments more substantial.
The remainder of the points you raise display exactly what the 2nd sentence of my essay stated. The thoughts written are splintered and fractured. Those points, mind you, may have valid intellectual territory to mine…but only one at a time. This essays’ prime trajectory is (as Tim stated)
“ I agree in keeping the main thing: the main thing.
CTC asked for a bottom line linear and sequential answer essay to the Division question. I took this to be a conceptual writing, meaning speaking in encompassing concepts (which I enjoy immensely). So my bottom line up front is this: Salvation is my personal eternal life or death matter. Is there a single modern agreement anywhere on obtaining Salvation, so impactful, that puts it to rest for me, how this Salvation gets accomplished? The JD of 99 answered this as yes. Now, many pre-dispositions were in place for me to buy into that. A) I had to be one that believes, B) I had to believe and submit to an Authority wiser and more experienced in grace than me, and C) I had to be seeking it for its benefit, not for its fault. There can be no other question for me with greater gravity….Salvation that is.
I feel my essay speaks to how one can be the true Church without being perfect…I am sufficiently provoked to share these thoughts on the Authority and the One True Church aspects of my perspective that I have found to be immensely insightful regarding the Protestant split and how the Catholic Church views its role in continuing efforts to heal it.
In an interview in 2003, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus said the following:
“The Catholic Church preserves itself as the most fully and rightly ordered through time and this in no way means that the Church is the totality of Jesus Christ. Vat II says everyone who is baptized and accepts Christ as their Savior is truly, but, imperfectly in union with the Catholic Church (sic). A lot of Conservative and Orthodox Catholics are nervous about Unity and Ecumenism and they view Ecumenism as a liberal project and a very suspect one riddled with people who want to water down the Catholic Faith in order to agree on doctrines. But In fact, JP II had one of the most striking and persistent and strongest efforts in Ut Unum Sint. The quest for Christian Unity is not a program of The Catholic Church, it is inherent in being the Catholic Church. If we have this deeply biblical Christ centered understanding of what “The Church” is, then we have the key to that door. (Neuhaus continues his take further): We should say to our Protestant friends ” Look, we’re not engaged in this quest for Christian unity because it is something we have to create, we have already a unity in Christ which is the gift of God. The reason ecumenism is necessary is NOT that we are NOT Brothers and Sisters in Christ, it is rather because we are Brothers and Sisters in Christ live, but LIVE as though we are not.”
Summarily, Bryan Cross wrote comprehensively in this Article two ecumenisms on how misunderstood the Unity effort can be, and by now should not be.
-Dave
Dave,
Excellent essay, it was a delight to read and I have emailed it to several of my friends. In addition to your solid essay I believe your clear love for Christ and the Church will do as much as any apologetic in drawing people to the visible bride of Christ.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Bryan,
I was not attempting to force the RC position into the Protestant paradigm there. Since on the Protestant paradigm, justification is punctiliar, and not extended through time, how could I possibly divide up justification on the RC into phases view by assimilating it to that paradigm? This makes no sense. Rather, my distinction between initial justification and justification “as a whole” flows from Trent itself. Bryan, do you deny that according to Trent justification can be increased; do you deny that according to Trent one can be further justified? Apparently not, since you seem to concede in your post that justification can be increased. Well, that’s all I was getting at with the language of “whole”.
When I spoke of the “whole” of justification, as can be seen by the context in which I said it, I was merely indicating that I was talking about everything comprehended in “justification” according to Trent rather than only the initiation into the state of grace (which is only part of what “justification” comprehends, for Trent). As can be seen by context, I spoke this way because Jeremy was focusing, apparently, on the initiation into the state of grace; and so I was trying to get him to focus on the entirety of what Trent says about justification.
Jeremy,
Thanks for the clarification. But I have not denied that everything is from God’s grace, on the Catholic view! I do think that is a disputable point (when we look at everything pertaining to justification), but that has not been relevant to my concern in this thread. My contention has been that works justify, according to Trent; this is independent of the issue of whether everything is a gift of God’s grace or not! I sense that you’re swinging at a straw man in this thread. My concern with Trent (in this thread) has not pertained to what is or is not of grace, or what is or is not God’s gift. It has simply been whether works (gifts or no, provided through grace or no) justify. Can you see why this might be a concern for me, independent of the gift/grace issue? Scripture seems to teach in places that justification is not by works. Hence, if Trent seems to teach that one is justified by works, then this seems to be a problem; whether or not they are of grace.
What more can I say on this? I’ve already quoted Trent saying that works enter into one’s justification. And Bryan, a Catholic, has conceded, it seems to me, that I am right here in his post to me wherein he mentions an increase in justification (he just took issue with my use of the word ‘whole’). The entirety of your rebuttal has been to focus on the initiation into the state of grace, which does not involve good works but rather (in the case of infants born to Catholic parents at least) baptism and love gratuitously poured into the heart. I have never challenged this. But you keep neglecting the fact, clearly attested in Trent, that justification is not limited to this initiation; but continues thereafter. And in this post-conversion phase good works do enter into one’s justification. By performing works in cooperation with grace one is further justified and increases one’s justification. And any Catholic who is not up front with you about this is not doing you any favors.
I have not discussed Luther both (a) because I am not as familiar with the history and with everything he said or allegedly said about the canon and (more fundamentally) (b) because it is a secondary or tangential matter with respect to the Protestant-Catholic divide. As far as any tensions between James and Paul that Luther perceived or thought he perceived, apparently Luther never became convinced that any Roman-Catholic had adequately squared them with each other; did he? And if we’re going to talk about justification in James and Paul, let’s talk about justification in James and Paul; not the views of Luther or Calvin on James and Paul. The former is fundamental, the latter tangential. I don’t think it’s hard at all to square James and Paul; or requiring much “creativity” at all. And if you want to engage the issue then let’s do so directly and talk about them; and not hover on the surface with these historical-anecdotal potshots which may indeed be interesting and somewhat relevant but hardly adequate in and of themselves for a meaningful, rigorous, and God-honoring treatment of the issues.
There may have been some miscommunication (based on what you say after this). I was not implying that the magisterium’s teaching is not clear. I think it is relatively clear. Though I disagree that it is perfectly clear or as clear as it can be. You are in fact a case in point. The document (specifically chapter 7) has apparently given you the impression that the initiation into the state of grace exhausts “justification.” This is an understandable conclusion, since it speaks of “justification” and not the “initiation” of justification, etc. But as the later parts of the document testify, this is an incorrect interpretation. Because of your repeated emphasis in this thread on the initiation of justification – without any admission on your part that you are only dealing with the initiation into justification – it is reasonable to infer that you mistakenly think that according to Trent this initiation is in fact the entirety of justification or justification simpliciter. And this would be a misunderstanding of Trent, which has to say something either about your reading comprehension or about the document’s clarity. (I think it is more likely that it says something about the latter.) When I asked if we could get clear on the magisterium’s teaching, though, I was not suggesting that the magisterium is unclear; but rather I was hoping that me and you could get clear on the magisterium’s teaching. That is, can me and you come to a consensus on what it is teaching about justification.
As far as your assertions about the Reformed community, well, they are not much more than a number of assertions; some of which I am dubious. But variation in doctrinal precision across space and time is a massive and unwieldy matter, and why must I carry its burden; having to answer for it all (whether it be within the Reformed camp or in the entire history of the church up to the Reformation)? In the spirit of my comments about James and Paul and history earlier, if you want to actually meaningfully engage the Westminster Confession and argue that its teaching on justification is ambiguous or unclear in an important way, then I will address that. But I’m not going to get carried into the beliefs of everyone in the Reformed community, such as concerning the federal vision controversy; especially when you’ve just made unargued and vague assertions about the matter and not given me anything concrete to respond to or rebut. As for clarity, I think the WCF is clearer than Rome on justification (which is not to say I think the latter is unclear); and furthermore, the clarity of the document is a more relevant and pressing issue in the case of Rome since only its doctrinal statements are invested with infallibility. Finally, if you think that disagreement over theological beliefs is an issue unique to the Reformed; then you haven’t taken a close look at Rome, and unless one remains in ignorance one who crosses over will eventually become disenchanted.
That’s certainly a higher priority than having an internet conversation; though whether it’s more important than a decision to become Roman-Catholic is not quite so clear.
(my emphasis) This is not a complete answer. If you think this is the entire answer then you do not fully understand the magisterium’s teaching, and any Catholic who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or being careless in speech or is being duplicitous. You remain in a state of grace not merely by grace but also by your cooperating with grace. Further, such cooperation is not merely a means of staying in a state of grace; it is a means of increasing justification and meriting eternal life. I am not even paraphrasing or extrapolating from Trent here; these very phrases are there. Final salvation is not merely staying in the water, but is swimming (with underwater currents to help push you along, to be sure) to a particular destination.
More grace than what? What, exactly, is the grace you have that is insufficient? Christ’s propitiating the Father’s wrath on your behalf? His paying the penalty of God’s law for you as your substitute? His gift of his perfect and complete righteousness to you? His Spirit in you that vouchsafes your adoption as a beloved son and co-heir with Christ? What, exactly, is insufficient about these? And what are these, or any other grace you are referring to, insufficient for? What do you need more grace for? To please God? What exactly do you think Christ did in this connection? To achieve deliverance from his wrath on the last day? What exactly do you think Christ did in this connection? To overcome the penalty of sin? Did Christ not do this in his vicarious work? To overcome the corruption or power of sin in your life? Rome can certainly offer you many things that purport to help here, but the promise of a means or channel of grace does not a genuine means of grace make.
As if any group could give you that, in and of itself. The fruit of the cross is God’s gift, and God gives it through the means that he has ordained. You may think that the means he has ordained involve the Roman-Catholic church. But this implies that seeking fruit that you think you will not find as a Protestant is not a fundamental reason to become Catholic. For, you should, rationally, only believe that you will in fact find such fruit there if you already believe that Catholicism is the true means through which God has ordained to provide such fruit. But in this case, you already have a sufficient reason to convert (God has marked this as the “true church”), independent of your desire for more access to fruit. But if you are not sure that God has ordained the Catholic church as it now exists to be the means of his grace (which would be a sensible thing to doubt, since it did not exist during the apostolic era), then how do you know that you will actually find true access to fruit of the cross there; instead of only empty promises of such access?
As if Protestantism denies this! (It doesn’t; nor do Protestants, at least as a general rule, deny that baptism is a means of grace. The WCF clearly presents it as one, in case you don’t know.)
As if Rome is the only place where you can find absolution!
As if you can only feed on Christ in the Catholic Eucharist! Have you read Calvin on the Supper, or the WCF on the supper? The Reformed have held that both baptism and the supper are means of grace; and that the supper is a means of spiritual nourishment. (Some Protestants have held that the supper (and baptism) are merely occasions for re-dedication or remembrance.) Christ will give himself to you and for your nourishment by his Spirit through the announcement of his word and your faith therein. He is as near to you as his word is to your ears, and neither you nor anyone else need to (nor are able to) bring him down from heaven. It is precisely because his sacrifice is finished and he has risen and ascended to heaven where he gives gifts and intercedes for us and gives us his Spirit that anyone can feed off him and be nourished and sanctified by him. You won’t find any genuine nourishment in re-presentations of his sacrifice, and supposing (per impossible) that any priest could actually bring him down from heaven; this would only counterproductively take him away from the place where he in fact blesses his people with grace.
As if Protestantism has a different understanding than this!
Jeremy, you may be in seminary (I’ve finished it); but I think you don’t sufficiently understand either the view you’re converting to or the one you’re converting from (or, if you were never Reformed, what the other options are in addition to (a) what you were and (b) Rome). If one realizes that one has misunderstood what one is running from, or, granting that one has sufficiently understood it, that what one is running to is not the only other place one can run to; then one should re-evaluate one’s travel plans.
Dan,
If you don’t mind my inserting myself into this exchange between you and Jeremy, I just wanted to say that I have really appreciated your last few posts. Like Jeremy, I am in the process of moving from Reformed to Catholic. I love the Church, and after some time learning about what the Catholic Church actually teaches, it’s easy to wonder why everyone doesn’t feel the same way. Your writing brings up the very legitimate reasons why many don’t, and it’s useful for me to understand the dividing points more thoroughly.
I think my experience is common: before I started considering Catholic claims — mostly because of questions about the viability of sola scriptura — I didn’t really understand what the Church taught about justification. It was shocking to me to discover that the Catholic view of justification is, like the Protestant view, that it is entirely by grace. (I think I understand the Reformed objections to this point, but as you said, that’s not what’s under dispute here.) Some of my misconceptions were due to my own failure to research the Church’s teaching, but some of it was due, I think, to misrepresentation within the Reformed camp — probably inadvertent. I appreciate your posts very much, because you really put your finger on the points that divide Protestants and Catholics without misrepresenting either side. Reading through your posts, I can remember why (though with much less knowledge and clarity than you present here) I used the feel the way I did about Catholicism. This kind of dialogue is really helpful — thanks.
Dan,
One thing that is consistently missing from this debate is the fact that the Scriptures always speak of final judgment based on “works” and never faith alone.
And again, St. Augustine says, “Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us.” (Which the Catholic Catechism quotes)
In light of the authority of a consistent language from the Scriptures, an ecumenical council of the Church, and one of the greatest doctors of the Christian faith, what reason do we have to adopt a “theological novum” from an excommunicated monk in the 16th century?
Dan,
Another thing. You said “Scripture seems to teach in places that justification is not by works.” There are one or two passages in Paul that do say that. But whatever you think of the New Perspective on Paul, he wasn’t speaking as a Southern Baptist. That same Paul would also be comfortable saying, “For he will render to every man according to his works.”
As many verses as seem to say works have no part of salvation, I can show you 20 that clearly say the opposite. We have to reconcile these and the Church does an excellent job of this.
Dan,
You wrote:
The whole of what Trent says about justification is not the same as the whole of justification. And those two things must not be confused. Part of what Trent says about justification does not translate into a part of justification.
Here’s what you wrote earlier:
You say that the issue is whether justification is “in part by works”. But justification has no parts. So you are characterizing the issue in a manner that presupposes something a Catholic cannot accept, namely that justification is partly by works. Catholics do not hold that justification is *partly* by works.
Increase in justification is not a part of justification, even if it is part of what Trent says about justification. The whole of what Trent says about justification is itself an abstraction, not a singular event or act. Justification and increase in justification are not the same thing, because their conditions and causes are different. So it would be a mistake, from a Catholic point of view, to treat the whole of what Trent says about justification as having a singular condition or set of causes. The whole of what Trent says about justification refers to two distinct soteriological types of events/acts: initial justification, and increases in justification.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Tim,
Really? Scripture always speaks of such a thing?
Is this quote supposed to contradict my view of justification; or my theology more generally? Conversely, is it supposed to imply that one’s works justify / increase justification and merit eternal life? The name may be weighty, but at a minimum its words should express that for which it is being invoked.
How many are necessary in order for it to be true? And I think there are more than two; e.g., Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:5; 10:1-10; Gal. 2:15-16; 3:6-12; 5:2-6; Phil. 3:8-9; Tit. 3:4-7.
I’m not a Southern Baptist.
You seem to think the sentence “For he will render to every man according to his works” is inconsistent with my view of justification. How is it? If you’re going to appeal to something beyond those very words in and of themselves, such as a broader scriptural context to which they are to be attached, then give specific references and examples (phrases like these come up in variegated places).
I haven’t claimed (nor intend to claim) that “works have no part of salvation.”
Ecumenical council (Trent?)? Excommunicated monk? Give me a break. If your remarks are for Catholics then address them to Catholics.
Bryan,
I didn’t say justification has parts. ‘justification is in part by works’ is grammatically ambiguous. It could mean that justification has parts and that one part is achieved through works (‘in part’ attaches to ‘justification’); or it could mean simply that justification, simpliciter, is partly through works – and hence partly something else (‘in part’ attaches to ‘by works’). I meant the latter. I admit the distinction you make between the whole of what a document says about justification and the whole of justification; but I think my last post in response to you clarified what I was talking about. I haven’t been saying that justification has parts. I have said that it is temporally extended, and that it has phases (I think; I can’t remember exactly which words I’ve used); and all I mean by this is what i think you agree to; namely, that it has an initiation and, post-initiation, it can be increased.
Dan,
I guess I have no one to blame except for myself for the escalation of rhetoric but all the same, it’s not helpful.
If scripture speaks of final judgment based on salvation by faith alone, that would be pretty easy to prove. So yes, as far as I know, until you show otherwise, Scripture always speaks that way.
I don’t know what your view is (exactly), and I never claimed to be attempting to disprove it. I think you’re being overly defensive.
I wasn’t speaking to only Catholics; I was speaking to everyone. Sometimes, we need to step back a little bit and view the whole situation for what it really is. That’s really all these remarks were intended to encourage. I didn’t say you’re wrong about justification or that I understand it better than you. I think this reaction to my remarks is unwarranted.
Tim,
I think the rhetoric is unfortunate, though not necessarily unhelpful. Look where it’s gotten us. From my point of view, expression of some frustration was warranted (even if not necessary); but I could be wrong about that. I probably was to an extent, in that many of the comments in the thread that precipitated my attitude were not made by you; and yet you were the one to whom I expressed it.
You say your remarks (at least the paragraph about Scripture, Augustine, Trent, and Luther) were really just about stepping back and viewing the whole situation for what it really is. But this fundamentally begs the question against Protestantism. An ecumenical council is a council of the true church, but whether Trent was a council that was ecumenical and legitimate or whether it was not and instead an illegitimate council propounding errors is right at the heart of the dispute. Likewise, the notion of Luther’s being an excommunicated monk implies that he is (or at least used to be) a heretic cut off from this true church, obviously in dispute. So why simply assert to me that this is the situation as it really is. Hence my remark about addressing Catholics. The only persuasive force such claims will have against the Protestant is either nonrational (say, by intimidation or fear-inducing) or irrational (the Protestant, me in this case, fails to realize the question-begging nature of the claims). As for the great doctor Augustine
, you appealed to Augustine in the paragraph just mentioned; but it wasn’t clear how the quote was expressing Catholic theology or denying Protestant theology. So why is it relevant for siding with Trent? Additionally, one might take the application of such a quote to the purpose for which it was used to imply a misunderstanding of Protestant theology; as if one thinks that according to such theology Christians don’t work in response to God’s mercy.
My view is this (from earlier):
Note that the absence of something from this definition (e.g., good works or regeneration, etc.) does not imply an absence of it simpliciter; but merely an absence from within the act that is justification.
<blockquote
If scripture speaks of final judgment based on salvation by faith alone, that would be pretty easy to prove. So yes, as far as I know, until you show otherwise, Scripture always speaks that way.
I think I misunderstood you. When you said “the Scriptures always speak of final judgment based on “works” and never faith alone,” I thought you were saying that the Scriptures always speak of final judgment based on works; as if in passage after passage in the Bible keeps hammering away at final judgment by works. And I took this to be hyperbolic on your part, to which I responded by taking the claim literally (which obviously makes it false); as if to say, I’m not going to take the time to respond to an objection that is put hyperbolically rather than carefully/precisely.
But now I think you meant that, whenever Scripture does speak of final judgment (however often it does so), it does so by works and not by faith alone. Well, in my view justification is not something that takes place at the final judgment (at least not fundamentally), but rather takes place in one’s life beforehand when one is united to Christ by faith. So why should sola fide (which, remember, is justification by faith (alone)) imply that passages on final judgment would describe it as taking place by “faith alone”? The Protestant view is that justification is by faith alone, and justification is not the final judgment; though they are intimately related. As Paul unpacks justification in Romans, he describes the justifying verdict, the judgment that one is righteous, satisfying the demands of his law, as being of a final judgment taking place proleptically. That is, there is a day of wrath coming, when God judges everyone according to his deeds; for it is the doers of the law who will be justified; but part of the nature of the gospel of grace that Paul layers on top of this backdrop (as he moves through ch. 3) is that one is declared righteous, justified, now (rather than waiting till then) by believing (ch. 3, ch. 4); this faith not itself being the righteousness but rather an instrument of receiving God’s own righteousness which is the primary “ground” (ch. 1.16-17; ch. 3 – a righteousness from God through faith; ch. 5 – the gift of Christ’s righteousness; ch. 10 – not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish one’s own). Hence, there is an intimate connection between justification and final judgment in that the former is like a proleptic version of the latter, a verdict of acquittal or righteousness that one receives now and is therefore saved from the wrath to come (even though that day is still future) and has peace in light of that (ch. 5). By faith one passes out of death into life and hence won’t come into judgment (John 5.24). One has peace and is saved from the wrath to come not merely because of the justifying verdict having been already made, but also because of Christ’s even-present (not merely past) intercession for us; (who will condemn – i.e., the opposite of justify – ? Rom. ch. 8; and who will snatch any out of his hand; or keep him from raising those whom the father gave to him? – John) So concerning justification and final judgment, (1) the former is in a sense a version of the latter that is brought about earlier, before the day of judgment itself. With passages about final judgment, there is a perfect naturalness to their being cast in terms of judgment according to works, on the Protestant view, because it is of course this basic works-principle (e.g. Rom. 2) that underlies justification by faith – faith receives a righteousness that satisfies the standard of obedience/righteousness required by the works-principle). One might think that with certain passages on final judgment, the judgment is future in the sense that the day of judgment is future; but that for those who are justified their acquittal is already accomplished or ensured (and will be more fully revealed or announced on the day of judgment itself). Further, there is every reason to speak of final judgment in the future (not as if it is already over); since both the day itself is still future and the day is not merely for believers but unbelievers who need to be told/warned about it.
Two more important facets of dealing with the relation of final judgment and works. (2) in passages on God’s rendering according to works, is what is always in view a rendering of either heaven or hell? or could other kinds of rewards/recompense be in view? Heaven or hell is not the only kind of judgment/recompense that can be made. There can be gradations in either side. E.g., some Christians may be blessed and rewarded more than others; or some works of some Christians may have more lasting value than others (e.g., 1 Cor. 3). Insofar as one takes recompense according to works to be dealing with something aside from heaven/hell itself, there is no contradiction between holding that one is justified and thus saved from hell by God’s own righteousness received through faith and yet that one’s own works may factor into other kinds of recompense.
(3) When God is said to repay one according to works, what does this mean? Does it mean that the works are the ground of the judgment? Does it mean that the judgment is according to works in the sense that the nature of the judgment is appropriately reflected or mirrored in the object of juddgment? The same spirit that gives faith that justifies also sanctifies; we are created unto God works (Eph. 2) and though sanctification is necessary (Heb. 12.14) God himself who calls and justifies also effects sanctification (1 Thes. 5.23-24). Hence, all those who are justified by faith also have hearts that reflect and works that reflect who they are in Christ. Supposing at the last day they are judged “in accordance with” their works. Does that mean that they are acquitted on the basis of those works (fundamentally) rather than merely in accordance with our reflection of their works? No. That’s certainly one reading; and in the absence of other Scripture it may even seem more natural, but it doesn’t follow and we don’t have an absence of other Scripture. So it’s possible that one is justified on the basis of God’s righteousness-gift received through faith, and yet also that on the last day there is a judgment “according to” the works of the person so justified.
So the final judgment may, in an important sense (not every sense), already be over/completed for believers, even if it is by works; and insofar as it is not completed, in some cases the reward/losses distributed in accordance with works may not be heaven/hell; and insofar as they are, eschatological rest may be given in accordance with one’s works without being fundamentally based on or in virtue of those works (being fundamentally in virtue of Christ’s works/acts for us).
Tim,
I think the rhetoric is unfortunate, though not necessarily unhelpful. Look where it’s gotten us. From my point of view, expression of some frustration was warranted (even if not necessary); but I could be wrong about that. I probably was to an extent, in that many of the comments in the thread that precipitated my attitude were not made by you; and yet you were the one to whom I expressed it.
You say your remarks (at least the paragraph about Scripture, Augustine, Trent, and Luther) were really just about stepping back and viewing the whole situation for what it really is. But this fundamentally begs the question against Protestantism. An ecumenical council is a council of the true church, but whether Trent was a council that was ecumenical and legitimate or whether it was not and instead an illegitimate council propounding errors is right at the heart of the dispute. Likewise, the notion of Luther’s being an excommunicated monk implies that he is (or at least used to be) a heretic cut off from this true church, obviously in dispute. So why simply assert to me that this is the situation as it really is. Hence my remark about addressing Catholics. The only persuasive force such claims will have against the Protestant is either nonrational (say, by intimidation or fear-inducing) or irrational (the Protestant, me in this case, fails to realize the question-begging nature of the claims). As for the great doctor Augustine
, you appealed to Augustine in the paragraph just mentioned; but it wasn’t clear how the quote was expressing Catholic theology or denying Protestant theology. So why is it relevant for siding with Trent? Additionally, one might take the application of such a quote to the purpose for which it was used to imply a misunderstanding of Protestant theology; as if one thinks that according to such theology Christians don’t work in response to God’s mercy.
My view is this (from earlier):
Note that the absence of something from this definition (e.g., good works or regeneration, etc.) does not imply an absence of it simpliciter; but merely an absence from within the act that is justification.
I think I misunderstood you. When you said “the Scriptures always speak of final judgment based on “works” and never faith alone,” I thought you were saying that the Scriptures always speak of final judgment based on works; as if in passage after passage in the Bible keeps hammering away at final judgment by works. And I took this to be hyperbolic on your part, to which I responded by taking the claim literally (which obviously makes it false); as if to say, I’m not going to take the time to respond to an objection that is put hyperbolically rather than carefully/precisely.
But now I think you meant that, whenever Scripture does speak of final judgment (however often it does so), it does so by works and not by faith alone. Well, in my view justification is not something that takes place at the final judgment (at least not fundamentally), but rather takes place in one’s life beforehand when one is united to Christ by faith. So why should sola fide (which, remember, is justification by faith (alone)) imply that passages on final judgment would describe it as taking place by “faith alone”? The Protestant view is that justification is by faith alone, and justification is not the final judgment; though they are intimately related. As Paul unpacks justification in Romans, he describes the justifying verdict, the judgment that one is righteous, satisfying the demands of his law, as being of a final judgment taking place proleptically. That is, there is a day of wrath coming, when God judges everyone according to his deeds; for it is the doers of the law who will be justified; but part of the nature of the gospel of grace that Paul layers on top of this backdrop (as he moves through ch. 3) is that one is declared righteous, justified, now (rather than waiting till then) by believing (ch. 3, ch. 4); this faith not itself being the righteousness but rather an instrument of receiving God’s own righteousness which is the primary “ground” (ch. 1.16-17; ch. 3 – a righteousness from God through faith; ch. 5 – the gift of Christ’s righteousness; ch. 10 – not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish one’s own). Hence, there is an intimate connection between justification and final judgment in that the former is like a proleptic version of the latter, a verdict of acquittal or righteousness that one receives now and is therefore saved from the wrath to come (even though that day is still future) and has peace in light of that (ch. 5). By faith one passes out of death into life and hence won’t come into judgment (John 5.24). One has peace and is saved from the wrath to come not merely because of the justifying verdict having been already made, but also because of Christ’s even-present (not merely past) intercession for us; (who will condemn – i.e., the opposite of justify – ? Rom. ch. 8; and who will snatch any out of his hand; or keep him from raising those whom the father gave to him? – John) So concerning justification and final judgment, (1) the former is in a sense a version of the latter that is brought about earlier, before the day of judgment itself. With passages about final judgment, there is a perfect naturalness to their being cast in terms of judgment according to works, on the Protestant view, because it is of course this basic works-principle (e.g. Rom. 2) that underlies justification by faith – faith receives a righteousness that satisfies the standard of obedience/righteousness required by the works-principle). One might think that with certain passages on final judgment, the judgment is future in the sense that the day of judgment is future; but that for those who are justified their acquittal is already accomplished or ensured (and will be more fully revealed or announced on the day of judgment itself). Further, there is every reason to speak of final judgment in the future (not as if it is already over); since both the day itself is still future and the day is not merely for believers but unbelievers who need to be told/warned about it.
Two more important facets of dealing with the relation of final judgment and works. (2) in passages on God’s rendering according to works, is what is always in view a rendering of either heaven or hell? or could other kinds of rewards/recompense be in view? Heaven or hell is not the only kind of judgment/recompense that can be made. There can be gradations in either side. E.g., some Christians may be blessed and rewarded more than others; or some works of some Christians may have more lasting value than others (e.g., 1 Cor. 3). Insofar as one takes recompense according to works to be dealing with something aside from heaven/hell itself, there is no contradiction between holding that one is justified and thus saved from hell by God’s own righteousness received through faith and yet that one’s own works may factor into other kinds of recompense.
(3) When God is said to repay one according to works, what does this mean? Does it mean that the works are the ground of the judgment? Does it mean that the judgment is according to works in the sense that the nature of the judgment is appropriately reflected or mirrored in the object of juddgment? The same spirit that gives faith that justifies also sanctifies; we are created unto God works (Eph. 2) and though sanctification is necessary (Heb. 12.14) God himself who calls and justifies also effects sanctification (1 Thes. 5.23-24). Hence, all those who are justified by faith also have hearts that reflect and works that reflect who they are in Christ. Supposing at the last day they are judged “in accordance with” their works. Does that mean that they are acquitted on the basis of those works (fundamentally) rather than merely in accordance with our reflection of their works? No. That’s certainly one reading; and in the absence of other Scripture it may even seem more natural, but it doesn’t follow and we don’t have an absence of other Scripture. So it’s possible that one is justified on the basis of God’s righteousness-gift received through faith, and yet also that on the last day there is a judgment “according to” the works of the person so justified.
So the final judgment may, in an important sense (not every sense), already be over/completed for believers, even if it is by works; and insofar as it is not completed, in some cases the reward/losses distributed in accordance with works may not be heaven/hell; and insofar as they are, eschatological rest may be given in accordance with one’s works without being fundamentally based on or in virtue of those works (being fundamentally in virtue of Christ’s works/acts for us).
Dan,
You wrote:
First, “justification, simpliciter” (as you mean it) is a mere abstraction, which you are treating as something concrete. The translation from mortal sin to the state of grace, and the increase in sanctifying grace, are not two parts of an actual whole. Increase in justification is not a part of “justification, simpliciter”. That’s the mistake.
There are two ways in which something can be temporally extended. One of them applies to justification, and the other doesn’t. One way is the way filling a glass (e.g. with water) is temporally extended. The other is the way the life of an organism is temporally extended. In the first ‘phase’ of filling the glass, the glass is not entirely full. But in the first moment of the life of an organism, it is entirely alive. Justification is not temporally extended the way the filling of a glass is temporally extended. The translation from mortal sin to having sanctifying grace is both instantaneous and complete. In that instant, at baptism (or reconciliation) we don’t become, say 40% justified, or 80% justified. We are 100% justified, instantly, because having sanctifying grace is a binary condition: either a person has it, or he does not have it. So [initial] justification is not temporally extended. We grow in our participation in the life of God not by moving from say, 50% justified to 100% justified, but by growing in our capacity to participate in the life of God, like expanding an already full cup such that its subsequent 100% is greater in content than its prior 100%. But it would be incorrect (and misleading) to treat [initial] justification and growth in justification as together forming some one thing that is partly by works. That’s the sort of thing that Whitehead called the fallacy of misplaced concreteness. It abstracts away the crucial order and dependence between what we do and what God does, and by abstracting that away, turns the Catholic doctrine into a kind of semi-Pelagianism. Our subsequent participation in what was already, and completely given to us, should not be treated as our participation in something called “justification, simpliciter” (where “justification, simplicter” is a conjunction of initial justification and all increases in justification). “Justification, simpliciter” (as you mean it) is a mental construct.
For this reason, saying that the Catholic Church teaches that “justification, simpliciter, is partly through works” is not an accurate representation of the Church’s teaching.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Dan,
At the time of his excommunication, no other organization was even claiming to be the Church. Do you think the Church ceased to exist at some point between the apostles and Luther? (I linked above to our series of arguments on ecclessiology. My statement was based on the arguments we made there – which no one has challenged.)
Did you read the articles I linked to re: infusion & soteriology per Augustine? I quoted him to show that he holds the Catholic view of syngergism and infusion. In fact, the catechism doesn’t quote him in support of the Catholic view, it quotes him as the Catholic view. This isn’t supposed to disprove you or make any earth shattering syllogism, but I hope it would make you pause for a moment to know that St. Augustine held the view which you (your confession) considers a false gospel.
I agree. And I also agree with the quote from Westminster catechism if we remove, as St. Augustine would, “imputed” and replaced it with “infused” and we understood the “faith” in “faith alone” to be a faith working through love (i.e. not mere intellectual assent).
Bryan said:
“We grow in our participation in the life of God not by moving from say, 50% justified to 100% justified, but by growing in our capacity to participate in the life of God, like expanding an already full cup such that its subsequent 100% is greater in content than its prior 100%.”
Wow. That is a cool analogy and I love it. Did you think of that yourself or is this an old school explanation?
Insights like this are one of the reasons I read this blog (I also liked the one where Jeremy’s wife told him about seeing a child through the mother’s eyes).
Sincerely,
K. Doran
Dan, as you are posting and getting dialogue in return, one could view this exchange as a “pile on” in response to rhetoric if all the comments being exchanged are glanced or only skimmed. But when the details are read in context and actually considered by a reader, I view there is already a significant agreement in a number issues you raised. With that, the other issues still in contention or being examined are yielding responses of unique insight and value (IE. +1 on K.Dorans comment #39).
I emphasize you are not in hostile territory, regardless of the language, and hope you see that as well.
Bryan,
I don’t understand this.
It’s hard to see how any of this is relevant. I’ve tried to make it clear, twice, that what I have meant by justification being “partly” by works is nothing more than something I think you agree with; namely, that “justification” according to Trent comprehends an initiation into the state of grace and, after that, increase of justice or justification (being “further justified”). I haven’t seen you disagree with this proposition. If you do disagree, then say so. If you agree with it, let me emphasize that that is all I was saying with the phrases and/or sentences you found troubling; so as to obviate – I would think – any reason to take issue with them.
I didn’t say initial justification is temporally extended! I said justification is. Trent subsumes both the initiation into grace and increase therein under justification. These events, all together, are drawn out through time. Hence justification, or that which Trent describes under the concept “justification,” is temporally extended. To say that justification, for Trent, is not temporally extended, would be to say either that justification does not occur in time at all; or that, occurring in time, it is instantaneous, occupying only a point or moment of time rather than an interval. Neither of these are the case.
It’s not clear to me what the reason is you refer to here. You warned against a number of things above it, but it’s not clear how I’ve actually done the things you say it would be bad to do. As for the statement that justification simpliciter is partly through works, the context (my discussion with Jeremy and my perception that he was failing to reckon with the fact that one can be “further justified”) show that by using the term ‘simpliciter’ I was simply picking out all of what Trent (not my mind) subsumes under “justification” (initiation into grace, subsequent increases of justice) as opposed to merely the initiation into grace. Suppose one wanted to refer to the entirety of what Trent includes under “justification” (i.e., both the initiation into the state of grace, and the increase or “being further justified” flowing from good works in cooperation with grace). How would one refer to it, in a precise way that made clear one was not merely referring to the initiation into grace (which ‘justification’ sometimes denotes)? Would not one use a comprehensive phrase like justification “as a whole”, or a phrase that made clear one was making no qualifications or restrictions; like justification “simpliciter”?
Tim,
If by ‘Church’ you mean the Roman-Catholic church; “the Roman-Catholic church” is too vague of a concept in my mind for it to be clear that there are determinate facts of the matter about its precise spatiotemporal boundaries and hence when it did and did not exist (and when it did, to what degree it did). If by ‘Church’ you mean the catholic church, then I’ve answered this question in the negative earlier; in #9 (first paragraph).
I generally don’t click on such hyperlinks. But you’re right that you have no obligation to re-argue for something you’ve already argued before.
But it’s not clear how the quote is supposed to endorse the Catholic view of synergism and infusion! Here is what you quoted, again:
I reject the Catholic view of synergism and infusion (at least as annexed to justification). But it seems to me I can accept what you’ve quoted from Augustine. Doesn’t that imply that the quote does not endorse this Catholic view; unless you think I’m wrong to think I could accept the quote?
Until you actually show me something demonstrating that Augustine held what I’d consider “a false gospel,” then I’m not going to form a judgment about the matter (I’m not going to take your word for it). Incidentally, it’s been said in this thread that Augustine would have rejected Luther’s view had he been exposed to it. It can’t be both ways. Either he in fact rejected the view that Luther came to espouse, or he espoused a view that has led people to infer that, were he to entertain or write about the view Luther came to espouse, he would have rejected it.
I don’t see how you can agree. Wouldn’t you reject my interpretations of ‘is justified’, ‘God’s righteousness-gift’, and ‘received through faith’, for example?
This would be no slight change, of course. Further, it’s not clear it would make sense with just those changes. For example, the thing that is imputed is Christ’s perfect obedience and full satisfaction; and it makes no sense to suppose that these are infused into one. So replacing “imputed” with “infused” brings in its wake a changing of the very ground of justification. Also, justifying faith, according to both the Reformed tradition and the Westminster Confession, is not mere intellectual assent. Theologians have traditionally distinguished between knowledge, assent, and trust as being part of saving faith; and the WCF states:
The chief faultline between the Reformed and Rome on the nature of justifying faith, as I understand it, is not whether it works through love or not
, but rather whether faith, in its justifying capacity, is construed more in terms of a theological virtue or more in terms of an instrument that takes hold of or receives something.
Dan,
If a Catholic infant dies after initial justification (the glass is 100% full of water) but before the process of increase in justification has had time to occur (the 100% full glass becomes a bigger glass), then the Catholic Church still teaches that they go to Heaven, and the reasons the Church gives for why such a person would go to Heaven (i.e., they’ve been justified, and in this case without any cooperation, apparently) would make sense in your paradigm, correct?
So is your objection that the Catholic Church teaches that:
(a) the size of the water glass can increase; or
(b) the size of the water glass can increase in a process that involves our cooperation; or
(c) we ought to cooperate in the increase in the size of the water glass; or
(d) the same word “justification” is involved in the making the glass full (initial justification) and the increasing the size of the glass (increase in justification) thus suggesting a contradiction between some of Paul’s writings and Catholic teachings if you interpret the word “works” in a particular way (that you believe is the correct way).
Sincerely,
K. Doran
Dan,
I don’t think we can progress very far in this discussion because so much is contingent upon ecclesiology. Our last discussion ended with us realizing that we couldn’t agree on what happens when one drinks a glass of water. Now we’re trying to debate how a sinner is reconciled to God? :-) We’re both being a little silly if we think we’re going to get anywhere.
No, I wouldn’t reject that. Justification is a gift and it is by faith that we receive it (per the Scriptures).
If you’re serious about getting somewhere in the discussion, I humbly suggest we start with the ecclesiological articles. Particularly, your concept of “Church” was refuted here:
Christ founded a visible Church. Or if you insist that you believe in a visible Church, we can skip to this (shorter) one:
Why Protestantism has no Visible Church.
Either way, we’re jumping into a critical discussion without seeing eye to eye on the foundation. I hope you’ll consider my invitation to revert back to the ecclesiological discussion first.
Dan,
I’m simply trying to prevent the straw man. One way to construct a straw man is to over-simplify the Catholic doctrine concerning justification, by failing to distinguish [initial] justification from increases in justification. I tried to explain that in my “Justification post. But another way to construct a straw man is to treat [initial] justification and increases in justification as together constituting a single thing (i.e. “justification, simpliciter”). Then, if “justification, simpliciter” is “partly by works”, and Scripture says that justification is by faith, apart from works, (e.g. Rom 3:28) therefore, “justification, simpliciter” must be in conflict with Scripture. And since, “justification, simpliciter” is the Catholic position, therefore the Catholic position is in conflict with Scripture.
If one wanted to refer to all that Trent says about justification, the best way to refer to it would be “all that Trent says about justification.” Aristotle points out that ‘health’ is said in many ways, though one sense is primary, and the other senses are in some sense derived from that primary sense, and take their sense from that primary sense. But that doesn’t mean that everything rightly referred to by the term ‘health’ forms one thing, i.e. health care + healthy food + healthy lifestyle + health class + health indicators + health providers” = “health, simpliciter”. The same is true here with respect to justification. [Initial] justification and increases in justification both use the term ‘justification,’ and both are treated under the subject of justification by Trent, but they are not identical, and the latter takes its name from the former, because it is an increase in what was given in the former. Moreover the role we are granted in the increase in justification is not available to us in [initial] justification. Nor do [initial] justification and increases in justification, in combination, form a single thing that can (as a whole) be compared with passages from Scripture. That would be setting up a straw man. That’s my concern. I hope you understand why it is a justified concern. :-)
(K. Doran, that cup illustration is not original with me, but I don’t know how far back it goes.)
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Dan / Bryan / Tim
If I may, I would like to interject some thoughts with regard to the definition of terms as it relates to this thread. In fact, I think the last several posts are zoning in on a fundamental difference in
Protestant/Catholic (and E. Orthodox) understanding of the term “grace” and its use in relation to the terms “justification” and “sanctification”. I will ignore, for now, the equally problematic term “faith” that is being used in relation to all of the above.
Dan quoted the Westminster Larger Catechism:
Westminster Larger Catechism: Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sin, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; nor for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them and received by faith alone.
Notice that within the Westminster Confession (WLC), justification is “an ACT of God’s free grace”. The “acting” subject of the definition is “grace” (the words “God’s” and “free” are simply qulifiers which indicate the ownership and cost of the “grace” which acts). However, watch carefully the wording of the next clause of the WLC which reads: “in which HE (emphasis mine) pardoneth”. The acting subject of the WLC has been changed from “grace” to “he” (meaning God) without explanation. The Confession goes on to describe how “God”, not “grace”, acts. He (God) “pardoneth” sins, “accepteth” and “accounteth” persons as righteous by imputing Christ’s “perfect obedience and full satisfaction” to them.
Notice that the word “grace”, having been exchanged for the word “he” (God); simply drops out of the picture after the first line; thus leaving (so far as this Reformed definition of justification is concerned) the meaning of the term “grace” undefined; since the WLC only proceeds to tell us how “he” (God) acts, not how “grace” acts, much less what “grace” IS. The only possible way in which a Reformed theologian could make sense out of this “switching of the subjects” would be to explain that the term “he” (God) JUST IS univocal with the term “grace”. But then it would make no sense to qualify the term “grace” with the word “God” in the first line. In fact, I submit that this “justification” clause of the WLC would read exactly the same if one were simply to exchange “an act of God’s free grace” for “an act of God”.
As it stands, the impression given is that “grace”, whatever it may be, has something to do with God’s “pardoning”, “accounting”, “accepting” and “imputing”. These verbs all have a strong juridical flavor. Moreover, the Confession seems to conceive of these action verbs as comprising one, immediate, and comprehensive “ACT” of Justfication. In this view, “grace” seems to be very much like a “juridical act”; a declaration that God now “views”, “sees”, “relates to” the Christian as non-guilty due to God’s “imputation” of a righteuosness that is not his own (because it is Christ’s), AS IF IT WERE his own. In short, “grace” is an “act” or choice by God to view the justified person through the prisim of Christ’s righteousness. I will not say that such a view amounts to a “legal fiction”, since if God chooses to act in this way, then in one sense (perhaps the most important) it would not technically be a “fiction”. Nevertheless, Luther’s image of justified human beings as snow covered (Christ covered) mounds of dung (fallen human nature), such that God now “sees” only an unblemished white, bumpy, landscape seems roughly descriptive of the WLC exposition. Please note that I am not here trying to make to much out of a potentially ill-worded use of terms within the WLC. I realize that Reformed theologians are not commited to the idea that this is THE most semantically accurate rendering of the doctrine of jusification. I am sure similar gramatical parsings could be brought to bear upon portions of the Catholic Catechism, showing them to be likewise capable of clearer modes of expression. I simply mean to use this “classic” statement on justification to show that the meaning of the word “grace” is quite under developed in Reformed circles.
Bryan said:
Notice a couple of things here. First Bryan says: “We are 100% justified, instantly, because having sanctifying grace is a binary condition: either a person has it, or he does not have it”. He seems to be expressing (please correct me if I am wrong Bryan) that from a Catholic perspective “justification” is intrinsically connected with, is inseperable from, “sanctifying grace”. Thus, theological terms such as “justification” and “sanctification” are ways of describing one and the same ontological reality: namely the abiding presence of “grace”. Which brings me to the next notable feature of Bryan’s comment. He says: “We grow in our participation in the life of God . . .” and again “by growing in our capacity to participate in the life of God . . . “. Bryan seems to be saying (again correct me if I am wrong) that “grace” JUST IS “participation in the life of God”. In other words, “grace” is not simply descriptive of God’s view of us, or His attitude towards us, in virtue of Christ’s work. Rather “grace” is an ontological reality. In fact, it is the greatest of all ontological realities. “Grace” JUST IS the abiding Presence of God Himself. “Grace” is God’s own divine Nature; a Nature which is capable of dwelling within or “possessing” human souls. “Grace” from a Catholic point of view is as Bryan rightly says: “participation in the Life of God”. We become “partakers of the divne Nature”. This view of grace as a participation in God’s own Life, the doctrine of “theosis”, permeates the patrisctic record (including Augustan).
Tim said:
Again, Tim’s insistence upon exchanging “imputed” with “infused” gets to the heart of the definitional problem. The Reformed position (at least with reference to justification – they often sound closer to the Catholic definition of grace when discussing “sanctification” as they understand it) seems to identify “grace” more closely with a juridical “ACT of imputation” on the part of God. Whereas the Catholic position sees “grace” as an ontological reality, the Nature of Christ Himself, which must be “infused” into the soul, NOT imputed to the soul. For a Catholic, the act of infusion, simultaneously affects imputation.
This difference, quite frankly, involves two very differnt visions of what it is that Jesus Christ was accomplishing by virtue of His passion. My experience is that from a Reformed perspective, the doctrine of justification seems to be primarily legal and juridical. We are guilty before a righteuos Judge, with no natural means of removing the guilt and the consequent judgement. Within this framework, Christ’s perfect obedience and sacrafice is seen as a legal, juridical, resoluton to our delima. His righteuosness must be “imputed” to a person as if it were that person’s own righteuosness, thereby resolving the guilt/judgement concern.
The Catholic view occurs within a familia context. The purpose of Christ’s passion (and indeed His Incarnation/life/ministry) is to facilitate an exchange of natures. To make an ontological trade, if you will. By virtue of His hypostatic union, He subsumes all of human nature (human nature as derived through Adam) and proceeds to crucify it, to put it to death. Why? in order that He can then “INFUSE” HIS divine nature (nature as derived through Christ) into human beings. His goal in justification then is to generate sons and daughters of a Divine family by way of “infusion” of His own Divinity within His children. We become sons and daughters, not merely as a legal fiction, but rather as an ontological fact; we become sharers in His very nature.
Given these two different visions, it makes sense that the “roughly” juridical outlook will align with the idea of justification as an imputation. In which case, “faith alone” as some form of assent to the fact of God’s “imputation”, makes perfect sense as a MEANS by which one existentially “get’s in on” the benefits of Christ’s passion. Thus, saved by “faith alone”. In such a view, “sanctification”, conceived as a work of the Holy Spirit must be seen as a post-justification process rather than an ontologically organic growth of justification.
On the other hand, the familial, ontological, “exchange of natures” view of Christ’s redemptive work naturally leads to an understanding of justification as “infusion”. In which case baptism, as well as the entire sacramental order, makes perfect sense as the MEANS by which one existentially “gets in on” the benefits of Christs work. If what one needs is a new Nature for justification, then sacramental infusion seems quite logical. Thus, “grace alone”.
Furthermore, if justification IS the aquisition of a new abiding Nature in the soul (“you must be born again”) which incorporates one into a new familial relationship with God; then “sanctification” will be naturally understood as a “growth in grace”. What is happening on the ontological level (as Bryan’s analogy of the expanding glass indicates), is that the human soul, BY VIRTUE OF GOD’S ABIDING NATURE, is engaging in acts of charity and sacrafice (works) which in turn expand the individual’s capacity to instantiate God’s Nature within the soul. Thus, justification precisely IS (or that which justifies IS) an ontological transfer a human being into a familial relationship with God by virtue of the infusion of God’s own life within the soul. An increased capacity to instantiate God’s life in the soul can therefore be described as both a growth in grace AND a growth in justification (which Catholics also refer to as sanctification).
Clearly, within the juridical template the idea of “growth in grace” would be unintelligable, even blasphemous, as rightly expressed by Dan in the following interchange with Jeremy:
Jeremy Said:
To which Dan resonded:
I hope the above has helped to clarify at least somewhat, the mental landscapes involved in the discussion.
For the record, my own was a 14 year journey from agnosticism, to non-denominational protestantism, to Reformed protestantism, to Anglicanism (briefly), to E. Orthodoxy, and finally (after ever posssible avoidance) the Catholic Church.
Pax et Bonum to all!
Ray,
Thank you for taking the time to write that. Your observations are spot on and I’d like to welcome you to the table of discussion at Called to Communion. I sure hope to see you around here frequently!
Dan,
I think I have to at least respond to your reply. You said that I have an “incorrect” interpretation of Trent. The problem here is that Protetants and Catholic do not normlly mean the same thing when discussing “works” in justification. It is not accuate to reduce Trent’s position on justification to “faith + works”, especially if what you mean by “works” is stricty informed by reformed concepts of faith, grace, and works. The reformed concept of grace holds to the idea that the most robust expression of God’s grace is outide of us as God declares us to be something we’re not (imputation). The Catholic position understands that the true power of grace is not in calling us something we’re not, but in making us into something we would have no hope of becoming without grace. A grace that transforms is more powerful (and loving) than a grace which allows us to rot in our sin. This is what I was getting at when I said I have found much more grace, not less, in Catholic soteriology.
Now, to be fair, I am o.k. with a Catholic interpreting Trent as “faith +works”, but only because they do not mean the same thing as the Protestant does by “works”. They are NOT the same thing. The Protestant experience and understanding of grace are, at their most powerful points, strictly declaratory and external. True, I prefer for Catholics to use “faith informed by agape”, as Bryan did in his article, but they can mean the same thing. Again, you misunderstad Trent if you are going to impose reformed concepts of grace and works into the formula.
I have not misinterpreted Trent. We really are saved by grace and yes we really do have to abide in Christ. We must be transformed. This is what James teaches. This might be more nuanced than their reformed view, but this is Biblical. Please tell me, other C2C folk, if I have misinterpreted Trent.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
K. Doran,
This story “makes sense” in that I understand how it works. It does not make sense in my paradigm, in the sense that, according to my paradigm, it is a false story. “Justification” for Rome and for the Reformed do not refer to the same thing; and hence even if both sides were to agree that the infant “is justified” it wouldn’t mean they agree on why it goes to heaven. On my paradigm, the infant is justified because of the righteousness of Christ; not because of the inherent righteousness in the infant upon death (infused in connection with its baptism). Further, on my paradigm baptism does not itself effect justification; although of course one who is baptized may also be justified.
I don’t know what the water glass or the water or the increase-in-water really means. Can we deal with the issue of where the disagreements lie in literal as opposed to metaphorical terms? Your (d) certainly deserves comment. My objection is not merely that the same word (‘justification’) covers both the initiation into grace and the increase in justice. It is that the word is associated (both in Scripture and in Trent) with an important concept/meaning, namely, the ground or basis of one’s receiving eternal life (which Trent refers to in some places as “meriting eternal life”); and there is a contradiction between Scripture and the magisterium’s teaching between the basis on which God gives one eternal life. In other words, even if the magisterium were to revise Trent (hah!) and take out phrases like “being further justified” in connection with good works, the same fundamental problem would remain; since the issue is not Trent’s use of the term ‘justified’ there per se but what that means (its being bound up the basis on which God gives eternal life).
Tim,
=]
So where would we have “gotten” if I hadn’t responded, or hadn’t been able to respond, to all the charges that have been made to me in this thread? Presumably, that would have told well for the Catholic position and badly for mine; wouldn’t it? So it would be a difficult situation indeed if it were the case that failing to address objections is bad for me and yet answering them doesn’t get us anywhere. Even if we’re not going to get any farther, as it is (I’m not disagreeing with you on this; though we may not agree on all the reasons for why that is), certainly some ground has been traversed in this thread; and I think that a significant part of it has been a display both of misunderstandings of the traditional Protestant/Reformed position and of the giving of quick objections against the tradition that are simply dropped once rebutted. I say “a significant part;” I don’t by any means think it is the only part or only significant part. E.g., I haven’t interacted with the original post’s author’s later claims in the comments, and Bryan is raising a significant issue about how to relate the language of Trent with that of Scripture.
Maybe so; but obviously the issues I’ve been challenged on in this thread have not all been ecclesiological issues; and so we should make sure we don’t have a double standard and enforce as ground rules that there are problems with my theology that can be exposed without engaging ecclesiology and yet that problems for the contrary view can’t be exposed unless we get into ecclesiology. If you’re close enough to strike then you’re close enough to get return-fire.
Since I explained my interpretation of ‘is justified’ by reference to the Westminster Confession, and since the confession’s interpretation is different from that of the magisterium; your remark would suggest (if one didn’t know better) that you agree with me and disagree with the magisterium on how to interpret ‘is justified’.
Your sentence here may suggest (though it doesn’t explicitly say) that thus far I have fallen short of being serious about getting somewhere in the discussion. Since what I have been doing in my last few posts to you is responding to objections you’ve made (e.g., Scripture’s talk on final judgment by works, Augustine’s alleged views on the Reformed view of justification, the evidential value of Trent’s pronouncements and Luther’s excommunication); how exactly would this suggest a lack of seriousness on my part? If one’s objections are irrelevant to getting somewhere in a discussion, they shouldn’t be made in the first place; and insofar as objections are relevant responses to them are too.
I didn’t come to CTC to research; but to present an opinion and (in light of responses) interact. I don’t have the time or desire to read other articles on the site. (And I haven’t been given much reason to think they would be overly compelling.)
Yes, I’ve insisted in this thread that I believe in a visible church (#9). In my view the visibility of the church, or its embodiment in institutions, does not entail that there is one institution such that the entirety of the church is (or even ideally would be) embodied in it. Further, the lack of such a single institution, in my view, does not entail sinful division in Christ’s body (which of course does not imply that there is not in fact sinful division in many cases, and even that such division may correlate with certain institutional divisions). In my view legitimate churches are ones that meet certain criteria or “marks” given in Scripture. There is an apostolic deposit of teaching that was handed down, and the genuineness of a church is a function of its loyalty to that apostolic deposit.
I don’t think I can begin a discussion on another topic. But I hope you’ll consider that the issue of what is foundational, and of where a dispute is to be initially broached, may itself be a controversial issue that is part and parcel of the dispute itself. And I concede that obviously what you have said in this thread by way of objection to me is clearly not all that could be said in objection to me.
Bryan,
What I was after was a way to refer to all that Trent includes under “justification,” which is distinct (but closely related) to all that Trent says about it. The latter refers to statements, the former to that about which statements are made. For example, if I write about a box, and call it by the name “Box,” the box is the entirety of what I talk about when I refer to Box; but all that I say about Box comprises sentence and paragraphs. In referring to justification simpliciter or justification as a whole, I mean to refer not merely to all Trent says about justification but to all about which Trent says in saying things about “justification.” So, “justification as a whole,” as I meant it, was not the chapters and canons, but rather the events and/or processes described by those chapters and canons. And I was looking for an efficient way to refer to it, i.e., a word or short phrase (as opposed to something like “all that Trent includes under its talk about “justification”).
Getting that out of the way, let me focus on these claims of yours:
This is very helpful, and I see your concern. First, I think it’s clear that I have not identified or conflated “initial justification” and subsequent “increases in justification.” After all, my posts in this thread have been suffused with my speaking of the two distinctly, i.e., referring to one and then referring to the other. Second, I don’t think I’ve constructed a straw man. The first half of a football game and the second half (and the half-time interim), when considered together, can be treated as a “whole” (a football game); and that does not in any way imply that one is failing to respect the distinctions among the “parts” or failing to respect the ordering among them and the interrelations among them. When I refer to a football game as a whole, I am not referring to anything over and above all its parts (temporal parts/intervals) that, when considered in succession, constitute the whole. That is, referring to the whole is a way of referring to all the parts; it doesn’t mean I’m positing the existence of a new thing beyond all the parts. Likewise, when I refer to justification as a whole, according to Trent, I do not intend to posit a new thing beyond what Trent talks about, but rather to refer to all about which Trent talks in connection with justification. That is, take the event of initiation into the state of grace (which you have described as instantaneous, I think), take all the subsequent events of increase (whether considered as moments or as intervals), and consider them all together (in conjunction, not conflation). That conjunction is what I meant by justification as a whole; it is a way of referring to the totality of what is talked about, and not to some new thing over and above the totality of those things.
It may be objected that it is still inappropriate to refer to this totality or conjunction as “justification.” Trent uses the word ‘justification’ both for initiation (part of the totality) and for increase in justification (“being further justified”) (another part of the totality). Since Trent uses the term for both of these things (one instantaneous, the other temporally extended; and the two considered in conjunction temporally extended), it doesn’t seem misleading or a misrepresentation for me to refer to the conjunction of both of them as “justification”; especially when I specify what I mean by that.
I think your fundamental concern is that my talking in the way I have tendentiously favors the Protestant interpretation of Scripture over that of the Catholic interpretation. If I use ‘justification’ to refer to both initiation and increase, and increase is achieved at least in part by good works, then in virtue of the increase’s depending on works and of my using ‘justification’ to refer, in part, to the increase; I can say that “justification” on Trent is in part by works – which is obviously unbiblical (because one is justified by faith apart from works; and in other places it is said, one is not justified by works). This is my understanding of your concern.
When Paul says that one is not justified by works of the law, you of course can try to argue that what Paul is teaching is entirely consistent with Trent’s view that one can be “further justified” by good works performed in cooperation with grace. You might try to argue that, despite the verbal similarity (not justified…; “further justified…”), the two instances of the term ‘justify’ are not talking about the same thing, so as to render such passages and Trent’s claims consistent. (I do not intend to foreclose such a line of argument by my using ‘justification as a whole/simpliciter’ to refer to all Trent includes under justification.) However, due to the verbal similarity, the onus seems to be on the Catholic to actually explain how this is supposed to go, how one is supposed to interpret Paul’s statements like this so that they and Trent’s statements are harmonious.
Jeremy,
I don’t think I’ve “reduced” Trent’s position on justification to faith plus works. I’ve argued, Bryan has agreed, and I’ve quoted Trent explicitly saying, that works factor in. Bryan, a Catholic, has recently said the following:
Although Bryan and I have disagreed over certain things (maybe), we have not disagreed that works factor into Trent’s position on justification. Notice his repeated talk about justification’s being increased. As I’ve shown by quoting Trent, good works are part and parcel of how it is increased; how, in Trent’s words, one is “further justified.” Of course, no one can keep you from assuming, as you seem to have done, that I either don’t know what Trent is talking about when it mentions “good works” or have been knowingly importing some non-Tridentine conception of “works” into the discussion.
I’m sorry but these statements really suggest serious misunderstanding of Protestantism; especially the first one. It almost seems as if you think Protestant soteriology is nothing but a definition of justification; as if anything not included under that single heading does not exist.
I wonder if any of them will tell you that the explanation(s) you have given in this thread (#23, #48) for your decision to convert have revealed a serious lack of understanding on your part of what you think you are converting from.
Dan,
You wrote:
The thing is, Paul, together with James, also says that we are justified by works:
Thus, the distinctions made at Trent (which Bryan is describing) concerning justification, which employee the same term (“justification”) in the course of delineating those differences, have an unmistakable biblical precedent. St. Paul does precisely the same thing, using the term “justification” with reference to both righteousness/acquittal before God apart from works (e.g. Rom 3–4) and righteousness/acquittal before God by works (Rom 2).
So the onus is actually on everybody who accepts all the data (e.g., Rom 3 and Rom 2) “to actually explain how this [distinction made with respect to justification] is supposed to go.” This is precisely what Trent did.
Dan,
You said:
The reason that Tim’s comment about ecclesiology is so pertinent is that it points to two very different theological epistemologies. You have stated that “There is an apostolic deposit of teaching that was handed down, and the genuineness of a church is a function of its loyalty to that apostolic deposit.” I assume, given your fidelity to the Westminster Confession (WC), that you agree that this “apostolic deposit” is something God has chosen to (in the words of the WC) “commit the same wholly unto writing”. Likewise, as you were discussing the issue of justification with Bryan you say that ” . . the Catholic to actually explain how this is supposed to go, how one is supposed to interpret Paul’s statements like this so that they and Trent’s statements are harmonious”. Again, the underlying assumption seems to be that the sole determinant of whether a given understanding of justification is correct is whether or not said understanding does, or does not, comport with scripture (in this case, Pauline epistles). In other words, we analyze the wording, meaning, etc. of both the Westminster Confession on the one hand; and the Cannons and Decrees of the Council of Trent on the other. We then lay them both before the Pauline (or perhaps other scriptural) texts to see which most closely aligns with the scriptural text. In both your understanding of the locus of the “apostolic deposit”; as well as your ultimate means of arbitrating between competing doctrines of justification seems; the sole factor is sacred scripture. In fact, the Reformed view that the “apostolic deposit” is embodied in scripture alone, logically forces scripture to be the determinant of not only “justification”; but ALL doctrinal positions. Because the “apostolic deposit” is seen as synonymous with scripture; scripture alone serves as the ultimate epistemological basis for knowing/understanding the content of that “deposit” on any doctrinal front: ecclesiology, soteriology, justification, sanctification, etc.
Now a Catholic very definitively denies this epistemological framework. A Catholic will want to have an explanation from the Protestant as to why (what historical, or logical, or even scriptural reason) he has committed himself to this “scripture only” epistemological paradigm. What reason, the Catholic asks, do we have to believe that Jesus Christ intended to transmit, maintain and exclusively embody divine revelation in a textual/written format only? The Catholic will, of course, argue that one of the crucial things that Jesus did was establish a visible, tangible church; invest its leadership (the apostles) with His own authority and a special charism of the Holy Spirit; with the further intention that said authority and charism would be passed on to their successors. Christ did all of this so that divine revelation, the “apostolic deposit”, would be embodied, guarded, and infallibly transmitted in an organic historical structure. Thus, for a Catholic, the “mechanism” by which CHRIST HIMSELF intended to “hand-on” the “apostolic deposit” IS the ultimate foundational issue. For a Catholic, the epistemic basis for determining the correct understanding of any doctrine, including justification, will involve BOTH scripture AND the Church (and by definition her ecclesia) precisely because he sees BOTH authorities as intended by, and established by, Christ Himself.
This is why the very nature and purpose of systematic theology is radically different for a Catholic than it is for a Protestant. When a catholic theologian develops and publishes a systematic theology; he/she will have developed it within the constraints of two controlling authorities: scripture AND the magesterium. Moreover, his/her systematic presentation must be at the service of the Church (it can never be in the game of defining what the Church is). Thus, if some aspect of his/her understanding of the biblical text conflicts with an infallibly promulgated magisterial definition; then so much the worse for his/her exegesis. The theologian submits him/her-self to the authority of the Church’s magesterium because he/she views it as an authority derived from Christ Himself.
A Reformed systematic theologian has only one ULTIMATE infallible guide to constrain his/her theological speculations: namely scripture. Of course, the creeds, fathers, etc. may be given a serious consideration while a systematic theology is being developed: BUT it can never be given “infallible” weight; because “popes and councils can and do err”. Thus, IF he or she happened to decide, in good conscience, that a particular doctrinal understanding derived from the biblical text (despite the weight of all patristic or counciliar voices) is contrary to that espoused within his/her communion and its creeds; he/she must, in good faith, part with that communion/creed on SOME level. The extent of the parting (whether or not it entails visible exit from the communion) will be dependent upon how crucial the doctrine in question is. I would suggest that the famous “Lordship Debate” involving Macarthur, Ryrie, Hodges, etc. is a perfect example of just what I am indicating here. I might add in passing that it is quite relevant to the very topic of justification we have been discussing.
Now I realize that you strongly disapprove of the Catholic Scripture AND Church vision of doctrinal determination. I have no intention here of debating this view over against Sola Scriptura. But it is VERY crucial to point out that when we as Catholics assert that the “ecclesiology” issue is INTRINSICALLY involved in the ‘justification” discussion; we are NOT trying to sneak in some unfair “ground rule” that favors our position. Just the opposite: for us to argue justification within YOUR epistemological paradigm while pretending “for the sake of argument” that scripture alone IS the sole arbiter of doctrinal controversies is for US to abandon what we find to be MOST foundational in this or ANY OTHER doctrinal discussion.
Now, I firmly believe that the Catholic and Tridentine “infusion” understanding of justification IS the most complete exposition of the gospels, the epistles (including Romans – which Protestants mistakenly think is “home turf”), and of the entire patristic and counciliar historical record up until the time of the Reformation. Nevertheless, I and others on this blog are happy to discuss the justification issue on Reformed terms; since we believe that SOME obstacles to reunion can be removed by so doing (though admittedly limited by our epistemic concession). But be aware that it is we who have adopted YOUR ground rules in order to facilitate discussion.
Thus, when you say:
I find myself wondering at this statement. I cannot see that there really are many “foundational issue” choices to “choose from”. The issue of revelational epistemology (to coin a new phrase): the scripture ONLY paradigm versus the scripture AND Church (and by definition ecclesiology) paradigm: seems to me to be THE foundational issue, and that beyond dispute. Reformed theologians, I think, generally acknowledge this when they describe sola scriptura as THE formal principal of the Reformation.
It is for this reason that the founders of this blog, in an effort to get at the foundational, bedrock issues which divide us, in hopes of reducing the obstacles to reunion, have put the following articles up for discussion at the inception of this site:
“Calvin on “Self-Authentication”
“How Might Luther Say the Church Never Disappeared”
“Ecclesial Deism”
“Hermeneutics and the Authority of Scripture”
“Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and The Question of Interpretive Authority”
“The Cannon Question”
All of which, as you can see, are aimed at facing charitably and squarely, THE foundational divide between us: a divide which centers on the authority of scripture and the authority of the Church (and by definition ecclesiology). A divide which necessarily casts all subsequent doctrinal debate in a different light depending upon which epistemic view one adopts.
You say:
So you have presented your opinion and stated your desire to “interact” in light of CTC responses. Yet, clearly, one of the most important responses you have been given is that the “rules of the game” need to be addressed up front. You see Christ as having established one authority – scripture; whereas Catholics see Christ as having established two – scripture and the magesterium. Certainly, we can have a discussion where we pre-agree that the “rules of the game” will only allow us(Catholics) to make our case in light of only one authority – scripture. But this is an agreement wherein the Catholics are making a concession in order to engage a brother in Christ on HIS own terms. But then we do this BECAUSE we Catholics are seeking a “path to unity”. As a Catholic, I see you as a very intelligent, passionate, brother in Christ. On Catholic theological grounds, I view our relationship to be that of separated brethren living in different visible homes (communions). According to Christ’s “high priestly prayer for unity”; the world would be much better persuaded toward Christianity if we lived in the same visible communion. Thus, if while discussing some doctrinal position; you were to inform me that there was a more basic epistemic issue which, unless dealt with, will place severe limits on the possible outcome of our current doctrinal discussion: I would WANT to understand what that epistemic issue might be. Since, again, I want to get to the bottom of our division. Yet, when Tim pointed this out, you said:
I totally understand your lack of time with regard to reading articles or contributing to a blog – that makes sense. We all have responsibilities which limit such activities. But to assert that you have no “desire” to read articles which focus on the deepest source of division between us: and then ad the jab that “I haven’t been given much reason to think they would be overly compelling”, seems to indicate an intention not very much geared toward actual resolution of divisions. The wording, rather, seems to indicate that you are more interested in using the responses of CTC bloggers, and your rebuttals to them (which you perceived to be adequate), as a means of affirming to yourself the superiority of your position(s).
Perhaps I am misinterpreting your words; if so, I stand ready to be corrected, and even offer my apologies in advance.
At the very least, however, I think it would be good for all to acknowledge that by continuing the conversation within a strictly sola scriptura epistemic framework; there will be intrinsic limits to the degree to which we might achieve consensus regarding the doctrine of “justification”. Most notably, the “sola” framework will force both sides into an explanatory competition wherein we each try; through a complex of copious biblical proof texts, accompanied by extensive biblical and creedal interpretation, to “prove” which creed (WC or Trent) best explains the biblical data. Perhaps the best we might hope for is that both sides will begin to see the other’s interpretation as a plausible biblical rendering, or at least “more plausible” than we at first imagined. Along the way, we might gain a fairer view of each other’s theological “dispositions”. For instance, we Catholics might find that Protestants (despite the Reformed explanation of justification) do no INTEND to express the idea that one can be saved without living a life of love and sacrifice. Perhaps Protestants might find that we Catholics (despite the Catholic explanation of justification) do not INTEND to express the idea that we can “work” our way to heaven. But all of this will be a far cry from confessional unity on the issue of justification. But then, I would argue, such limited results might be the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE benefits that a pre-commitment to the sola scriptura paradigm can EVER yield. If so, this is all the more reason why it is so VERY worthwhile to discuss the validity of the sola scriptura paradigm itself.
The peace of the Lord be with you!
Tim,
Thank you for the kind welcome to CTC. I stumbled accross your site several weeks ago and have been working through the articles ever since. I have never found a similar instance where such fundamental issues of Christian division are being hashed out CHARITABLY. The depth of the articles and the EXTENSIVE give and take which follow in the blog threads is a unique, invaluable, means of “getting to the botom line” problems. I have really been overjoyed as I have read the CTC statement of purpose and then perceived the focused, structured, way you are going about achieving that purpose. Hats off to you and the other authors who have established this site! May all our (meaning both Catholic and Protestant) hyperbole, sophistry and rhetoric give way to truth!
Pax et Bonum
Ray
Great comments.
I am not a Roman Catholic but have been on the verge of conversion for the past three years. It seems to me when I argue, charitably, with my reformed friends (of the Federal Vision persuasion), two issues that you brought up always serve as stumbling block, namely epistemology and ontology.
With regards to epistemology, the claim that the issue of the canon is epistemologically no different then discovering the Church. In other words, one does not use natural reason to determine the validity of the canon of scriptures being divinely inspired and neither does the one discovering the church. They are both matters of faith and serve for both parties claiming them as self evident axioms. In other words, for the protestant, it doesn’t matter if sola scriptura is not in the scriptures because sola scriptura must be presupposed, just like the Catholic has to presuppose the magesterium prior to any other dogmatic knowledge. Also, in regards to epistemology, is the issue of final interpretation of dogma. In other words, the charge against Protestantism having no real church authority because sola scriptura naturally leads each to submit to others who agree with their interpretation of scripture, and intrinsically, given the position of sola scriptura and the lack of an infallible dogmatic interpreter, each individual reserves the right to break from a certain church community if he has differing theological opinions. Now the Catholic position tries to show that they are not guilty of the same thing by appealing to the belief of an infallible authority which the person is required to submit to their universal teachings. The objection to this Catholic response is that even though you claim to have an infallible interpreter of divine revelation, the individual still has to interpret, privately, the interpreter and when a Catholic disagrees they do the same thing as the protestant, namely leave the Catholic Church for one the suits their theological opinions. So, to them, both church positions have the same results, private individuals either agreeing and staying in the community, or both disagreeing and leaving the communities.
In regards to ontology, I tend to think Thomistically so I have not had a huge issue understanding the Catholic view of grace. Every time I speak of the sacraments as infusing God’s grace into our souls they seem to caricature this position into the Catholic making God having some kind of grace machine that distributes grace as if it is something quantifiable, like the objections on this page that allude to Catholic saying they need more grace where the protestant, in my opinion, views grace as either strictly how we are views in the mind of God or something like fixing a broken machine where grace is not something ontological but descriptive of the act of repairing the broken human. In fact I see this objection sometimes from even the eastern orthodox when it comes to created grace as opposed to uncreated light. It seems that Thomism seems to be where most of the dividing issues between Catholics, Protestants, and Easter Orthodoxy stem from,
I was curious given your background how you resolved these issues. Hopefully this does not steer off of the posts intentions. But I am not sure, on a large scale, how communion will take place between all Christians if we don’t work out the issues with our views of being and knowledge.
thanks
Andy
hey Dan,
it’s difficult to take these accusations seriously because of the big clown shoes they’re wearing. i understand the tungsten certainty of the conviction—most of us here have held your convictions at one time or other because, like you, we weren’t looking
because we had the Catholic thing figured out. like you do. except… we were wrong.
was how you responded to Tim, and
which sounded perfectly reasonable, except that you very confidently
on the contrary, i think you have been given much reason.
Bryan, for example, pointed out that your reading of Trent is precisely only that, your reading, completely unrecognizable as Catholic, only possible in polemical Protestant circles because it is a Protestant fiction. you, of course, don’t find Bryan’s explanations very compelling because your reading of Trent is very honest—right?—very Trent-in-her-own-words. you then appeal to Bryan as unwittingly demonstrating your case because he
right, except that you’re now doing to Bryan what you’ve been doing to Trent—using him to prop up a false characterization of the Catholic Church. we see that happen a lot to Bryan around here. (qualifying Bryan as “Bryan, a Catholic,” actually made me laugh out loud) but, as you said, you don’t read CTC stuff and don’t intend to, so you couldn’t have known how it would look, from this side of the table, to twist what Bryan said to support your misconception: is humorous, the gravity of what we’re talking about notwithstanding, and if you read Bryan’s blog, especially his comments, you’ll see he’s got a wicked-good sense of humor.
anyway, i just wanted to pop my head up to say, with respect due and all, also with love, your take on Trent and so much else is a great iteration of some very classic but quite wrong Protest. you just can’t, after all, get to know the Movement by studying the Protest. i hope you stay and read, and i’m glad you’re at the virtual table.
in the peace of Christ
[and btw, Jeremy, congratulations on #3!!]
Dan,
I would say that your comments about not coming here to research or read articles or for that matter having been given no reason to think they would be compelling is, quite frankly, rude. Does one go to one’s house and complain about the dinner? It is fine if you do not think there is anything compelling about CtC but then I might ask, why would you spend your time dialoging with people you do not find compelling?
That being said, I always find it quite interesting that there is such reticence to talk about a faith that must work through love in Reformed thought.
I would like to ask you: If Paul taught that justification by faith alone, as a declaratory act by God, whereby the justified person can never lose this justification, then what is Paul’s point in 1st Corinthian 9:27, “lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified”?
Dan,
I don’t mind your lack of interest in our articles and blog posts, although that is a kind of strange thing to declare, especially in a combox of one of those articles. But as you say, you are busy having your say.
I do mind the suggestion in #52 that Jeremy does not understand Reformed soteriology. And I am sorry that we did not pick up on that blatant and gratuitous ad hominem before now.
I looked at the comments to which you refer, and they are focused on the Protestant understanding of justification. Of course, Calvinist versions of Protestantism posit that regeneration and ongoing sanctification accompany justification. Everyone knows that. But these have no part in justification, according to the Reformed. Couple this with the emphasis that Protestants generally place on their unique understanding of justification as part and parcel of the Gospel, and it is easy to see how someone quite familiar with Reformed theology could yearn for a Gospel that is not based upon a legal fiction wherein someone defiled by sin remains thus defiled while God is content to declare otherwise.
Now I know that this opinion is what is taught (boldly taught, I imagine) at, e.g., Reformed seminaries, such as the one that Jeremy attends, and I know that you will forgive me if I state that I haven’t been given much reason to think that that teaching would be compelling. Jeremy’s comments about transformation, et al, should be understood in light of the Reformed teaching on justification (which is what he was talking about), which remains what it is, extrinsic and non-transforming (failing to eradicate deadly sin), even after regeneration and sanctification are ushered in to rescue the position from antinomianism.
Finally, are you the same Dan that participated in the deification thread? My guess is not, but that would just be a guess.
Hi Andy,
A comment on your last paragraph first. I too take an Aristotelian-Thomistic approach to metaphysics. Your insight that much of the chasm between Protestant and Catholic theology exists due to underlying metaphysical assumptions is, in my view, absolutely correct. Luther, himself, tended toward “Ockhamism”/nominalism; which, if you are familiar with medieval philosophic history, represents a vastly divergent approach to metaphysics than espoused by St. Thomas. It has been said that one can be a philosopher without being a theologian, but one simply cannot be a coherent theologian without being a philosopher -especially where metaphysics is concerned.
BTW – if the moderators of CTC view our chat as too divergent from the thread topic, please feel free to email me: ray@nkypets.com if you would like. Until then, let’s just assume that the epistemology/ontology issue is relevant (which I think it is at this point), and keep it as part of the thread.
First, I really appreciate your concerns. From agnosticism to Catholicism, the most fundamental issue for me was the epistemological question. Let me start with the epistemic question concerning the canon and the Church. I was for many years, an agnostic of the very modern, skeptical stripe – I mean hyper skeptical – the kind of guy who spent too much time wondering if we were really just “minds in a vat” or if reality was really real, etc. What I want to say is that as a non-Christian I was not interested in whether the canon or the Church were authoritative. I was focused on whether there were reasonable, highly probable grounds, for believing that a “revelation” had been given at all. I point this out, because I want to highlight the fact that the canon vs. the canon+Church view is simply a component part of the wider “revelation” question – at least from an outsider perspective. I would argue that most reasonable people; first become Christians not because “the bible tells them so”; but because, like CS Lewis, they find strong rational/probabilistic grounds for believing in the existence of God and, in particular, for believing that Jesus of Nazareth was Himself God. Thus, the first steps toward Christianity are not based on a priori, or axiomatic assumptions; but rather, on reasonable, probabilistic evidence and argument. In fact, asking if God exists, if Jesus is God, if the Bible is divinely inspired, or if the Church is supernaturally protected from error; are all part and parcel of the wider question of whether a divine “revelation” has occurred. The first two questions refer to the possible Source of revelation; whereas the latter two issues (cannon and Church) concern the “mechanism” of transmission and maintenance of such revelation. It seems to me that ALL 4 of these “revelational” concerns are opted-for on non-axiomatic grounds.
You said:
I would simply question why you, or someone else, would hold this premise in the first place. The method by which one concludes whether the Protestant or Catholic view of “revelational epistemology” is “true”, simply is not (or should not be) a priori or axiomatic. Such a determination is based on rational, evidential, probabilistic argumentation. A Catholic is “arguing” (not axiomatically) that the historical, patristic, logical, practical, even Scriptural evidence show the organic Church + Canon model to be FAR more likely as a means by which God Himself intended to transmit and maintain divine revelation through space and time. This procedure mirrors how ANY Christian argues for the rational, evidential, superiority of theism over atheism, or for Christ’s divinity – which is never a priori, or axiomatic (unless he is a pure fidiest). BUT, even though the grounds for first believing in God or Christ are themselves rational and probabilistic; we do not “partially” or “tangentially” commit ourselves to God simply because our first approach to Him was on a rational/probabilistic basis. Instead, we exercise FAITH and fully embrace God with our whole lives. Notice that the “faith” we exercise is not a “leap”; but rational, and based on highly probable reasons and evidence. The SUPERNATURAL GIFT OF FAITH is something that God gives us to elevate our natural, probabilistic, faith to the level of an existential certainty. As Thomas says, grace builds upon nature (although grace was at work behind the scenes, as it were, even during our rational journey).
The principal Catholic challenge to the Protestant is that the Protestant has made an unwarranted fidiestic “leap of faith”. By axiomatically clinging to sola scriptura; he has made himself immune to ALL possible arguments and dialogue against his position (Luther famously called reason “the devil’s whore). The Catholic is trying to get the “sola” proponent to leave the axiomatic bubble and come discuss the issue on rational, evidential grounds. He is asking the Protestant to “back-up” and evaluate the wider “revelational landscape” BEFORE moving forward again to embrace “in faith” either the Protestant or Catholic notion of how revelation has been transmitted and maintained. Clearly, once one has evaluated these choices on rational/evidential grounds, and come to a probabilistic conclusion; the force of the arguments will lead him to embrace with natural “faith” the IMPLICATIONS of the epistemic view he has arrived at. But, again, this is no different than when we come to believe that God exists on rational/evidential grounds and then personally embrace in “faith” the IMPLICATIONS of a theistic universe. I think you will find, if you look carefully, that, in a real sense, the Catholic argument against sola scriptura can be summed up as a comprehensive accusation of fideism against the Protestant position.
The next issue you brought up relates to how the IMPLICATIONS of the Protestant vs. Catholic epistemic view play out among the faithful within the two communions. You say:
I assume you do not disagree with the logic, or the historically verifiable evidence for this charge (if not, we can discuss that). Rather, your concern seems to be, to understand how the Catholic does not fall prey to a similar charge. You go on to say:
The first thing to get clear is that there is no force which can make anyone physically stay in any communion. I mean there is currently no political/physical force to restrain a person (at least not in North America). Even St. Paul was dealing with divisions in the epistle to the Corinthians before the Protestant / Catholic epistemic divide ever developed. Paul’s goal was to show that such divisions were IN PRINCIPAL contrary to the will of God/Christ and to persuade those in schism to return to the fold. So, we are not looking for some kind of Catholic argument which can, in any sense, “force” a person to remain in the Church. As humans with free will, that simply is not a possibility. What we ARE arguing is that sola scriptura IN PRINCIPAL, by its intrinsic epistemic corollary of private-interpretation, dogmatically JUSTIFIES communal divisions.
The Catholic position does NOT, IN PRINCIPAL, lead to, or JUSTIFY such division. IF the Catholic has arrived at the authority of the Church (and by definition her magisterium) on rational/evidential/probabilistic grounds; he will have embraced the IMPLICATIONS of that epistemic view. The principal implication being that Christ-authorized magisterial pronouncements ALWAYS trump his personal doctrinal speculations. He humbles himself before Christ’s authority as embodied in the Church and recognizes his personal fallibility. IF a Catholic is in the Church for reasons which never led him to explore this crucial epistemic issue; then for all intents and purposes, he remains, doctrinally, much in the same position as a Protestant – i.e. believing that nothing (not even the Church) can trump his own doctrinal views. In such a case, Catholics like myself and others at CTC (and St. Paul :>) would be just as interested in persuading this person to “back-up” and look at the epistemic landscape, in much the same way that we are trying to converse with the Protestant. Catholics acknowledge at least two broad Christian crises: the crisis of Christian communal divisions (thus CTC); as well as the crisis of poor catechesis within the Church(a Catholic problem). Neither of these crises, however, imply that the Catholic view of doctrinal authority is IN PRINCIPAL divisive. They merely show that people have failed to look at the doctrinal authority issue, and its implications, deeply. We need evangelization on both fronts.
Lastly, it is true that Catholics must interpret magisterial pronouncements, which themselves become committed to textual canons, or decrees, or encyclicals, etc. BUT, a Catholic’s personal interpretation of a magisterial pronouncement is always subject to correction by the LIVING magisterium – an actual bishop, or in an exceptional case, the pope. Magisterial definitions actually open up fields of theological freedom wherein speculation can flourish WITHIN THE BOUNDS of infallible pronouncements. If a person (usually a theologian) begins to challenge these bounds, by way of his own personal renderings of magisterial teaching; then a LIVING PERSON (bishop or pope) can step in with Christ’s authority and correct that theologian’s understanding – and if the theologian refuses to recant, he can be excommunicated. This exact set of events has happened many times. This is why the Catholic view is so strong: because it is organic, in that ultimate authority rests in a PERSON not a DOCUMENT. When push comes to shove, we are not left with our selves and our personal interpretations of prior magisterial pronouncements – we can be met face to face by Peter. I submit that Protestantism (and to a degree, E. Orthodoxy as well), by rejecting the PERSONAL Petrine authority IS left only with fallible personal interpretations, which intrinsically lead to divisions. When considering the historic splits in Christendom, I find it striking that ALL three: Great Schism of 1054 (Orthodox), the Reformation of 1517 (Protestant), and the English split of 1538 (Anglicanism), all center around rejection of the Petrine ministry.
I hope this helps
Peace be with you!
Dan,
I would like to address one thing that you said, in your criticism of Jeremy’s comments.
In #27 you wrote:
And in #32 you listed the following passages as teaching that justification is not by works:
So you imply that Trent teaches justification by works, and you refer to these Scripture verses as teaching that justification is not by works, and you conclude that “this seems to be a problem” for the Catholic doctrine of justification.
This is precisely the straw man I was concerned about in my subsequent comments. I’ve seen it done dozens and dozens of times. This is why I cautioned about making sure you distinguish between initial justification and increase in justification. I understand that you want an “efficient” way to refer to things, but it is much more important that a position be accurately represented, than that we have an efficient (but misleading) way of referring to things, that leads to the setting up of strawmen. I hope you agree that truth is more important than efficiency.
So, let’s consider those passages, and see if any one of them is at odds with Trent. First consider Romans 3:20-28:
St. Paul is not here referring to growing in grace (i.e. increasing in justification). That’s just not what is in view here. Rather, St. Paul is here referring to initial justification (and final justification insofar as initial justification is necessary for final justification). No man can achieve initial justification by the works of the Law. For this same reason, no one can attain final justification, merely by the works of the Law. Without grace, no flesh will be justified in His sight. We are brought into friendship with God (i.e. we are justified) only by living faith, which is itself the fruit of grace, which is the gift of God, namely, a participation (by a creature) in the divine nature.
But nothing St. Paul says here (in Rom 3:20-28) rules out growing in justification by faith working through agape, or final justification being also dependent on observing the moral law (cf. Rom 2:13, Mt. 19:16-19; 1 Cor 7:19; James 2:8-13) So you can see here why what I was saying earlier is important, namely, that we must clearly maintain the distinction between initial justification and increase in justification (i.e. growth in the justice that is received through the grace of Christ). If we don’t maintain that distinction, or if we recognize the distinction but then treat the conjunction of the two as if it were a singular thing (i.e. “justification, simpliciter”) against which to compare what St. Paul says about “justification,” we’ll mistakenly construe the Catholic doctrine laid out at Trent as being at odds with St. Paul, by having constructed a straw man of the Catholic doctrine.
Consider the next passage to which you refer, Romans 4:5:
Here St. Paul is saying that Abraham was not justified by circumcision per se, but by [living] faith; his circumcision was a sign or seal of the righteousness he had by [living] faith. (Rom 4:11) His [living] faith in God, referred to in Gen 15:6, showed that he was a friend of God. That’s why he was counted righteous, because he was in a state of grace. St. Paul is not saying that we should not work, or that Abraham did not do good works. Abraham did many good works. St. Paul isn’t talking here (Rom 4:5) about whether acts of obedience, done in agape, are means of growing in justification. He is talking about the difference between the inward and the outward. (cf. Rom 2:28-29) It is not fundamentally the external, by which we are made right with God. It is the internal. The external becomes meaningful in “storing up treasure in heaven” only on the condition of living faith (i.e. including agape) in the soul of the agent.
So when St. Paul treats David, here in Romans 4:6-8, the entirety of the Psalm (Psalm 32) is in view. David explains in Ps 32:5 that he had confessed his transgressions to God, and that God had forgiven him. The happy man described in Ps 32:1 is the one who, after having confessed his sin, and been forgiven, has no deceit in his heart. (Ps 32:1) The forgiveness is not a stipulative “I accept you even though your sin remains.” This forgiveness restores friendship between David and God, and thus restores sanctifying grace and agape in David’s soul. So the covering referred to here is not a covering of what still remains in David’s heart as sin. It is a covering in the sense of the sin being removed from what stands between God and David. It is no longer present; David is now, again, a friend of God. God, being omnipotent, has not forgotten David’s sin. But by grace, David’s heart is again filled with love for God (agape), which had been cast out when David sinned [mortally] with Bathsheeba. And God sees David as he is, not as he was.
This is why Psalm 32:2 (quoted by St. Paul in Rom 4:8) “blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon iniquity” should not be interpreted in a nominalist way, as though the sin is still there, and God is merely choosing to think of David as righteous, by a kind of reconceptualization of the situation such that David’s sin is not in mind. No. The reckoning (or counting) is veridical. God doesn’t count David’s sin, because David’s sin has truly been removed from his soul, and grace and agape have been restored to his soul, and thus he is in actuality, in his soul, a friend of God, and thus rightly counted as righteous in God’s [perfectly truthful and omniscient] sight. And this is how St. Paul should be understood in Romans 4:8. The reckoning in Romans 4:3, 4, 5, 6, 8, is a veridical reckoning — the person is counted according to what he actually is, in his soul. St. Paul was not a nominalist. What God says, is always true, not because He is capable of tricking Himself into seeing things in a way that is contrary-to-fact, but because God speaking is what makes the facts what they are, whatever our limited sight might tell us.
Let’s consider next the third passage to which you refer (Romans 10:1-10):
St. Paul is here contrasting the sort of righteousness that could be achieved by merely keeping the [Mosaic] Law, with the sort of righteousness that comes from God. The former is a merely human righteousness. The Law, by itself, shows us what do to, and then, by our falling short of it, shows us our sinfulness. Even if a mere man, without grace, could keep the Law, he would fall infinitely short of the righteousness of God. Why? Because of all his actions would be merely creaturely acts, having a mere creature as their motivating principle, attaining at best to the knowledge of God available through the natural power of human reason. But God is infinite and infinitely above us, and His righteousness is infinite and supernatural. Man, who is natural, cannot attain to that which is intrinsic to the supernatural, by man’s own natural power. That’s is impossible. This is why Pelagianism is false. Even Adam and Eve needed grace (i.e. participation in the divine nature) in order to attain to eternal life. The righteousness based on Law is infinitely short of the righteousness based on faith, because nature is infinitely inferior to grace, as creature is infinitely inferior to the Creator.
The [Mosaic] Law was not merely the moral law — the ceremonial Law had another function, and that was to point forward, to Christ, and the righteousness which comes through [living] faith in Christ. When St. Paul says that Christ is the end of the Law, he means that Christ is the goal of the Law. The Law points us to Christ. He does not mean that grace makes the law superfluous, in any antinomian sense. As St. Augustine said, “The Law was given that grace might be sought; grace was given that the Law might be kept.” (On the Spirit and the Letter, 34)
In short, the point of the discussion here (in Rom 10:1-10) is not about the increase in justification, but about whether [initial] justification is by keeping the Law (apart from faith), or by [living] faith. And the Catholic Church has always believed and taught that [initial] justification is by the latter. So this passage, as the others we have just considered, is fully in harmony with the Catholic doctrine of justification.
Consider then the next passage you cite:
Again, here St. Paul is not talking about the increase in justification. He is saying here that we are made friends with God (i.e. we are justified) not by works of the Law, but by [living] faith. By living faith I mean faith made alive by agape, as St. Paul says, ” For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love [agape].” (Gal 5:6). To treat Galatians 2:15-16 as though it is opposed to growth in justification, or our having a role in the increase in justification, is to treat these verses as referring to something to which they do not refer. One would have to presume that there is no real distinction between justification and its increase, in order to make these verses oppose the Catholic doctrine. In other words, one would have to presuppose the falsity of the Catholic doctrine, in order to construe these verses as opposing the Catholic doctrine. And that’s nothing short of begging the question, reading into the verses precisely what is in question between Catholics and Protestants.
Consider your next prooftext:
You have suggested that this passage is somehow at odds with the Catholic doctrine of justification. But this passage is contrasting those who are under the Law (and do not have faith) with those who have faith. St. Paul is saying that everyone who is under the Law, is under the curse of being bound to abide by all the things written in the book of the Law. But, says St. Paul, it has always been the case that the righteous man lived by faith. What is being contrasted here (in Gal 3) is the way of faith and the way not of faith, but of Law. St. Paul is not saying anything here about whether those walking in faith, can, through deeds done in love for God, grow in the justice they received from God through faith. So to treat this passage as somehow opposed to Trent is to misunderstand either Trent or the Scripture passage, or both.
Next you point to Galatians 5:2-6:
Notice that St. Paul is here talking about circumcision. That indicates that what is in view here not the moral law per se, but the Mosaic Law within the Old Covenant. St. Paul’s condemnation [in his letter to the Galatians] of the teaching of the Judaizers was not for believing that works done in agape (in accordance with the moral law under the New Covenant) increase our justification, but for believing that the keeping of the ceremonial law, and thus returning to the Old Covenant (and a keeping of the whole law) is necessary for justification. The Judaizers were rejecting the New Covenant, in which we are justified by sanctifying grace and [living] faith in Christ, received through the sacrament of baptism instituted by Christ. But the Catholic Church affirms the New Covenant; she is the New Israel of the New Covenant. (cf. Gal 6:16) The Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by [living] faith in Christ, a faith that we receive as a gift from God, along with sanctifying grace, in the sacrament of baptism instituted by Christ.
St. Paul’s concern in his letter to the Galatians is not excluding works from any role in the increase in justification. His primary concern for the Galatian believers is that they remain within the New Covenant, and thus remain united to Christ. By adding the requirement of the ceremonial law the Judaizers were returning to the Old Covenant, and thus nullifying the New Covenant and the sacrifice of Christ, the long-awaited Messiah and Savior. (cf. Gal 5:1ff) Of course the Catholic Church rejects the requirement of returning to the Old Covenant for justification or salvation. From the Catholic point of view, adding the requirements of the ceremonial law would be nothing less than apostasy from the New Covenant established by the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. So the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding increasing in justification, by faith working through love, does not fall under St. Paul’s condemnation of the doctrine of the Judaizers in his letter to the Galatians.
Next you point to Philippians 3:8-9:
Of course, the Catholic position is not that we have a righteousness of our own, derived from the Law. The Catholic doctrine is that our righteousness is the righteousness of Christ, which is acquired through living faith in Christ. Our righteousness is a participation in His righteousness. It is precisely because it is His righteousness, in which we live and move as sons and daughters of God, that our deeds done in agape count on a supernatural level. They are meritorious toward heaven, only when the principle by which they are done is supernatural, i.e. only when the righteousness in which we live is not from ourselves, but from above.
The strawman you construct by referring to these verses as opposing the Catholic doctrine is to treat the Catholic doctrine as though there is no relevant principled difference between it and the position of the Judaizers. But that’s an egregiously bad strawman. It completely ignores the difference in relation to the Covenants, between the Judaizers and the Catholic Church, and what that rejection of the New Covenant meant for the Judaizers’ ‘faith’ in Christ, in contrast to what the Catholic embrace of the New Covenant means for the Catholic understanding of faith in Christ. In addition, it treats the Catholic understanding of grace as though it were nominalistic, like the Protestant notion of grace. And hence it sets up the bizarre false dichotomy by which rewards for Christians are either little trinkets God throws in like they do at the drive-in window at McDonalds when you order a Happy Meal, or else you’re a Judaizer who thinks you can earn your way to heaven with your own righteousness. Perhaps, if you consider the possibility that there are other ways of understanding what grace is (think of St. Thomas Aquinas, for example), you’ll see that as a false dichotomy. And that’s precisely what’s going on in Trent 6.10. That false dichotomy is rejected.
In saving us, Christ does not rob us. He does not take away from us the great gift of participating in our own [increase in] justification, by faith working through love. I say ‘rob’ because Adam and Eve were given this, and Christ’s salvation does not take it away from us. You’re fine with participation in sanctification. But in Catholic theology there is no actual difference between justification and sanctification. A person is initially and instantly 100% justified, and initially and instantly 100% sanctified, because of the presence of sanctifying grace (i.e. a participation in the life of God), by which we are made friends of God. So given that you agree that we participate in our sanctification, and given the Catholic understanding that justification and sanctifying do not refer to different states of the soul, you wouldn’t oppose the notion of participating in our own justification. Of course you don’t accept the identification of justification and sanctification. But then that’s really where you should be focusing your criticism, not constructing the strawman that Trent teaches justification by works.
Finally, your last citation intended to show that Trent’s notion of justification is incompatible with Scripture is Titus 3:4-7:
St. Paul is here talking about initial justification, as can be seen by the fact that he brings in baptism (i.e. “washing of regeneration”). It was the Catholic Church that condemned Pelagianism. The Church, at the Second Council of Orange and at the Council of Trent, condemned the notion that we are justified by our own works. That’s what Trent 6.1 is saying. And that’s what the first two canons of Trent 6 condemn:
Pelagianism is what these two canons of Trent are condemning, and Pelagianism is what St. Paul is denying in Titus 3:4-7. St. Paul is not saying anything about or against the possibility of increasing justification by faith working through love, once in a state of grace.
I hope that I have shown here exactly why these verses are not at odds with the teaching of the Council of Trent, and why it is so important to keep in mind the distinction between justification as the “translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior” (Trent 6.4) and the increase in justification (Trent 6.10). Treating the two as though they are one thing, and then saying that that one thing is opposed to particular claims in Scripture, constructs a strawman by over-simplifying the Catholic doctrine.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Ray
Excellent thoughts.
I agree with your comments regarding the issue of Church authority and how it boils down to, in my opinion, an epistemological gap between Catholics and Protestants. In my journey, the inconsistency of the Protestant position regarding Church authority has shown me why I can never be Protestant again.
It seems the presuppostional method employed by modern Reformed Protestants has created an epistemological barrier that is hard for the non-presuppostionalist to penetrate.
It’s always good to hear a refreshing perspective on these issues.
Thanks
Andy
Andrew,
First of all, the distinctions which Bryan has been describing (insofar as you are referring to Trent’s distinction between initial and subsequent justification, at least) have been explicitly acknowledged by me throughout this thread. As some readers may recall, I myself brought up the distinction in response to Jeremy’s failure to admit that justification, for Trent, comprehended more than the initiation into the state of grace.
I’m not responding to everything you have said about justification, James and Paul, etc., because I think the same issues come up in other posts that I plan on responding to.
Ray,
The underlying assumption there is not that the sole determinant of whether a given understanding of justification is correct is whether it comports with Scripture. The assumption, rather, which the Catholic accepts, is that consistency with Scripture is a necessary condition for its being correct. Nothing about my statement to Bryan presupposes a distinctly Protestant or Reformed epistemology or ecclesiology.
I don’t disagree that there are significantly divergent episstemological frameworks in protestant/Catholic discussions. But it’s less clear to me how that has been relevant in the thread. In fact, my first post (comment #1) addressed this issue (implicitly). There I distinguished (I think) between an “external” and “internal” critique. The former would involve arguing that the Catholic is not justified in taking a certain thing to be an infallible source of theological belief or dogma (e.g., the RC magisteirum). An internal critique however would attempt to show an inconsistency between a view’s beliefs. It does not, in principle at least, require disagreeing over ultimate epistemology to argue that one thing a view takes as authoritative contradicts another the view takes as authoritative. For instance one can argue, without assuming any peculiarly Mormon epistemology, that Mormonism has problems because of an inconsistency between Mormon doctrine and Scripture (which the Mormon accepts as true).
I don’t disagree. In fact my agreement here has been at the heart of my concern. Scripture AND magisterium are both infallible and authoritative. Precisely because of this, if there is an inconsistency between the two then the view has a problem. If one of the two were fallible, then one could accept one an reject the other (at least on that particular point). Nor would I disagree that whether one holds to the magisterium or not may seriously influence one’s interpretation of Scripture.
In light of your admission that for the RC one’s biblical exegesis is constrained by what the magisterium has said; is it really the case that on one view there are two ultimate infallible guides but on the other only one ultimate infallible guide? Is it not rather a case of each one having one ultimate infallible guide; though one of these positions (RC) also has a derivative (non-ultimate or less ultimate) infallible guide?
Of course, this applies to anyone, RC or Prot. If a RC in good conscience is convinced that a biblical passage conflicts with a conciliar pronouncement then s/he must part with the pronouncement.
Where have I assumed, in anything I’ve said in this thread, in adjudicating the nature of justification, Sola Scriptura? I haven’t. Again I agree that there are fundamental epistemological issues at work; but it doesn’t follow that one cannot raise a concern with an alternative view without assuming a foreign epistemology. One can put oneself in the position of the other person and argue something from within their framework. E.g., I can put myself in the Mormon position and try and convince one that certain Mormon doctrine is inconsistent with Scripture that that very person believes is God’s word. I am making a methodological point here, not asserting that such an “internal” problem in fact exists for the RC.
Ray, objections have been made against me in this thread without addressing these particular “rules of the game” “up front.” Have I been entitled to respond to them or not? Must I assume a Protestant epistemology to question the relevance of a patristic quote; or to identify what I take to be invalid or question-begging arguments; or to correct misrepresentations of Protestantism; or to criticize a copy-pasted argument against sola fide; etc.? Must I assume a Protestant epistemology to explain how one might synthesize justification by faith alone with final judgment in accordance with works in Scripture? And has Bryan been entitled to respond to what I’ve said with biblical exegesis of his own; which does not hang crucially on any appeal to the RC magisterium? I think he is perfectly entitled to; and further that it is relevant and helpful for the Prot.RC divide. I think Bryan’s recent exegesis of passages I cited has been (at least for me) the most helpful thing in this thread; and the most likely way of getting me to doubt my antecedent convictions (which does not imply, in and of itself, that it is likely =]). Everything does not hang on the ecclesiological/epistemological differences between P/RC; because there is common ground. If there were no common ground, this would not work; but there is common ground. For example, a Prot. and RC can both have a basic grasp of the English language (or Greek/Hebrew, as the case may be in some cases) and reading comprehension skills such that they can interact with a Scriptural passage. I do not say there is complete overlap (for each may have different factors influencing his reading of the text) but some overlap.
In case it’s not clear, likewise! What I said earlier doesn’t imply otherwise:
You claim I asserted that I “have no “desire” to read articles which focus on the deepest source of division between us,” but this is false. What I said was I have no time or desire to read articles on this site. There is a vast difference between lacking time and desire (at the time of writing, by the way; it wasn’t a claim about a life plan) to read other CTC article and lacking time/desire to be informed, more generally, about the deepest source of division between us; especially when I already have something of a grip on these sources of division. (There is nothing in my words suggesting I was ignorant about these sources of division and yet was unwilling to discover them.)
To conclude/emphasize, I deny that the discussion in this thread has presupposed any such framework. But again I agree with much of what you’ve been saying.
wilkins,
This is a misrepresentation. You’ve omitted key words in the quotations (e.g., “on the site”), as well as inserted the quotations into different contexts than the one in which I made the statements. Anyone who was following the discussion could tell that I was saying that I was not going to (at that time) read the articles that had been hyperlinked. The context was that of some articles being hyperlinked; and of my explaining why I wasn’t going to read them. But you’ve ignored that and by reproducing my words in between your words here made it appear as if I were saying that, in general, I am not one who researches or reads Catholics. Such is hardly what I said, and it would be fallacious to infer it from what I said; since such an inference would depend on the premise that the CtC web site (and the articles therein) is the only place on Planet Earth from which one might have (either in the past, present, or future) learn(ed) something about Roman-Catholicism.
You then tried, it seemed, to point out a tension between my claim (to Tim), one the one hand, that
and, on the other, my claim that I
First of all, what is the referent/antecedent of the pronoun ‘it’ in the first quote? You don’t even say, and yet that would be absolutely crucial for the quotation’s being meaningful at all. There is no tension between these remarks at all, because one could have provided the evidence or citation in the very comment-section of this thread; and I would have read it. Hyperlinking is not the only way to convey information to me; and hence it is hardly objectionable for me to ask someone to provide evidence, rather than just an assertion, while also saying that I don’t have the time to read hyperlinked articles. For example, Jeremy quoted part of an article by Bryan on sola fide in this thread and I interacted with it.
Your accusations concerning my reading of Trent displays the same kinds of confusion. You show no recognition of the context of my discussion with Jeremy and how that relates to the meaning of what I’ve said. When I appealed to Bryan’s claims, in talking to Jeremy, I didn’t appeal to Bryan to demonstrate any point (much less “unwittingly”) that Bryan should not himself agree with. Jeremy was failing to concede that works justify according to Trent, and I quoted Bryan affirming that they do. Bryan has been clear on the matter, and I don’t see how he would disagree with my using his words to emphasize this point to Jeremy. The reason I described Bryan as “a Catholic” was because in the context of talking to Jeremy I was emphasizing that an interpretation of Trent according to which works justify was not being provided only by “the Protestant” (me).
You claim, repeatedly, that I have mischaracterized the Catholic Church and have given an “unrecognizable” (to the Catholic) interpretation of Trent; but you don’t explain any of this. How have I provided an incorrect interpretation of Trent? I have been very careful in this thread to distinguish initial justification and increase of justification, and to explain what I meant by using ‘justification’ to refer to both of these together.
Tom,
I think the second claim might have been rude, not the first (about not coming to CtC to research). Is it really that surprising? In general, is it not the case that people learn things from books, for example, and come to the internet to dialogue?
Do you really think that what I have gotten in this thread is like being served a meal?
I didn’t say there was not anything compelling about CtC. I said that, based on what I had read in the thread up to the time of my writing, I did not have much reason to think the arguments in the hyperlinked articles would be overly compelling. It may have been a bad thing to say (even if warranted), and it may have been unwarranted (and hence bad for two reasons); but let’s be clear about what I actually said. As for why would I spend my time dialoguing, your question seems to presuppose that one would not dialogue with someone unless one found him compelling. Am I to infer that you either don’t want to dialogue with me or that you find me compelling?
In this thread, I have been at pains to correct someone’s claims about Reformed thought on this score. So I don’t think this comment is warranted, even if it has been warranted for you to make in other contexts or conversations.
Andrew,
I said I did not (at the time of writing) have the time or desire to read certain hyperlinked articles on ecclesiology. Let me clarify: by lacking the desire I did not mean that I had no desire or interest, but that any such interest was outweighed by something else. I certainly “had my say” in my first comment in the thread. Much of what has followed, however, has consisted of my defending either my theology from objections or an interpretation of Trent from objections or my theology from misrepresentation. One almost gets the impression from your remarks that I have been ignoring criticisms or objections in the thread because of being busy making assertions. This is hardly the case.
In order to justify the claim that it was a “blatant and gratuitious ad hominem,” you would need to show that my suggestion was unwarranted by his words (there by making it gratuitous, and “blatant” in any objectionable sense). I haven’t seen anything to make me doubt that it was warranted; and I note that in your response to this suggestion, by way of defending him, you do not quote anything he said.
Are you sure? He said e.g. that “a grace that transforms is more powerful (and loving) than a grace which allows us to rot in our sin,” in context implying that he is contrasting the RC and Prot views. If you want to defend the idea that my suggestion was gratuitous then explain how this claim accurately represents Reformed thought. Is not Reformed thought absolutely clear on whether or not God’s grace allows us to rot in our sin?
In order for this to be relevant, it would need to be shown that this is all he was saying. But I don’t think you can do that. I think the spirit of his posts is changed if one re-casts them in a way such that all that is really being said is that the justifying act/event itself is distinct from such other (as the WCF puts it) “saving graces.”
Guess again.
Tim,
I said to you:
(bolded in my quotation now, not the original.) First of all, though it isn’t clear from my words the scope of my comment was not meant to apply to all CtC articles but to the ones that were being hyperlinked in the thread. After thinking more about it in light of other people’s responses, I think I was wrong to say this. Even if my judgment were justified, I’m not convinced it would have been appropriate to say; and I’m also not convinced it was justified. For, the nature of an article may be naturally expected to be different from the nature of (at least relatively) off-the-cuff comments in a combox; in multiple ways (e.g., length, the time put into it, etc.). One may easily find one compelling even if one does not find the other compelling. Further, part of what was in the background when I made the judgment was selections from an article, posted in the thread, that wasn’t even written by you (these selections being, in my view, uncompelling). So, I regret saying it, both because I think it was wrong (in virtue of being unnecessary and offensive in effect (though not intent)) and stupid.
Bryan,
Thanks for this post. I’m honored you took the time and care to deal with all those passages I cited. I am willing to discuss all of the passages (and I read your entire post), but I don’t see the utility (or the practical possibility, at least for me) in discussing them all at once. So I’ll just comment in this reply on the first one you quote (from Rom. 3); though doing this will inevitably bring up other passages too. Before getting to your comments on the text, I want to try to explain how my belief that the said passages are inconsistent with Trent does not imply my presenting a straw man of Trent.
I have distinguished initial justification and increase (over and over…). You need to distinguish between a straw man and a false interpretation of Scripture (and an argument based on such an interpretation). I have expressed the belief that Trent’s teaching on justification is inconsistent with parts of Scripture that says justification is not by works. This does not imply that I have misunderstood (or misrepresented/straw-manned) Trent’s teaching. It could be that I am just wrong that the Scripture are inconsistent with my (correct, one may suppose) understanding of Trent. My claim about the inconsistency between Trent and Scripture (on justification’s not being by works) would only imply a straw man if I could only affirm the said inconsistency if I misunderstood Trent. This is false. Trent speaks of the initiation into grace as justification. It also speaks of subsequent good works in cooperation with grace as justification (“being further justified”). Suppose I thought that Trent were incompatible with the relevant Scripture (on justification’s not being by works) simply because of the latter; that is, because I thought these verses were inconsistent with Trent’s teaching on increases in justification. This kind of complaint would not depend in any way either on failing to distinguish initial justification and the increases, in Trent, or in illegitimately lumping them together into one whole or one thing, in Trent. Perhaps I would be wrong in thinking the relevant Scripture to be inconsistent with Trent’s teaching here. But in such a case the problem would be in my interpretation of Scripture (or in my judgment that the interpretation of Scripture and the interpretation of Trent were inconsistent), not in an interpretation of Trent. In your posts to me in this thread it is clear that you’ve identified some potential stumbling blocks that might cause a Protestant to conclude that Trent’s teaching is inconsistent with Scripture; but there are other ways one might be led to the conclusion, ways that do not depend on the errors that you keep warning against (either (1) conflating, i.e., failing to distinguish, or (2) summing, i.e., making a new, third thing out of, initial justification and increases in justification).
(my bold) Here you illegitimately equate the idea that Galatians’ teaching here is inconsistent with Trent’s teaching on growth in justification (an idea about Galatians) with presupposing the falsity of the Catholic doctrine. One can think the distinction between initial and increased justification an unbiblical one (a belief about Scripture), yet understand that it is a Tridentine one (a belief about Trent’s teaching), and then infer an inconsistency between Trent and Scripture. One may be wrong in so doing, but it could be because one got Scripture wrong, and not because one misrepresented Trent. Here you acknowledge the distinction I have urged:
You acknowledge that the options are not limited to misunderstanding (and so presumably, to straw-manning) Trent. But then you continue, in subsequent portions of your post (which I won’t quote), to again fail to distinguish between a straw man and a misunderstanding of Scripture, accusing me of straw-manning when what you seem to really mean is either straw-manning or misunderstanding Scripture.
I don’t think anything I’ve said implies that I am setting up a false dichotomy (though the dichotomy you’ve stated here is not clear enough to me to know how to evaluate it). Is it not possible that a Protestant might actually understand the Catholic view when it comes to justification, merit, and eternal life; and yet still think it false? Or must we all just fail to see it for what it really is? Further, it’s an open question just how “legalistic” (my term, not yours) the Judaizers were.
I was going to turn to the passage now (Rom. 3.20-28), but I think I’ll go ahead and post what I have. I’ll try to post the rest in the near future.
Dan,
Thanks for your reply. I don’t think you need to go through each of those passages that I interacted with, in order to get to the bottom of our disagreement. (Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that that wouldn’t be helpful; besides, it would be a lot of work for both of us.) I’m trying to figure out how we can get to the bottom of the cause of the disagreement.
Sure.
Sure. I don’t disagree. (I’ll come back to this below.)
Yes, I don’t deny that this is possible.
So, you said, “One can think the distinction between initial and increased justification an unbiblical “. I always try to disambiguate the term ‘unbiblical’, indicating whether one means “contrary to the Bible” or “not found in the Bible”. Here are my questions, to try to get to the heart, or root, of our disagreement: First, is your concern that the distinction between initial and increased justification is contrary to Scripture, or is your concern that the distinction between initial and increased justification is not found in Scripture? Second, if the former [i.e. the distinction is "contrary to Scripture"], then which verses in Scripture are incompatible, in your opinion, with the distinction between initial and increased justification? If the latter [i.e. the distinction is "not found in Scripture"], that will lead us into a different (non-exegetical) discussion. But knowing which way your concern goes, will help us put our finger on the point of disagreement.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Dan,
Go back and read the comments. Jeremy was explicitly discussing justification. In order to take his comments about grace as evidence of a lack of understanding of the Reformed position, you would have to assume that he was intending to critique Reformed soteriology as a whole. But the topic under consideration was justification, which, according to Jeremy, is what the Reformed tend to emphasize when discussing God’s grace (with this qualification, he clearly acknowledges that the Reformed do not believe that justification is the only gift of God’s grace). Charity demands that we not assume that our interlocutor is ignorant when other explanations lie ready to hand. Another explanation would hinge upon the facts that the commentor in question is a student at a Reformed seminary, and that he was clearly discussing justification, wherein the grace of God(on the Reformed view) leaves us precisely rotting in our sins (simul iustus et peccator).
And welcome back to the site.
hey Dan,
i don’t believe i’ve misrepresented your comments; at least, i didn’t omit words so as to disguise or trick and defame: bracket and ellipsis are used, in fact, to announce the removal of words, which was only meant to reduce their number but retain the tone and general intent of the material quoted; furthermore, the thread is there as a resource, as you said.
of course, i may have completely misunderstood you—being confused… failing to recognize the context and its relation to the meaning intended by the words… and all that. what i heard you saying, more or less, is that Trent preaches justification by works, in opposition to the Bible which says we’re justified apart from works—a damning incompatibility that still hasn’t been addressed in a way you find sufficiently compelling.
admittedly, i’m not the best listener, and i don’t want to hear wrong. thus, i’ll zip it, stow it, stifle it, and try to listen harder by God’s grace.
peace,
wilkins
Jeremy,
In post #48 you said
Can your explain what the Protestant and Catholic understanding of “works” is?
Can you also clarify what you meant by “strickly declaratory and external”?
Thanks
At least we agree Paul is not referring to increase in justification here =]. You’ve distinguished between initial J, increases-in-J, and final J; and you take certain instances of ‘justification’ / ‘justify’ (dikaiow) to refer only to initial J. Both with this passage and others I cited you claimed that when Paul mentioned justification he was talking about initial J. (The particular relevance of this for harmonizing Scripture with Trent is that Trent affirms that initial justification is “apart from works,” so if, when excluding works from justification, Paul is merely referring to initial J then he is not saying anything not also said by Trent.) But do you think there are any uses of the term that refer to increase-in-justification? That is, does Scripture ever use ‘justify’ to refer to what Trent is talking about when it speaks of being “further justified” Or, does Scripture every use ‘justify’ to refer to “final justification” apart from “initial justification”? This is not logically necessary for Scripture’s allowing for these distinctions; but it is something one would expect were it to do so, and it would make the distinctions much easier to defend. Off the top the only places I can think of which you might think use the term to refer either to increase-in-J or final J are Rom. 2.13 and Jas. 2.21-25. I’ll discuss the former, both because you cited it and because it’s (particularly) relevant for interpreting Rom. 3; but if you think that the latter passage includes uses of ‘justify’ that refer to one of these two things then, should you bring it in to try and defend your distinctions, we’ll discuss it too.
You say Paul is not here referring to “growing in grace (i.e., increasing in justification)”. These are not necessarily the same thing. Justification for Trent involves not only growing in intrinsic justice but also meriting eternal life thereby. Hence, the distinction between initial and subsequent justification (increases) cannot be defended merely by noting that one can grow in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. And, it would be unsound to object to an argument to the effect that Paul is talking about more than merely “initial justification” in Rom. 3 merely by noting/arguing that one can grow in grace.
You say that
, suggesting that Rom. 2.13 is talking about final J (as you have used it, such that it is distinct from initial J). If you take issue with the following characterizations, then provide new ones, but I take it that by “initial J” you mean a transition (which may happen more than once in the case of those who sin mortally) into a state of grace involving friendship with God, forgiveness of sins, and inner renewal; and by “final J,” God’s granting on the day of judgment eternal life to one in virtue of whatever “by” or “through” which one is (finally) “justified”.
2.13 is preceded by vv. 5-6 – “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds… And vv. 7-8 indicate that the relevant outcomes of the rendering are only two: eternal life or wrath. Then comes 2.13, implying that the justification in view involves a verdict of eternal life (instead of wrath) on this day of wrath/revelation.
Why should we take the referent of ‘justify’ to have changed; such that in one case Paul refers to “final J” (2.13) and in another “initial J” (3.20)? Aren’t these significantly different concepts, one concerning the transition into a (mutable) sanctified state of friendship with God, the other to a verdict of eternal life on the day of wrath/judgment? Where in the context or the flow of Paul’s thought from Rom. 2 to Rom. 3 does he change the subject from “justification” in one sense to “justification” in the other? In order to sustain your interpretation (where in the relevant instances in Rom. 3 Paul is referring merely to initial J when he uses ‘justify’) you would need either to argue that Paul is also using ‘justify’ in this way in 2.13 (which I don’t think you believe, because of your citation of 2.13 in connection with final J) or to justify (no pun intended) the interpretive switch; by which we are to interpret justification in Rom. 3 in this different way. If Paul has not made such a switch (in terms of his own intention in writing), then justification in Rom. 3 includes more than merely transition into a sanctified state of friendship with God; but beyond that (though not necessarily to its exclusion) the last day’s verdict of eternal life as opposed to wrath.
The fact that “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight” is connected to the fact that the Law closes every mouth and makes everyone accountable to God. Is this not a continuation of what Paul was doing with the Law in Rom. 2; closing mouths, so to speak? That is, is it not the case that in Rom. 2 Paul explains that the Jew (in all likelihood) who judges others is himself guilty of breaking the Law, and will therefore receive wrath rather than justification on the day of judgment, unless he repents; and that in Rom. 3 he is continuing this same point, that of guilt before the law (though universalizing it here to Jews and Gentiles – 3.9)? If Paul is continuing in the same vein, then when the indictment is made in 3.9f. ending with what we’ve quoted from 3.19-20, with “by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight,” on what basis do we conclude that the nature of “justification” has switched, so as to refer to something else (despite Paul’s using the same word (dikaiow))?
If you cannot sustain your interpretive switch, according to which in the relevant places in Rom. 3 Paul merely meant that
(my emphasis), then it seems we have a problem with Trent. For Trent is clear that by doing good works one increases one’s justification and merits eternal life (e.g., chapter 16). But if Paul’s point is that the justification by which one is granted eternal life is such that no flesh will receive it by works (not because it is not offered on the basis of works – 2.13 – but because no one keeps the Law sufficiently so as to be justified on that basis – 3.20b), then Trent seems to be affirming while Paul denying that people are “justified by works” in the sense of being granted eternal life in virtue of one’s works.
Other passages that mention recompense according to deeds (aside from Rom. 2.6) can and may come up; but for now I just note that I’ve already said something about the issue in #35.
Ah yes, justification, an act of God’s free grace whereby he alloweth one to rot in his sin. Andrew, his remarks really seem to have been made about the transformative role of grace more generally, not justification alone; and insofar as we interpret them as being about justification alone they become inane (is it more charitable to take them that way?) Obviously a verdict of righteousness declared outside of one does not itself transform one or pull them out of a state of sin. The grace God puts in one does that! How is it relevant at all to note that something happening outside one is not something happening inside one; unless, of course, one is erroneously thinking (as the remarks naturally suggest) that there is something lacking within one; for the Protestant?
Bryan,
Regarding your last post to me, by ‘unbiblical’ I would mean inconsistent with the Bible and by ‘extra-Biblical’ not taught in the Bible. Something may be extra-biblical without being unbiblical; but anything unbiblical is (trivially) extra-biblical. I think the passages I cited are inconsistent with Trent’s teaching on justification, such that Trent’s teaching on justification is not merely extra-biblical but unbiblical.
Dan, (re: #74)
You asked the following question:
Yes. In Romans 6, St. Paul begins by asking about the increase of grace, whether it is through continuing to sin. And his answer is ‘no.’ By our union with Christ we are to walk in newness of life (Rom 6:4), alive to God in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:11). Then he says,
But this term [δικαιοσύνης] is the same term translated as justification. Translating it as “instruments of righteousness” often prevents us from hearing it as “instruments of justification.” To be an instrument of justification is (among other things) to be a means by which justification (righteousness) is increased. That’s why he goes on to say:
Obedience “resulting in righteousness” is obedience that results in justification. He is not here talking about initial justification. But neither is he here talking [directly] about final justification on the Day of Judgment. In the context, it is clear that he is talking about growing in righteousness in our daily lives, i.e. increasing in justification, because he is contrasting it with continuing to live in sin. This growth in righteousness takes place [in part] through our obedience, for he says:
Becoming obedient from the heart, and slaves of righteousness, and presenting the members of our bodies as slaves to righteousness, results in sanctification. It results in a growth or increase in holiness and righteousness. And the end or goal [telos] to which that holiness and righteousness is ordered, is “eternal life,” as he explains in Romans 6:22.
The fruit or benefit or reward of our sanctification, is eternal life. So insofar as we, by our obedience to righteousness, grow in sanctification, and thus grow in righteousness (and justification), by growing in our participation in the life of God (i.e. growing in grace), we merit the eternal life that has already been given to us as a gift in Christ Jesus.
Elsewhere St. Paul speaks of cleansing ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. (2 Cor 7:1) Perfecting holiness involves an increase in righteousness, and thus an increase in justification. And since he is saying that we are to do this, it follows that we are to participate in increasing our justification.
And this increase in justification (or growth in righteousness) is what St. James is speaking of in James 2, when he writes:
This isn’t initial justification, again, because that would be Pelagianism. Nor is it final justification, because James speaks of it in the past tense, as something that occurred at the moment Abraham (and Rahab) acted. Rather, James is talking about growing in righteousness. A true faith, i.e. a living faith, is perfected through good works, because through these good works the agent grows in righteousness, i.e. in justification.
You also asked:
If by ‘apart’ you are referring to the “speaking” and not to the justification (since no one can be finally justified who is not initially justified, though final justification can be spoken of without speaking of initial justification), then yes. We see this, for example in Matthew 12, where Jesus says:
We see this idea also in Romans 2, where St. Paul says:
There he speaks of justification in the future tense, and the sense seems to be referring to the Day of Judgment, given the context (Rom 2:3, 5, 6, 7) This same idea can be found in the gospels, when the young man asks Jesus “What good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” Jesus replies, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Matt 19:16-17) Jesus wasn’t a Pelagian. Jesus was speaking the truth. Nor was Jesus commending the [moral] law to him only as a means of showing him his sin. Otherwise, the young man one-upped Jesus by replying, “All these things I have kept”. Nor does Jesus suggest that the your man is lying. The young man had, we presume, kept the commandments, not by his own power or apart from faith, but in faith, hope, and agape. Jesus taught the young man that keeping the moral law, in agape, is a way of obtaining eternal life.
Back to future justification. St. Paul speaks of future justification in Galatians 2:17, where he refers to St. Peter’s sin of hypocrisy, and then says, “But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, …”. The justification he seems to have in mind there is future justification, on the Day of Judgment.
Next you wrote:
“Growing in grace” and “increase in justification,” even if not conceptually identical, are different ways of describing the same thing. You can’t have one without the other. Wherever there is a growth in grace there is an increase in justification, and wherever there is an increase in justification there is a growth in grace.
Next you wrote:
That’s a non sequitur. Just because in Trent the increase in justification “involves” meriting eternal life thereby, it does not follow that the distinction between initial justification and the increase in justification cannot be defended by noting that one can grow in the grace of Christ. The “involvement” as you put it, of meriting eternal life is not essential to the distinction between initial justification and its increase. If it is possible for God to [initially] justify an infant, through the sacrament of baptism, and then in the next moment cause that child to grow in grace through the sacrament of confirmation, and thereby cause the child to [at that moment] grow in righteousness [i.e. increase in justification], even while the infant has not yet exercised his will, and thereby not merited anything, then the distinction between initial justification and the increase in justification can be defended by the possibility of growing in the grace of our Lord Jesus, without bringing in the subject of merit. The Catholic Church recognizes the confirmation of those who were confirmed as infants (after their baptism). Hence, from the Catholic point of view, it is possible to grow in grace (and hence grow in justification), without thereby meriting eternal life. The possibility of meriting eternal life (even though the person is already, by the gift of intrinsic righteousness given through baptism, deserving of eternal life) is a separate question from whether there is a distinction between initial justification and the increase of justification. If your real objection is not to the distinction between initial justification and the increase in justification, but to the possibility of meriting eternal life, once in a state of grace, then we can talk about that.
In talking about Rom 2:13 and Rom 3:20, you go on to say:
In my comment #61, I said the following regarding Rom 3:20, “St. Paul is here referring to initial justification (and final justification insofar as initial justification is necessary for final justification).” No man can be initially justified by works of the Law. That would be Pelagianism. Moreover, for the same reason no one can be finally justified merely by works of the Law. As I explained in my previous comment, they are insufficient to merit eternal life, even if the person without grace and without agape could do them (which he can’t).
St. Paul is not saying (in Rom 3:20) that works of the Law must have no role whatsoever in final justification. Romans chapter 2 helps explain Romans chapter 3. In chapter 2, as I pointed out last time, St. Paul is contrasting those who have faith, but not the Law, and yet keep the law, unto eternal life, with those who have the Law, but not faith, and do not keep the law. The former are righteous Gentiles; the latter are unfaithful Jews. Then in Romans 3 he responds to the objection that there is no benefit in being a Jew. First he establishes that the Law itself doesn’t make Jews better than Gentiles. That’s his purpose in Rom 3:9-20. The [Mosaic] Law, he says, gives [Jews] the knowledge of sin. The [Mosaic] Law per se cannot give them eternal life; rather it has the function of showing them their sin, and pointing them to Christ.
That’s why you shouldn’t read Romans 3:20 as referring to a role of good works in the increase in justification in the life of the New Covenant member, such that God rightly says of that believer on that day “Well done, good and faithful servant”. That’s not at all what St. Paul is talking about in Rom 3:20. He’s talking to (and about) Jews under the Law of Moses, and pointing out that the Law of Moses does not justify them (initially or finally). Rather, as he goes on to explain in Rom 3:21ff, justification (initial and final), even under the Old Covenant, has always been by [living] faith. That’s why he goes on to appeal to the account of Abraham and David. That doesn’t mean that good works done in a state of grace and [living] faith have no role in increasing justification or meriting eternal life with God. That’s simply not what he is addressing there in Romans 3:20.
Hopefully I have explained above that I never limited Rom 3:20 to initial justification, but pointed out that it also includes final justification.
This is, I think, a serious hermeneutical mistake. In Rom 3:20, St. Paul is not speaking about people under the New Covenant. He is speaking about those under the Mosaic Law within the Old Covenant. That’s why he says in Rom 2:12, “For those who have sinned without the Law”, i.e. without the Law of Moses. There (in Rom 2:12) he is talking about Gentiles. It wouldn’t make any sense to talk about sinning without the moral law. That would be a contradiction. Everyone who sins, does what he knows he shouldn’t be doing, i.e. acts contrary to the moral law given to him (at least) in conscience. Who are these Gentiles in Romans 2 who are without the [Mosaic] Law, but who “do instinctively the things of the Law”, and show the Law to be written on their hearts, who, by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life? (Rom 2:14,15,7) They are Gentiles in a state of grace, having faith, hope, and agape. They have been circumcised in the heart, by the Spirit. (Rom 2:29) Romans 3:10-20 is not intended to deny what St. Paul just said in Romans 2 about these righteous Gentiles. Romans 3:10-20 is intended to show the Jews that it is not (and never was) by the Mosaic Law that men were justified before God. So to claim that this verse (Rom 3:20) is opposing the participation by New Covenant believers in the increase in righteousness through their good deeds done in faith, hope and agape, forbidding the possibility that by such deeds they can rightly hear the Father say on that Day “Well done, good and faithful servant; enter into the joy of your master”, is to make the verse say something that St. Paul wasn’t at all intending to say here.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Dan,
Your opening sentence in #75 adequately summarizes the classical Protestant and Reformed view of justification. The critique of this PR opinion is not “inane” in the sense that something that is actually extrinsic is faulted for not being intrinsic. Nor is the critique, in general or in the comments to which you allude, predicated upon the thesis that in PR theology there is no other act of God’s grace whereby one is inwardly changed, so to become a partaker of the divine nature. Rather, the critique of the PR view of justification is that it evinces a seriously flawed view of man’s participation in the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus.
On the theological level, the PR opinion impugns the nature of God and drastically redefines the grace of God at the heart of the Gospel, thus skewing one’s understanding of Redemption. More basically, this opinion evinces a philosophical worldview that is inconsistent with the Christian tradition, East and West, in its turn towards nominalism. Just this morning, I came across a short post by a PR historian on justification as (sola) imputation. In the combox, he was deprecating the “ontological turn” in Catholic theology, urging his fellow confessionalists not to think of sin in terms of a lack of being (link).
This problem (as Catholics see it) is further complicated by the fact that justification as (sola) imputation factors so prominently in PR self-understanding, theological reflection and spirituality. It is not uncommon to see and hear this opinion presented as the sine qua non of the Gospel. Thus Jeremy wrote:
Obviously, Jeremy’s comments are directed towards the inadequacy, on the experiential level, of the PR opinion concerning God’s grace in justification. My take on that opinion is that it drives a life-long wedge between God and redeemed man, as he really is. The teachings on union with Christ, etc., wherein the Calvinist does admit some sort of change in man (perhaps along the moderate lines that you were taking in the deification thread), are nevertheless profoundly affected by the teaching on justification, and do not sufficiently counter-act the basic nominalism of the overall scheme, so to move the believer towards a more realistic, sacramental and (I would argue) biblical awareness of his unity with the Holy Trinity in the Body of Christ. The PR opinion concerning justification (and salvation in general) undermines the power and richness of God’s grace, as a divine attribute shown forth in Christ and extended to us by the sacraments.
PR Christians are, in their theological opinions and in their objective configurations as ecclesial communities, deprived of the fullness of grace offered to those who long to be transformed by participating in the very life of God in Jesus Christ, which is extended to us in sacraments of the Catholic Church, which objectively contain and convey the power and promise of the grace of God unto justification. Therefore, I can only sympathize with Jeremy’s comments, especially his anticipation of receiving the sacraments, which are not understood to be a sort of shell-game (e.g., under which baptism did God give grace?).
Andrew,
I’m going to be charitable and assume that you’re making a joke.
I think this thesis, or something close to it, is implied by his comments. It seems to me you’ve not been vindicating what he said so much as re-casting everything in a (to you) better and more cogent light. But what is relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the propriety of my critical remarks is, after all, what he said; e.g.,:
I think it’s evident whether or not such comments imply and paint a certain picture of what the Protestant position does (and does not) espouse (often by describing the RC view as maintaining something, with the implication that it is unique or distinctive in so doing), when it comes to the existence and necessity of transformative grace in the justified, that is mistaken.
This may be your critique. You then go on to quote some of the comments and then say that “obviously” they refer to an experiential issue, when that is not obvious to me at all. You then criticize the PR position’s view of transformation because it does not involve deification, and because it does not involve the Roman-Catholic sacraments. You might as well say that the PR position is defective here because Protestantism is false. Whether any more grace is to be found in the RC church is obviously at issue; but at any rate this is to get away from the original point, which concerned how to represent the opposing side’s position.
Bryan,
You then give Rom. 6.13 and 6.16 as instances, and appeal to ‘righteousness’ in both cases. You say that the term here, which is the same in both cases, dikaiosunh (by ‘h’ I mean eta), “is the same term translated as justification.” First, this is false; and second, the main term I was interested in was the verb ‘justify’. The NAS has only three instances of the noun ‘justification’, all in Romans (4.25, 5.16, 5.18). In two cases it is a translation of dikaiwsin, and in one case of dikaiwma. As can be surmised from the fact that the NAS only has three instances of ‘justification’, in the vast majority of cases where “justification” comes up in the Bible it is actually the verb ‘justify’ that is in view, rather than a noun (‘justification’). dikaiosunh, the term in 6.13/16 translated ‘righteousness’, is neither either of the terms translated ‘justification’ nor the term for ‘justify’ in all the passages I cited (dikaiow, a verb). Hence, interpretive issues aside in the case of Rom. 6, these couldn’t be examples of places where the Scripture uses the term you took to refer, in Rom. 3, to “initial justification” (dikaiow), to refer to either “increases in justification” or “final justification.” Hence, these verses are not evidence that the semantic range of ‘justify’ (dikaiow) is such that the term can refer to an “increase in justification” or being “further justified.”
Part of the difficulty here is that the English terms ‘justification’ and ‘justify’ seem to be being used in a broad way. Hence it is often not clear how one is supposed to even understand a sentence using one of the terms. Presumably in ‘increase in justification’ ‘justification’ refers to one’s righteousness, such that ‘increase in justification’ is synonymous with ‘increase in righteousness’; and presumably in ‘further justified’ ‘justified’ refers to one’s becoming (more) righteous. In this context “justification” is righteousness and “being justified” is becoming (more) righteous. But now let us turn from ‘increase in justification’ to ‘final justification’. It seems that ‘justification’ as it is used in this phrase means something different, a judgment on God’s part that grants eternal life that is based on one’s righteousness. But then we have a “justification” (in one sense of ‘justification’, involving a rendering or verdict) that is based on “justification” (in a different sense of ‘justification’, namely, one’s righteousness). And what does ‘justification’ mean in ‘initial justification’? Perhaps it refers to both remission of sins and infusion of justice (even though these are two different kinds of things)? The fact that the English ‘justification’ is used in three different phrases, where the phrases seemed to be related to each other as if they denoted different phases on a soteriological spectrum (initial J, increase(s) in J, final J), suggests that there is a common denominator in the meaning of ‘justification’ across its various uses; but it seems that this is in fact false. For example, as just noted, it seems that “justification” when referenced in the phrase ‘final justification’ is a forensic concept (involving a verdict or reward bestowed in a tribunal – as is obviously the case with dikaiow in Rom. 2.13); but that “justification” when referenced in ‘further justified’ or ‘increase in justification’ is not forensic but refers to one’s inner moral state. Because the word seems to be used in a broad way, it is important for one to consider exactly what it means whenever it is used, and it is also important to consider whether the way it is used by one person corresponds to what Scripture means in various places when it uses the word (or the words translated as ‘justify’/’justification’).
Bypassing the problematic lexical reason you gave for treating righteousness as justification, suppose we say that ‘righteousness’ in Rom. 6 (or anywhere else in Romans) means “justification”. If ‘justification’ in this intended sense just means intrinsic or inherent righteousness, then this is irrelevant to our dispute; since of course the Protestant agrees that “justification,” as understood to mean one’s inherent justice/sanctity, can be increased. Nothing about this admission concedes anything to Trent (that is, anything that was originally in dispute), since the question is whether the inherent righteousness of the believer, as it is increased over time, provides a meritorious ground for eternal life’s being granted to one at the eschaton. The Protestant maintains (and my argument about the continuity in the nature of ‘justify’ in Rom. 2 and 3 is meant to support the contention) that there simply isn’t any more eternal life to be merited or otherwise granted in virtue of one’s good works or inherent righteousness that isn’t already secured for one through one’s being justified by faith.
But of course, I don’t think ‘justification’ is a legitimate word to use to refer to righteousness, dikaiosunh. Supposing now that ‘justification’ picks out the denotation of the verb ‘justify’ (dikaiow), the main word at issue, justification and righteousness are different things. Of course, (the term translated) ‘justify’ and (the term translated) ‘righteousness’ are cognates, and as such it is not surprising that there is an important connection between them in meaning (both involve righteousness in some way). Righteousness is righteousness while justification is something that happens with respect to righteousness/justice. E.g., it may be an acquittal (declaring one to be righteous), a vindication (showing one to be righteous), a transformation (making one to be righteous) (one might think; I am dubious as to this notion’s being in the semantic range). If uses of dikaiow in Jas. 2 refer to what Trent means by being “further justified,” then the semantic range of dikaiow presumably also allows for the term to refer to one’s becoming (more) righteous. But even in this case, there is a distinction between righteousness and being (further) justified.
I don’t want to deny that Abraham or Rahab grew in righteousness, but it’s not clear at all that “James is talking about growing in righteousness” (as in, this is the point he is after). I’ll first (1) explain why one might propose an alternative, and then (2) present negative considerations against the view that in using ‘justify’ James is talking about increase in inherent righteousness.
(1) Let’s note the broader context. “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works?” (2.14) “…and I will show you my faith by my works.” (2.18) And then right up before the beginning of the passage you quoted (reproduced above): “But are you willing to recognize…that faith without works is useless?” Then we get the bit about Abraham and Rahab and their each being justified by works. Then afterwards, concluding the section, “…so also faith without works is dead.” So we have the phrase ‘faith without works’ bookending the bit on justification by works, and in a few places before that the issue of one’s saying one has faith and of one’s showing that one has faith. It is evident that James is not focusing on an increase in inherent righteousness in Abraham/Rahab (which does not mean there was not one) but rather on the necessary co-existence of works with saving faith. Two points are emphasized. First, that works demonstrate the genuineness of one’s faith. This fits with the meaning of ‘justify’ and answers to the contextual issue of one’s showing that he has faith. Second, that works not only demonstrate faith but are in fact necessary for its really existing. Abraham’s faith was perfected by the work; and faith without works is dead (not merely un-demonstrated). These are distinct points: works show that one has faith, but are also indissolubly connected to faith (the former would be explained by the latter).
(It may also be possible that ‘justify’ is used not in a demonstrative sense (showing/proving something to be the case) but in a more forensic sense of declaration or acquittal at a tribunal. Because of Rahab’s work she was spared the destruction of Jericho, and God’s promise to Abraham about his having descendants etc. was re-emphasized after his trial. In both cases beneficent outcomes are premised on the work done. So it’s possible that James is referring, by their justifications by works, to the favor shown them by God subsequent to the works in virtue of those works. Insofar as James uses ‘justify’ in a forensic sense of acquittal or judgment of righteousness, the ground of the justification focuses more on the inherent righteousness of the person more generally; but insofar as James intends ‘justify’ in a demonstrative sense (showing something), the thing demonstrated would seem to focus on the person’s faith. However, James doesn’t seem to bring up these broader contextual facts (about the respective trials and rewards for success), and as already noted the context involves showing that one has faith; hence making the “demonstrative” rather than “acquittal” sense of ‘justify’ more likely. But in either case we are well within the semantic range of ‘justify’, and no where near the Tridentine notion of ‘justification’ in the sense of one’s inherent righteousness’s being increased.)
(2) So there is an alternative interpretation (or two) of the passage that in no way implies that the semantic range of ‘justify’ can include either an infusion of inherent righteousness or a growth in an already-present inherent righteousness. There are further problems with such a view. The most serious one is that either the infusion of or the growth in inherent righteousness simply does not appear to be within the semantic range of ‘justify’ (dikaiow). Further, James does not speak of the relevant works (the ones that justify) as increasing one’s inherent righteousness. Rather, he speaks of works as perfecting faith, showing faith, and as being such that faith is dead without them. In every case, the idea is that the works supplement the faith somehow; he doesn’t talk about any increase in one’s state of inherent righteousness in general. If James were talking about increase in inherent righteousness in general, the focus on faith would not even be necessary. He could just talk about how in cooperating with grace in doing good works one is further “justified”; faith would of course be part of this, but not anything worth mentioning as a distinctive theme in its own right. But James isn’t doing that; he’s talking about how the works relate to faith, not inherent righteousness and its growth.
(my bold) I think that Jesus showed that the man had not kept the commandments. He had failed to keep the penultimate commandment to love his neighbor as himself, as attested by his response when Jesus calls for him to sell his possessions and give them to the poor. The man’s claim ‘All these things I have kept’, far from one-upping Jesus, simply revealed the level of his sinful state (his ignorance of the demands of the law) and further exacerbated it (by being a false and arrogant claim). This issue relates to our exegesis of Rom. 2 and 3, for a key issue is the relation of the works-principle of obtaining life (enunciated by Paul in Rom. 2 and by Jesus here and elsewhere) and justification by faith in Rom. 3 and elsewhere.
I don’t see the basis for this judgment. Both before and after this statement he refers to justification by faith and not by works of the law; and there is no contextual clue that he has briefly, simply for the extent of this phrase, switched gears to talk about a “justification” on the day of judgment that is not by faith apart from works but rather by, at least in part, works. The phrase ‘while seeking to be justified’ does not seem to necessarily imply a seeking to be justified in the future.
The necessity of growth in grace for the Christian was never in dispute in the Reformation; so how is merely noting that one can grow in grace supposed to legitimize Trent’s understanding of justification? It doesn’t.
If you’re only interested in defending the distinction without the existence of any merit annexed to one’s inherent righteousness, then I don’t need to object to anything (except the confusing and inappropriate – in my view – use of the word ‘justify’ to refer to the growth in inherent righteousness). But I think we both know that isn’t the case, since Trent’s understanding of justification and its increase only becomes relevant for the dispute with Protestantism when such increase is understood as implying more than merely that one can grow in inherent righteousness (since, again, this has never been in dispute).
Turning now to Rom. 2 and 3 and justification therein, it’s still not clear to me exactly what your view is when it comes to Paul’s use of ‘justify’ in both Rom. 2.13 and 3.20. I previously thought you were saying that justification in 3.20 refers to initial J, and therefore Paul is not denying that works enter into justification (they can enter into increase-in-J and final J). But now I am thinking that you take justification in 3.20 to refer both to initial J and final J, and that the reason this is compatible with Tridentine theology is that the works being excluded from justification are only a certain kind of works, involving the keeping of the Mosaic Law by the Jew; whereas the kinds of works that can increase justification for Trent are a different kind of works. That is, it now seems that in your view Paul is not necessarily focusing on initial J, but that, whatever he is focusing on, he is not denying that works justify but that the Mosaic Law can justify.
For the sake of understanding your view, can you explain what you think ‘justify’ means in 2.13 and what ‘justify’ (same word) means in 3.20? This is important because this word is at the heart of the discussion, and also because it’s difficult to see how 3.20 could be talking both about initial J and final J; since they are such different things. Is Paul intending to convey two distinct ideas (layers of meaning) with ‘justify’ in 3.20? Or is he referring to one thing that somehow comprehends both initial and final J?
It’s puzzling that you speak of one hypothetically doing the works of the Law without grace and love. Without love for God and neighbor one cannot do the works of the Law (as in, what the Law actually requires). Further, why is the hypothetical doing of the works of the Law necessarily insufficient for meriting eternal life? Does not Paul clearly say in Rom. 2 that the doer of the Law will be justified? Supposing someone actually kept the law perfectly, would not that entitle him to eternal life (because of God’s offer of life on that basis)? Doing the works of the Law is no slight matter; to say that one “merely” keeps the works of the Law is like saying that one “merely” lived a life of loving God with all his heart etc. and his neighbor as himself (which is unpacked in the Decalogue in specific ways, this Decalogue itself being further unpacked (and revealed to be more stringent and demanding) in Christ’s sermon on the mount)). If one did this, then by the words of Paul in Rom. 2 and of Christ, such a person would receive eternal life.
The contrast is not between righteous Gentiles and unrighteous Jews. If Paul says anything in chapters 1 through 3 it is that everyone is unrighteous! He nails Gentiles in ch. 1, and then in ch. 2 he turns to the Jews and nails them too. Then in ch. 3 he repeats both ideas, multiple times: v. 9 – “…both Jews and Greeks are all under sin…”; v. 19 – “…and all the world may become accountable to God…”; v. 20 – “…because by the works of the Law no flesh [a comprehensive term] will be justified…”. 2.12-13: “For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” Paul is not here contrasting righteous Gentiles and unrighteous Jews, but contrasting two ways of falling under judgment (under the Law and without the Law). There is a contrast between keeping the Law and breaking the Law, but this is not a Jew-Gentile contrast. The contrast is between being justified by doing the Law (whether one is Jew or Gentile) and being condemned for failing to do the Law (whether one is Jew or Gentile).
Further, note that Paul never says that anyone from either category (Jew, Gentile) actually sufficiently keeps the Law so as to be justified in God’s sight. 2.14-15 does not say this, but only says that the Gentiles have the law written on the heart, and conscience, such that they can differentiate between when they do something good and something bad. It doesn’t say that they ever actually keep the law sufficiently so as to be considered “doers of the law” who will be justified on the day of wrath. Nor does 2.6-11 and 2.13. These places lay out the principle upon which God makes judgment on the day of wrath, according to which obedience results in justification (and thereby eternal life), disobedience condemnation; but Paul does not say that anyone actually meets the criteria of obedience required to be recompensed life instead of wrath. The fact that wrath is the anticipated consequence of the day of judgment for all people (Jew, Gentile) in Paul’s mind, were God to judge based on the works principle in 2.6 and 2.13, is conveyed in a multiplicity of ways: e.g., the whole tenor of 1.18f., the tenor of 2.1-16 (note that Paul’s focus is on sin in both of the places where he affirms the works principle of final judgment; in 2.5 immediately before 2.6 (not to mention 2.1-4), and in 2.12 before 2.13; showing that he is invoking the works principle largely as a way of revealing the plight of the hearer), and 3.9-20 wherein Paul charges Jews and Gentiles alike as being under sin and says that no flesh will be justified by the works of the Law. What is Paul saying here, but that the works principle for receiving eternal life in 2.6-13 is not satisfied by anyone? No one is (sufficiently) a doer of the law so as be justified by that doing. This is why no flesh will be justified (on the day of wrath) by works the law: all flesh is sinful (and the Law imparts that knowledge), lawbreaking rather than lawkeeping. Note the ‘in His sight’ in 3.20: Paul is clearly stating here what the divine judgment will be on the day of wrath for those whom God would judge by the works principle: condemnation, not justification.
This is essential to the fabric of the gospel that Paul unpacks in Rom. 3:21 and following. But now another righteousness has been revealed, one that does not come through doing the Law but through faith in Christ. By being credited this righteousness (Rom. 4), being justified by faith and by Christ’s blood, “we shall be saved from the wrath of God…” (Rom. 5.9; cf. 2.5). In justification by faith one receives this righteousness which saves one from the wrath (2.5) that would have been the verdict on the day of judgment were God to judge one, as to eternal life or death, based on works (3.20). This righteousness is in fact Christ’s righteousness (5.15-21), the righteousness of God (the God-man) and from God (received through faith).
So, the wrath of God is revealed against both Gentiles (ch. 1) and Jews (ch. 2), both of them (ch. 3), such that on the day of judgment all will be subject to condemnation rather than justification (3.20); for though life rather than wrath is offered as recompense to those who are doers of the Law (2.6-13) no one has in fact sufficiently been a doer so as to be justified in his sight (3.20) on this basis, all having sinned and fallen short of the offered glory (2.7; 3.23). But God has revealed a way to be saved from this wrath, an alternative righteousness (alternative to one’s own lawkeeping) that is received by faith and that saves one from this wrath (5.9), the righteousness of Christ (5.15-21).
I agree that he establishes that the Jews are not better than Gentiles, but this is parasitic on the more fundamental point that both groups are sinful and incapable of being justified by the works of the Law. That is, Jews are not better than Gentiles before God, because both are hopeless when it comes to doing the Law sufficiently so as to be justified in God’s sight unto eternal life; which is really what matters when it comes to the day of judgment.
As indicated by phrases like “Jews and Greeks” (3.9), “all the world” (3.19), “no flesh” (3.20), in ch. 3 Paul is saying that the Law cannot give anyone eternal life (not just Jews). Because the Jews have the “oracles of God” (3.2) they may be in a better position to be imparted with the knowledge that this is the case, but an asymmetry in who can acquire the knowledge does not obviate the symmetry in the knowledge acquired, namely, that all flesh, Jew or Gentile, is sinful and cannot be justified in God’s sight by works of the Law. God’s moral law inscribed on the heart of all is of course (written) in the Mosaic Law. Both Jews and Gentiles therefore have the Mosaic Law in one sense, and they both fail to keep it.
It’s amazing that you can say that meriting eternal life is “simply not” what is being addressed in Rom. 3.20. What other kind of justification by works of the Law has Paul been talking about, other than the one in Rom. 2.6-13 which is a justification unto eternal life on the basis of works at the final judgment? It is in the context of the coming day of wrath and the tribunal occurring on that day, wherein God will recompense according to deeds (condemning the unrighteous, justifying the righteous), that Paul says in 3.20 that no flesh will be justified in His sight by the works of the Law.
You say Paul is talking to and about Jews under the Law of Moses. No, Paul is talking about Jews and Gentiles; this is clear from the references I’ve already given from ch. 3 and also by the fact that the indictment in 3.9-18 has nothing peculiarly Jewish about it (i.e., peculiarly pertaining to aspects of the Mosaic law only encoded in the books and not on the heart, involving e.g. ceremonial laws). The moral law written on the heart is part of the Mosaic Law, and further it is the relevant part of the Mosaic Law in view in Rom. 2 and 3. This is seen by the nature of the indictment in 3.9-18, by the fact that in 2.6, which provides the context for what a “doer of the Law” is in 2.13, it is ones “deeds” in general that are in view, and by the fact that Paul speaks of the relevant Law as being written on the heart of the Gentile (2.14-15). Hence, even if Paul is referring to the Mosaic Law, he is referring to the moral law therein, which is available to both Jew and Gentile, and by such works no flesh (Jew or Gentile) will be justified in God’s sight. If no flesh will be justified by works in God’s sight on the day of wrath, then given that eternal life or death is what is in view in this tribunal (2.6-13), then 3.20 is most certainly relevant for the issue of good works and meriting eternal life with God: it says that they won’t do it.
You say that Paul points out that “the Law of Moses does not justify them [Jews]).” What Paul says is that the works of the Law (of Moses), which works can in principle be done by either Jew or Gentile, will not justify anyone. These are the very works that Christians are enabled to do by the grace of God. It is not as if the moral law written on the heart or encoded in the Mosaic law concerned dead works, or works done without faith, or works done without love. Love is central to this law. But no one will be justified in God’s sight unto eternal life on the day of judgment through (on the basis of) having done it. This does not mean that Christians do not come to keep the law (they do, progressively but imperfectly); but justification unto eternal life in God’s sight (delivering one from wrath) is not through this kind of righteousness in us (righteousness of lawkeeping), but through this kind of righteousness in Christ (his obedience and inherent righteousness, Rom. 5.18-21), which is a righteousness of God and from God – received by faith (5.1) and delivering one from the coming wrath (5.9).
So I agree with you when you say that the Law of Moses does not justify one, but I think you shortchange the content of the Mosaic Law and fail to see that this Law comprehends the virtues you annex to the Christian life; and hence fail to see the full scope of what Paul is saying when he excludes works from justification. He is saying nothing less than that keeping the moral law will not cut it on judgment day, not because life is not offered on that basis but because in God’s sight no one sufficiently keeps it. And the solution to this problem, for Paul, this solution being the gospel, is not an “initial” justification that puts one in a transformed state such that they can (begin to) truly keep the moral law and increase in inherent righteousness to a degree such that, eventually, one will be able to meet the criteria required by the works principle (2.6-13) and thereby receive eternal life on that basis. Rather, the solution (foreshadowed in Rom. 1.16-17) is a righteousness of God and from God received by faith, which itself perfectly satisfied the works principle and which acquires for us a verdict of justification rather than condemnation at the divine tribunal (Rom. 5.9; 8.33-34). Christ took the sin that would have condemned us on the day of wrath (so it no longer can condemn us), and he has given us the (only) obedience/righteousness that can justify us (so we are made heirs of eternal life).
The reason you give (“That’s why he says…”) seems to contradict the thesis which you seemed to invoke it to support. You say Paul is speaking about those “under the Mosaic Law within the Old Covenant.” But then you point out (in 2.12) that Paul is talking about people who are not under the Mosaic Law within the Old Covenant (namely, the Gentiles). I agree it wouldn’t make any sense to talk about sinning (of Gentiles) without the moral law. Precisely; Paul is talking here about the moral law in general, which is encapsulated in the written Mosaic Law. Hence in 3.20 Paul is not merely talking about Jews under the written Mosaic Law. He is talking about both Jews and Gentiles (“all the world”) and their failure to keep the moral law (which entails failing to keep the Mosaic Law, since the former is in the latter). Since the moral law is in the Mosaic law both Jews and Gentiles can break the Mosaic Law, even if only the Jews have the books with the law written therein.
As I’ve already pointed out, Paul does not say that there are any Gentiles who are justified by doing the law and thereby receive eternal life. In vv. 5-13 Paul affirms that God will judge on the day of wrath by an impartial standard of justice according to which the evil are condemned (whether one is Jew or Gentile) and the righteous justified (whether one is Jew or Gentile); but he does not say what the outcome of the tribunal will be for anyone. He doesn’t actually say either about any Jew or about any Gentile that he will be justified instead of condemned. He does say that the Gentile’s conscience bears witness and alternately accuses or defends, but what is in dispute is not whether a Gentile can do (relatively) good works but whether the works of a Gentile (or Jew) will be of such value as to be deserving of eternal life in God’s sight at the tribunal. Doing good works here and there (and being defended by one’s conscience in so doing) is hardly sufficient for being justified; as James says that if one fails in the law in one respect one has in effect broken it as a whole, and Paul in Galatians speaks of the fact that under a works principle of justification one is required to keep the law in its entirety and cursed if he does not do all written therein. As for the outcome of the judgment, Paul does explicitly talk about it in chapter 3, and says that no one will be justified (by such works of the law)! Hence the transition in 3.21 (“But now…”) to the righteousness of God and from God received through faith which can justify one (i.e., which can ground one’s acquittal, one’s declaration of righteousness, and consequent bestowal of eternal life instead of wrath, on the day of judgment).
As has already been discussed, the scope of the works of the law by which one will not be justified include the moral law; this applying to both Jew and Gentile.
No one has denied that God will say “well done, good and faithful servant,” in response to the obedience or the inherent righteousness of the Christian on the day of judgment; but what Paul has denied in Rom. 3.20 is that the deeds done in obedience to the moral law will justify one unto eternal life. That is, he has denied that one’s being given eternal life as opposed to wrath will be based on or through one’s own obedience to the moral law.
This conclusion is contrary to Trent’s claims about justification, for obviously according to Trent one’s own inherent righteousness is meritorious unto eternal life. That is, one’s growth in grace by the obedience to God’s law done in cooperation with grace contributes to the basis (one’s inherent righteousness) upon which God grants one eternal life. But I’ve argued that though life is offered on such a basis (in Rom. 2), Paul is clear that no life will be rendered on such a basis (in 3.20) because all fall short of what is required. Paul’s conclusion here is pivotal to the structure of his reasoning in subsequent chapters, wherein he unpacks an alternative righteousness outside us that is given to us as a gift and that saves us from the wrath on the day of judgment.
Dan,
The “original point,” so far as my part in the conversation went, was that your interlocutor was critiquing the PR position on grace and justification rather than the PR position on salvation considered more generally. I provided specific quotes to substantiate this reading of those comments. You have given me no reason to second guess that reading. The implications of my reading are that (1) your assertion that your interlocutor has failed to understand basic facts about PR theology was not justified by anything in his comments (said assertion being, therefore, an unacceptable ad hominem) and (2) given the PR teaching on grace and justification, there is ample reason to prefer the Catholic position, and indeed the Catholic Church, to one or another strand of Reformed Protestantism. None of this presupposes the falsity of Protestantism, but serves to highlight one aspect of the Gospel according to Catholicism as rather more attractive than the contrary version of the Gospel proposed by the Protestant religion. Of course, if Protestantism (perhaps the specifically Reformed version?) is true, then one must embrace it, regardless of any other consideration.
Dan,
Let’s be clear about where the burden of proof lies here. The first Protestants defied their [Catholic] bishops, and then defied the authority of the Council of Trent, by appealing to their own interpretation of Scripture. The general rule, however, is that those who seek to rebel against their God-ordained authorities have the burden of proof. Moses, for example, would not have the burden of proof in a dispute between himself and Korah, regarding the interpretation of Scripture. Rebellion is not the default position, such that leaders have the burden of proof of showing that those under their authority should not rebel. Therefore, the Protestant position has the burden of proof. And the proof has to be just that, proof. It cannot be mere speculative exegesis or probabilistic hermeneutics. That’s why every time you say “it is not clear that …” and “it is possible that” and “it may also be possible that” and ” it’s still not clear to me ” and “does not appear to be” in response to what I’ve said, you’re undercutting your position. No such speculative hermeneutics is a justification for forming or remaining in schism.
You claim that it is false that dikaiosunh “is the same term translated as justification.” Your evidence is that it is not translated that way in the NAS. But the NAS is not the only translation. The Douay-Rheims, for example, translates Rom 8:10 as “And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification [dikaiosunh ]. But even so, my claim wasn’t about this particular cognate but about the dikh cognate group. I wasn’t clear enough. You then say:
That’s a non-sequitur. Just because dikaiosunh is not translated as ‘justification’ in the NAS, and is not the verb dikaiow, it does not follow that Rom 6:13/16 cannot be about increases in justification.
This too is a non sequitur, because it is predicated on your previous statement, which I already pointed out to be a non sequitur.
Your conception of ‘forensic’ is extrinsic whereas the Catholic conception of forensic (when used of God justifying us) is intrinsic. Because of the grace we receive from Christ through the sacraments He has established in His Church, we are righteous before God not because He sees us differently than we really are internally; by His grace we are righteous before Him when He sees us as we really are internally. So growing in justification is not an unrelated concept to final justification. In the former we grow in that grace by which we are finally judged to be friends of God, and hence worthy of being eternally united to Him in glory.
This is what I referred to above (in comment #61) as the Happy Meal conception of rewards for our good works. It treats rewards for Christians as little trinkets God throws in like in a Happy Meal at McDonalds. We want more of God (who is Eternal Life), and instead, as our reward for our acts of loving obedience, He gives us more created stuff, i.e. cars, houses, money, nice clothes, etc. That’s how many fundamentalists interpret passages like John 14:2 (i.e. “in My Father’s house are many mansion”). They think that we will receive created goods as rewards for our obedience. But that’s not what we are sacrificing for, here on earth. The martyrs didn’t endure all the sufferings and tortures they endured, just to get a bigger mansion made of gold or precious stones. To interpret it that way is to misunderstand what heaven is all about it. St. Augustine explains:
Christ explains the parable of the talents, saying, “he who has, more will be given to him.” (Matt 25:29) Our rewards are not creatures. Our reward is a greater participation in what we already have been given: grace (i.e. participation in the eternal Life of God). Our heavenly rewards for loving obedience is a greater share in the Life of God. No one in heaven has a longer life than another. But we shouldn’t conflate eternal life with everlasting life. There are different ‘mansions’ in the Father’s house, because there will be different degrees of participation in the Life of God, depending (in part) on what we do with the grace we have been given. The notion that there isn’t any more eternal life to be merited either reduces eternal life to everlasting existence, or it treats our rewards as Happy Meal trinkets, i.e. mere creatures, rather than a greater share in God Himself. That’s the Muslim and Mormon way of thinking about heavenly rewards, e.g. seventy virgins and/or a whole planet for oneself.
As for James 2, when James says that Abraham was justified by works, and says that Abraham’s works are the basis for the fulfillment of the Scripture that says that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and then says that man is justified by works and not by faith alone, and then says that Rahab was justified by works, you assume (because of your nominalistic interpretation of St. Paul’s teaching on justification as something merely forensic and not infused) that these statements must be referring to external demonstrations of justification, and not to increases in justification. But that’s just speculative hermeneutics on your part. You can’t show that your interpretation is (more than 50%) more likely to be true than the Catholic understanding of the passage.
That’s simply straight-forward question-begging on your part. You’re assuming at the outset that (dikaiow) doesn’t include infusion. There is no point in discussing this, if you’re simply going to assume what the words must mean. We’ll have to take a step back, in order to find agreement, because pounding the table doesn’t get us any closer to agreement.
That’s precisely what he is doing when he says that they justify. You’re missing what’s right there in the text, seeing “justification by works” through nominalistic lenses, and then saying that there is no evidence here that works increase one’s inherent righteousness. If you assume that the justifying St. James is talking about is merely to show to other human beings what was in Abraham’s (and Rahab’s) heart (as if God is so concerned with that), then of course you’re not going to see the evidence here that works increase one’s inherent righteousness. The Catholic position cannot be seen from the Protestant paradigm. These [two] positions are not simply evaluated by measuring their relative hermeneutical plausibility within a paradigm. The perceivability of their respective exegetical evidence is paradigm-relative. You have to look at the Scripture from within the respective paradigms, not from within only your own paradigm.
Again, that’s a non sequitur. You seem not to imagine the possibility that James could be talking both about faith and the increase in righteousness.
That’s a non sequitur. Just because he chooses not to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor, it does not follow that he had failed to love his neighbor as himself. The law (and the requirement to love one’s neighbor as oneself) does not require us to sell all we own, and give it to the poor. If you disagree, why do you still own anything?
That’s all mere speculation on your part. If the man did in fact tell the truth, how would you know? The only reason you believe his claim to be false and arrogant, is because you’re forcing it into your theological paradigm.
Show me an example of someone seeking for what he knows he already has, and I’ll believe you.
Explain what you mean by “growing in grace”, and I’ll explain how the Catholic understanding of it differs, and relates to increasing in justification.
If you agree that we can grow in inherent righteousness, and if we can by our actions participate in doing so, and if this righteousness in which we grow is a participation in the eternal Life of God, then it follows that we, by our actions, according to the gracious order established by God, grow in our participation in eternal Life. That’s Trent 6.10.
Rom 2:13 is about final justification. Only those who keep the law (for Jews under the Old Covenant, this was the Mosaic Law; under the New Covenant this is the moral law) will be justified on that Day. That doesn’t mean that law keeping [as an external] is a sufficient condition for final justification. Grace is a necessary and sufficient condition for final justification. But, grace in the soul (and the agape it produces) make the law-keeping meaningful at the level of eternity. The one living in agape keeps (and thus fulfills) the law. This is what St. John talks about all through his first epistle. And St. Paul says this in Rom 13:8, ” he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law”, and again in Gal 5:14, ” For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” And James says the same thing, ” If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (James 2:8)
Regarding Romans 3:20, I’ll quote what I said in comment #61:
Now, let me apply that to what you said about Rom 3:20:
Rom 3:20 is referring to both initial (and final) justification. St. Paul says that no human being will be justified by the works of the Law. He is talking about the Mosaic Law, and he is saying that no one was ever justified by the Mosaic Law per se. Those who were justified under the Mosaic Law were justified by grace and the living faith that comes from grace. The Mosaic Law, without faith, justifies no one. The Mosaic Law, without faith, only shows us our sin, and thus points to Christ. Those who reject faith in Christ, and seek to be justified by Law, cannot be justified, because they are rejecting the very means by which all the saints of the Old Testament were justified, i.e. living faith. So it is not so much a certain kind of works per se (that are excluded from justification) as it is a certain mode in which they are done, namely, without living faith. But, for this reason, returning to works of the ceremonial law excludes one from justification, because doing so is a rejection of faith, because Christ and His sacrifice and fulfillment of the Law, were that toward which all the faith of the Old Covenant was implicitly directed. So to reject the New Covenant is to reject faith, even the faith found in the Old Covenant. And to reject faith, is to lose that whereby the Old Testament saints were justified.
Trent 6.10 is not claiming that faithless works are of any benefit; it is teaching that good works done out of agape are meritorious for an increase in justification, and thus for greater participation in eternal life at our final justification. Simply by being in a state of grace at the moment of death, the person will be finally justified, and thus have eternal life. But by obedience and sacrifice done out of agape, we merit a participation in the eternal life we already have. The martyr, for example, who in agape lays down his life for Christ, in doing so shows himself to be suited to being with Christ forever. That is the end befitting such an act of love. He was already a friend of God, simply by his baptism, in which he received grace and thus became a friend of God. But, by his martyrdom, he gives to God a gift of love that merits the reward that is the end (telos) of that friendship, namely, being with God forever. With the gift of grace, he then merits the end (telos) of that grace, which end is glory. You can see this implied in Rev 6:9-10.
I hope that clarifies how Rom 3:20 and Trent 6.10 fit together. Rom 3:20 is excluding Law-keeping (apart from faith) as a means of initial or final [or increase in] justification. Trent 6.10, by contrast, is talking about those who have faith in Christ, within the New Covenant, keeping the moral law, in agape, and thus meriting an increase in what they have by faith through grace.
I hope I have explained this just above. The works of the Law can be done externally, without grace or love. But the love by which the Law is fulfilled must be in the heart, external works without grace and agape are dead works.
Because, as I explained above, it is without faith, hope, and apage. And what is done by way of a natural principle only, cannot have a supernatural end (telos). Keeping the law ‘perfectly’ only externally, if one could do it, would not be sufficient for a supernatural end.
Anyone who has agape at the moment of death, receives eternal life. So, a fortiori, anyone who loves God (with agape) in keeping the law, is, seeking/pursuing, as St. Paul says in Romans 2, the reward (which is also a gift) of eternal life.
Regarding Romans 2, you say:
He is not saying that everyone is unrighteous simpliciter; he is saying that apart from the grace of God, everyone is unrighteous. But that is not the same thing as saying that everyone is unrighteous. Abraham, as he points out in Rom 3:21ff was righteous, by faith, as were all those who have been righteous throughout redemptive history. Likewise, in Rom 2 he is not saying that all Gentiles are unrighteous. If there were no Gentiles any more righteous than any Jews, then Rom 2 would not make any sense. The whole point of Rom 2 is that Jews who do not keep the Law, and judge Gentiles, are worse off than righteous Gentiles who have been circumcised in the heart, by the Spirit.
Right. All are born in original sin, not in friendship with God. But, St. Paul is not here saying that God withholds grace from everyone, and leaves all (Jews and Gentiles) in their sin.
I agree. The contrast (in Rom 2) is between those who have grace and faith (and thus live lives of graced law-keeping), and those who don’t. Gentiles who have grace and faith are pleasing to God, while Jews who do not have grace and faith, are not pleasing to God.
Mostly, however, I think you are twisting Romans 2 to deny what it actually says, in order to fit your theological paradigm. Paul speaks there of those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life. (Rom 2:7) Your paradigm doesn’t allow such people to exist, so you have to claim that this must be merely hypothetical. Then St. Paul says, that there will be glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom 2:10), but again, because of your theological paradigm, you can’t accept this, and so you explain it away as a mere hypothetical.
Regarding Rom 3:20 I wrote:
You responded:
I didn’t say that meriting eternal life is not what is being addressed in Rom 3:20. Of course he is talking about meriting eternal life. Look at exactly what I said. You’re criticizing a straw man, by over-simplifying my statement. In Rom 3:20, St. Paul is not talking about persons in a state of grace and living faith. And therefore, he is not talking about persons-in-a-state-of-grace-and-living-faith meriting eternal life, even though he is talking about meriting eternal life. Law-keeping, without grace and faith, is not meritorious toward heaven, because it is not done in friendship with God.
Keeping the moral law, without grace, will not ‘cut it’ on judgment day. No one, without being in a state of grace, can do a single thing worthy of eternal life.
This a straw man. First, no one is claiming that doing good works is sufficient for being justified. Being in a state of grace is sufficient for justification. Second, the James passage is not about venial sin, but about mortal sin, the kind by which grace and agape are driven from the soul. Just because you don’t recognize the mortal/venial distinction doesn’t mean that Catholic are bound to interpret the Bible as though there is no such distinction.
Correct, if by ‘works principle of justification’ one is talking about the Deuteronomic covenant St. Paul is referring to in Gal 3, and the full content of the Law referred to in that covenant. That curse is removed in the New Covenant, as is the requirement of the ceremonial law. But under the New Covenant the requirements of the moral law are not removed.
No one has denied that. Without grace, no one can enter eternal life. Trent does not claim otherwise. Rom 3:20 does not deny that in a state of grace, acts of love [agape] for God merit an increase in one’s participation in the righteousness of God. Nor does Rom 3:20 deny that in a state of grace, acts of love [agape] for God merit the eternal life one already has by grace. In Rom 3:20, St. Paul is not talking about what works done by one having agape do. But that is what Trent is talking about. That is why Rom 3:20 and Trent 6.10 are fully compatible.
I agree that your interpretation of Rom 3:20 is contrary to Trent. But you’re reading into Rom 3:20 what isn’t there. In Rom 3:20, St. Paul isn’t saying anything about the possibility of meriting an increase in justification once already having grace, or while in a state of grace, or of meriting the eternal life that one has been given by grace. He is talking about works apart from grace.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
I haven’t been engaging in “speculative exegesis” or “probabilistic hermeneutics”. The burden of proof does not mean one has the burden to prove; for there can be a “burden of proof” in disputes involving non-deductive manners of reasoning. The church was in an absolute mess at the time of (and preceding) the Reformation, and your retrospective assertions about how the proper chain of authority and burden-of-proof works in hashing out theological and exegetical issues seem very simplistic. The first Protestants were Protestants before Trent had even convened and attempted to exercise any authority. Even if there is a general rule such as you speak of, that doesn’t mean it holds in every case. If Moses did something crazy enough, the burden of proof would not necessarily be on those who disagreed. The burden of proof is sensitive to the circumstances and doesn’t by default swing the same way no matter what is going on. Further, even if Protestants acquire burden of proof in seceding (which they most certainly did), Catholics acquire it too in placing them and their theology under the anathema (as Trent did). Moreover, supposing a Protestant could not reasonably demonstrate the truth of his position on justification (which I am not conceding is the case), it would not follow that he ought to become Catholic; since there may be compelling reasons to not join the Catholic church other than its view of justification. Finally, it would also not follow because the Catholic church may have done things after the Council of Trent that provide compelling reasons not to join it.
No. I said things were clear more often than I said that something was not clear, and in every case where I said something was not clear the subject being addressed was not Scripture and its clarity but something else. I said “it is not clear at all” in connection with your interpretation of James. That’s a way of saying I don’t see the merit in your view. I said it’s not always clear what is meant in a sentence using the English ‘justification’, which was a remark about the nature of our debate and the way words are being used. I also said your position about justification in certain verses was not clear to me. I said ‘possible’ twice, in my discussion of James, but I wasn’t saying that my view was merely possibly right and yours wrong, but that, having laid out one interpretation, a variant on that interpretation (a very similar one) was also possible.
I mentioned the NAS because that was the translation you originally were quoting passages from (or at least you were quoting from one that exactly resembled it), and the one I was using myself – following suite. I had checked many other translations too which were the same as the NAS on this score (including the ESV, King James, New King James, NIV, TNIV, RSV, and several others). The translation of dikaiosunh as ‘justification’ rather than ‘righteousness’ is the exception and not the rule (the Douay-Rheims, which you invoke, did not translate it as ‘justification’ in either Rom. 6.13/16) and hence it would be misleading at best to say that “this term [dikaiosunh] is the same term translated as justification;” as the term is usually not translated ‘justification’ and there are other words that are translated ‘justification’. Further, righteousness, dikaiosunh, is not necessarily always inherent righteousness; righteousness also has a juridical dimension; so even were dikaiosunh translated ‘justification’ it would not follow that what is in view is one’s inherent justice per se.
The reason this is important to not gloss over is because a key issue here is the relation between “justification” in the sense of what is denoted by the verb ‘justify’, on the one hand, and one’s inherent justice, on the other; and using the English ‘justification’ in connection with the latter can misleadingly cause one to form a connection between the two that is not warranted by the use of the English term to refer to both. It is possible that one thinks like the following (I do not claim that this is your thinking, but it is what one might think): ‘justify’ denotes, sometimes, one’s entrance into grace; and we call what is denoted ‘justification’. Now suppose we also call one’s inherent justice, one’s inner moral state, ‘justification’. Now an ambiguity has been introduced in the English ‘justification’. When it is used, it may refer to the event of entrance into grace, or it may refer to a state one is in, to one’s inherent justice. By “justification”(1) one receives “justification”(2); that is, by the entrance into grace one receives inherent justice. But when we have two distinct things, (1) and (2), that are each denoted by a common word (‘justification’), there is the danger that one will, because of the common word, assume a commonality not only in name but in the things denoted. When one’s inherent justice is increased, one’s “justification” (sense 2) has been increased. But because the same term is also used to describe different things, one may think that the increase of “justification” in one sense makes a different for “justification” in another sense (e.g., that increase in “justification” in the sense of inherent justice makes a difference for “justification” in the sense of God’s declaring one righteous and entitled to eternal life). Now while there may be a connection here, and if the Catholic is right then there certainly is (that is, one’s increase in inherent righteousness is an increase and contribution to the basis upon which God finally justifies one and gives one heaven), we would have here a fallacious reason for thinking there to be a connection. That is, whether or not there is this kind of connection, it would be fallacious to infer the connection because of the use of the English ‘justification’ to refer to the two things connected. And we should not use the English ‘justification’ to refer to both things unless we have good reasons to do so; since such a use of the term introduces ambiguity and the potential for misleading and confusion (for in general it is good to have distinct words for distinct things).
We haven’t yet seen good reasons to call one’s inherent justice ‘justification’; although we are currently disputing (in connection with Jas. 2) whether the verb ‘justify’ (dikaiow) may refer to an event of one’s inherent justice’s being increased. (The latter does not entail the former; it could be that ‘justification’ can, in terms of the biblical usage, refer to one’s inherent justice’s being increased, without it being the case that one’s inherent justice itself is legitimately called ‘justification’ in the biblical usage. In other words, the legitimacy of saying “By justification one’s inherent justice is increased” does not imply the legitimacy of saying “By justification one’s justification is increased.”)
You’ve misidentified my claim. I didn’t say Rom. 6.13/16 are not about increases in justification, but that these are not places where the term translated ‘justify’ in Rom. 3 (dikaiow) is used to refer to increases in justification. That is, these verses do not provide any evidence that dikaiow can mean increase-in-inherent-justice.
I am talking about the meaning of ‘justification’ in the phrase ‘final justification’ and ‘further justified’, which is a distinct issue from the basis upon which final justification is made (e.g., something inherent in us, or not). Do you or do you not agree (this is a clarifying question) that the nature of “justification” when final justification is in view is that of a forensic declaration (based on one’s inherent state or whatever, it doesn’t matter); but that the nature of “justification” when being “further justified” is in view is not of a forensic declaration but rather of one’s inherent righteousness? I see the conceptual connection you make, but am asking about a semantic connection (or lack thereof, as the case may be).
In response to my
, you said a lot about the nature of eternal life and the nature of rewards. But I wasn’t expressing the (“Happy Meal”) view you criticized. I had a further explanation of this but I’ve cut it because of length and relevance.
You’ve misidentified the premise of the inference. I said that I thought the man’s response to Jesus’s call to sell his possessions attested that he had failed to keep the penultimate commandment. This response consisted of his departing with grieving and becoming very sad because of how wealthy he was (Mat. 19.22; Mk. 10.22; Lk. 18.23). I did not say that it followed merely (you say ‘just’) from his choosing not to sell all of his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor that he had failed to love his neighbor as himself. Nor did I say the law requires us to sell all we own. The lack of choosing to sell all one’s possessions is not demonstrative of a lack of love; but when Jesus calls for one to sell all his possessions and follow him, and the one called leaves in sadness because of how wealthy one is, that obviously does demonstrate such a lack. The man claimed that he had kept the law, and Christ then showed that he was wrong; truly keeping the law requires keeping it not merely “externally” (e.g., refraining from killing, etc.) but in one’s heart (e.g., having the right desires and affections and attitudes and thoughts) and by this standard the person failed to keep the law. He failed when he rejected Christ’s call to sell his possessions and follow him (not just the penultimate but also the ultimate commandment), and the rejection also revealed that the state of his heart before the call was lawbreaking (it isn’t as if he only became attached to his wealth when Christ called for him to sell it). Christ is not instituting as a general rule that one must sell all his possessions if one is to keep the law; rather, Christ’s particular call in this instance for a particular person to do such a thing revealed his heart’s sinful and lawbreaking state and revealed the emptiness of the man’s immediately prior claim to have kept the law.
If he told the truth, I would know (or at least have significant evidence) by his complying with Jesus’s subsequent instructions to him! The conclusion that his claim was false and arrogant flows not from any “forcing” into a “theological paradigm” but rather by attention to the details of the account, such as the man’s response, and a more general comprehension of the nature of the law and the severity of its demands as attested clearly in Scripture.
By ‘in the future’ I was thinking of something in the future to a significant extent, like on the day of judgment; rather than in the future merely in the sense of something happening immediately after one’s seeking. You mentioned this verse in connection with “final justification”, where the justification in view is on the day of judgment. I can seek for my car keys and immediately find them; examples can be given ad infinitum. “But if, while seeking to be justified in Christ, we ourselves have also been found sinners, is Christ then a minister of sin?…” (Gal. 2.17). Paul does not say that, when one seeks to be justified in Christ, that one is not then justified. He doesn’t say that there is lagtime between the seeking and the attaining of what is sought.
By “growth in grace,” I mean growth in inherent justice, knowledge of the truth, and fellowship with God. I know (at least to a significant extent) how our views differ when it comes to the relation between this and justification; and I’ve pointed out that there is nothing peculiarly Tridentine about the necessity of the growth of inherent justice in the Christian.
-
Turning to James 2.
Where to begin? You’ve misidentified my conclusion, misidentified the reasons that brought me there, and failed to engage most of the remarks and observations I made about the passage in support of my interpretation.
I did not say that the passage referred to an external demonstration of justification (and I don’t know what you mean by this, given your broad use of ‘justification’). I said that, on one interpretation, we have a demonstration of saving faith; and that on another, we have a declaration of righteousness based on inherent righteousness. The reason you give for my holding my view, involving a nominalist paradigm etc., is a chimera; pure and simple. My reasons are based on my understanding of what the word ‘justify’ (dikaiow) means in God’s word; which can be grasped to a significant extent by looking at how the word is actually used in Scripture. No peculiar philosophy need be applied.
Ex. 23.7 – “Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty” (‘acquit’ being the Hebrew tzadak, rendered in the LXX with dikaiow).
Deut. 25.1 – “If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked…”
Prov. 17.15K/b> – “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.
Isa. 5:22-23 – “Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine And valiant men in mixing strong drink Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right!”
Ps. 51:4 – “Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge (quoted by Paul in Rom. 3.4).”
Mat. 11.19 – “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated [dikaiow] by her deeds.” (cf. the parallel Lk. 7.35, where dikaiow is also used, also translated ‘vindicated’ by the NAS).
Lk. 7.29 – “When all the people and the tax collectors heard this, they acknowledged [dikaiow] God’s justice…
Lk. 16.15 – “And He said to them, ‘You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts…”
Rom. 8.33-34 – “Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns?…”
1 Tim. 3.16 – “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated [dikaiow] in the Spirit…”
Anyone who looks up dikaiow in a lexicon can see that both alternatives I gave for dikaiow (demonstrating something, or declaring/pronouncing something righteous) fall under ordinary senses of the term; as can also be seen by looking at verse after verse in the Bible where the term is used (some of which I’ve just quoted). We see the forensic / declarative use (declaring/pronouncing one to be righteous) in places where being justified either occurs in the context of a judicial tribunal (wherein a verdict is rendered) and/or contexts where it is contrasted with condemnation, an obviously forensic notion (and the kind of verdict opposite to that of justification); such as Deut. 25:1, Rom. 8.33-34, and – I would argue – Rom. 2.13. Very closely related to this idea is the idea of demonstration; sometimes when something is “justified” it means that it is shown to be righteous or in the right. This is certainly a crucial part of what is in view in e.g. Mat. 11.19 and 1 Tim. 3.16. Some uses of the term may imply both ideas together; as there is obviously a close connection between a pronouncement and demonstration of righteousness (when a judge does the former he in a sense does the latter).
I reject the idea that there is, at best for me, a 50/50 toss-up here (or something close thereto) as to the meaning of ‘justify’ in James 2; where one 50 refers to my interpretation and the other 50 to what yours seems to be. I find the interpretation of ‘justify’ in Jas. 2 according to which the word means an increase in inherent justice completely outlandish and not probable at all. This is my current state, but I’m open to revision. Can you show us from Scripture that the word ‘justify’ has this meaning? I’ve produced a number of verses that patently justify (i.e., vindicate, not infuse with or increase inherent justice) the legitimacy of the meanings I invoked in my interpretation. There are two distinct issues here: (1) whether ‘justify’ (dikaiow) can plausibly be taken to mean increase-in-inherent-justice/righteousness, and, supposing it can, (2) whether that is the best candidate for what James means in Jas. 2. At this point I’m still stuck at (1), so you’ll need to help us out there first.
When James says that “[y]ou see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone,” notice that there is a grammatical ambiguity: James’s sentence could mean that there is a justification, and it is not by faith alone but by works too (faith and works); or it could mean that there is a justification by faith and, in addition, a justification by works (or perhaps multiple justifications by works, one for every work (or every work of a certain kind)). The difference is that in the first case we have one thing that is by faith and works; whereas in the second case we have two things (at least), one by faith, and one (or two, etc.) each by works. That is, in the first case we have one thing obtained or otherwise affected through two means or vehicles; in the second case we have something obtained by one means and a distinct thing obtained through another means. In the first case, ‘alone’/’only’ grammatically attaches to faith (one is not justified by faith-alone); in the second case, ‘alone’/’only’ grammatically attaches to the verb of the sentence (such that it is an adverb: one is not only justified by faith). Here is another example of the ambiguity: suppose one says that a defendant is vindicated by DNA evidence and not by the testimony of a witness alone. On the first way of disambiguating the claim, it means: there is a vindication or acquittal in view, and a defendant does not receive it merely through the testimony of a witness but also through DNA evidence (so through both together). On the second way of disambiguating the claim, it means: one is vindicated by DNA evidence, but it is also the case that one is vindicated by the testimony of a witness. The first way supposes there is one charge, and vindication from it is received through two things. On the second way there may be more than one vindication-event in view; one can be vindicated by DNA evidence but it is also the case that one can be vindicated by testimony.
The word translated ‘alone’ by the NAS (monon) can also be translated ‘only’, and grammatically it is an adverb in Jas. 2.24 (not an adjective modifying faith, at least at the grammatical level). Further, James does not say that Abraham and/or Rahab was justified by faith-and-works; but rather he just says that each was justified by works. Moreover, in v. 24 he does not say that a man is justified by faith and works and not by faith alone; but that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. These facts attest that James does not have in view a single justification that is effected or affected through a two-fold means, faith and works, but rather that, in addition to one’s justification by faith (a single justification-event), there are also distinct justification-events by works. That is, Abraham was justified by faith, as Paul discusses, and later on when he offered up Isaac, Abraham was justified by works. But the latter justification-event did not “increase” the prior justification; it was another, subsequent vindication or acquittal, perfectly natural and in line with what dikaiow (‘justify’) means; as if one person were to appear in court and be vindicated by a judge and then, later on, to be declared or demonstrated righteous once again in connection with a different circumstance. Suppose a judge declares a defendant innocent of the charge of murder, and then later on the person’s own outstanding character “justifies” him, i.e., demonstrates that he is indeed an upright person who would not have committed the murder he had been accused of (even though his uprightness was not the evidence upon which the judge had originally acquitted/justified him).
This idea that there are multiple “justifications”, one by faith and others by works; rather than one justification effected or affected by both faith and works, is nothing new. Herman Witsius wrote:
Actually, when I wrote that I was pounding the computer, not the table. But seriously, the assumption was not simply an assumption but was based on prior study of the term (justify/dikaiow). I haven’t found that the term’s semantic range (range of possible meaning) includes what you say it means here (increase-in-inherent-righteousness). This concern is nothing new. The very meaning of the verb (or range of meaning of the verb) is a crucial and fundamental issue in our dispute, and has been seen as such for a long time. E.g.,:
Whether that is precisely what he is doing when he says they justify (or rather, that by them one is “justified”) is precisely what is in dispute; and hence what I meant was that other things he says in the relevant passage (before and after the relevant phrases), the broader context, does not consist of James’s speaking of works as increasing one’s inherent justice (which would buttress your interpretation of ‘justify’). And I didn’t say there is no evidence here that works increase one’s inherent justice; I think it’s obvious that good works do increase one’s inherent justice. What I contended was that this is not what James is saying; that is, I wasn’t denying that it is the case, but denying that James is here talking about this or saying that it is the case. I contended, through multiple references to the passage and broader context, that James is talking about how works relate to and supplement faith. Inherent justice per se is not the subject of the passage; and this is evidence (not proof) against the thesis that when James refers to Abraham’s / Rahab’s being “justified” he is talking about an increase in their inherent justice. My contention here in no way implies that each person’s inherent justice was not increased through the work; the contention concerns what is on James’s mind, as it were, in the passage and what he meant by dikaiow.
Did I say that the justifying James is talking about is “merely to show to other human beings what was in Abraham’s (and Rahab’s) heart”? I don’t think so. Further, you’ve misidentified the point in dispute; I already agree that works increase one’s inherent righteousness. I don’t need (more) evidence for that. It’s an obvious point that could be known even had the book of James never been written. The relevant issue is whether by using ‘justify’ James means that one’s inherent justice is being increased.
I don’t deny that everyone has certain presuppositions with which they come to the text; but I deny that paradigms or presuppositions are immutable and incapable of being reflected upon, examined, and revised.
I didn’t say James could not be talking about both faith and increase in righteousness. Obviously he could be. I said that if James were talking about increase in inherent righteousness in general, then the focus on faith (which is manifestly there in the passage) would not be necessary. That is, James is talking about one thing that he would not need to talk about (to the degree he does) were your interpretation of what James is after in connection with being “justified” correct. This observation does not disprove the thesis that James is talking about increase-in-righteousness; but it makes it less likely. In other words, if what James is saying can be explained without reference to any talk on his part about increase-in-inherent-righteousness (which as I think I showed in the last post, it can be), then the thesis that he is talking about such an increase (particularly through his phrases on being “justified” by works) becomes less motivated.
-
Turning to Romans 2 and 3.
I asked what you think ‘justify’ (dikaiow) means. This is especially relevant in light of your comments about James. Don’t just explain what you think the subject matter of the verse or passage is; what does the word itself mean in Rom. 2.13? For example, if I were to ask, with respect to the sentence “Bob went to the store,” what ‘went’ means, the answer wouldn’t involve an explanation of the sentence but of the word itself; it would be something like “It means to move or travel or otherwise proceed from a point A to a point B.” I do not mean to imply that one cannot appeal to the sentence or the context of the sentence to elucidate the meaning of the word (for meaning can obviously be context-sensitive), but even in such a case one can move from the sentence to the word itself and discuss its meaning in particular. For example, one has to look at the entire sentence to tell what ‘bank’ means in “Bob went to the river bank” and “Bob went to the bank to make a deposit;” but one can then give an answer as to the meaning of ‘bank’ in each case without referring to the sentence in which it is found. And is the meaning of dikaiow different in Rom. 3.20? If so, what does it mean there?
I’ve given exegetical reasons for my conclusions; I haven’t made bare assertions (presupposing tacitly a paradigm) or appealed to a paradigm. These reasons include the fact that in 3.20 Paul says no flesh will be justified by works of the law, and the context of vv. 6-13 in chapter 2, where Paul’s focus is on sin and judgment (e.g., in v.5 before v.6, and v. 12 before v.13).
Rom. 2.6-13 is not “merely hypothetical.” That’s not a good way to describe the position, at least in a neutral or unbiased way. The view is that Paul lays out a very real and non-hypothetical standard of judgment that will be very really and non-hypothetically applied by God on the day of wrath; but that, as attested by the flow of Paul’s reasoning, including where he goes in 3.20, no one in fact meets the criteria laid out in 2.6-13, in God’s sight, to be justified (declared righteous) as opposed to condemned (declared wicked).
I’ve already given reasons for my conclusion here. In response it seems you’ve just asserted that there are people who meet the criteria and thereby (will) be justified on that basis. But show us in the text where Paul says that. The claim that the doer of the Law will be justified does not imply that there are doers; it sets forth the standard of judgment (doing results in justification). The claim that “to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, [God will recompense] eternal life” does not imply that in God’s sight anyone does that (and 3.9f. and 3.23 should make one cautious of assuming otherwise). It sets forth the standard of recompense mentioned in v. 6. This is the way God will recompense on the day of wrath; this is the kind of person (more saliently, the only kind) who will be given life. To repeat something I’ve already said in a prior post, the context suggests that Paul is assuming that his hearers in fact fail to meet the criteria for justification. “But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each person according to his deeds…” (vv. 5-6). Paul accuses someone of storing up wrath, and immediately thereafter lays out the works principle (God will recompense according to deeds). So in context, Paul’s laying out the principle is kind of like a threat; its because God will only recompense eternal life to lawkeepers that the person addressed is under the danger of wrath. And now turning to v. 13: “For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged b the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” (vv. 12-13) We have the same thing here as in vv. 5-6: Paul prefaces the invoking of the works-principle of justification with a remark about sin and guilt. Whether one sins under the Law or apart from the Law, one will perish on the day of wrath because it is the doers of the Law who will be justified. Again, as in v. 6, the principle or standard of judgment is given as part of explaining why sinners will receive wrath rather than eternal life.
I’ve explained that Paul’s merely setting out the standard of judgment, according to which good are justified and evil receive wrath, does not imply that anyone sufficiently keeps the standard in God’s sight. Further, I’ve provided evidence from the context that suggests that in fact Paul is invoking the principle of judgment by works in both v. 6 and v. 13 in large part to emphasize the plight of the hearer, or the hearer’s vulnerability to wrath on the day of judgment. That is, Jews and/or Gentiles break the Law, “store up wrath” (v. 5), whether it is under the Law or apart from the Law (v. 12); and hence it is most relevant to tell them that only the doer will be justified (and it primes them for the announcement in 3.21 with the offer of a righteousness from God that can save them from wrath – cf. 5.9; 5.15-21; 8.33-34).
I wasn’t intending to describe your view. I was explaining how Rom. 2.14-15 do not imply that there are in fact doers of the law who will be justified by that doing. Someone might think these verses do imply such, and so I was addressing that.
It is false that the James passage (Jas. 2.10-11) is merely concerning mortal sins. When James gives examples of the law against murder and the law against adultery; these are obviously examples and not the entirety of the law; and other parts of the law comprise non-mortal sins. That is, murder and adultery are examples of breaking the law “in one point”, not the only ways to break the law in one point; there are other ways to break the law in one point. Further, as Christ clearly teaches, the laws against murder and adultery comprehend more than merely external matters, but comprehend the attitudes and thoughts of the heart as well. Hence, these commandments themselves can be broken without committing mortal sin. Moreover, v. 9, providing some context for v. 10, is about showing partiality; and hence the principle James means to illustrate in vv. 10-11 (about breaking the law in one point’s resulting in being guilty of all) is being brought to bear on the case of showing partiality.
Just to be clear, I am not under the illusion that Trent claims otherwise. This is not in dispute at all. Although I am aware that many a Protestant becomes astonished when they discover this (certainly not the Reformers themselves, who well knew what the disputes were about).
-
You’ve said Rom. 2.13 concerns final justification. I take it that by “final justification” you mean God’s forensic judgment or declaration on the day of judgment that one is righteous; which judgment precipitates the giving of eternal life in heaven as opposed to wrath. You’ve said Rom. 3.20 refers to both initial and final justification. I take it that by “initial justification” you mean the forgiveness of sins and the inner renewal of the man, consisting of the infusion of justice; and the resulting friendship with God. You say that in 3.20 Paul is denying that the Mosaic Law per se can justify; where what you mean by this seems to be that works of the Mosaic Law done in a certain “mode” cannot justify; where this mode is a state without grace, faith, and love. You also suggest in a place that the improper mode (the one the doing of works through which cannot justify) involves persisting in doing ceremonial laws of the Mosaic Law. You imply that the improper mode involves rejecting faith in Christ. You say that the improper mode involves doing the law merely “externally” while the proper mode “in the heart,” and that 3.20 rules out the improper mode (as unable to result in justification) both with respect to “initial J” and “final J.”
1. How is it that 3.20 refers to both “initial” and “final” justification? These seem to be different things, different events. Does ‘justify’ have a double-meaning, or does it have a single meaning (in this verse) that somehow comprehends both events? Or, do you really think it properly refers to just one, but that we can infer from what is said about that one that the other kind of justification cannot come through works of the Law either? If so, which one is the verse referring to properly?
2. Justification in 2.13 is based on one’s works of the law done in the proper mode, being done in a state of grace, faith, and love, is it not? This is what “final” justification takes into account, right? After all, it is not the merely external and non-loving and non-faith-possessing “doer” of the Law who will be justified. So, would not the “doers of the Law” in 2.13 be those fulfilling the (1) moral law (2) in the right way/mode? Where, then, do you get from the text the idea that when 3.20 comes up, Paul is now talking about works other than works of the (1) moral law that are (2) done in the right way? Please explain the textual basis for this interpretive shift in the nature of the “works” in view; I don’t see it. It looks like Paul has been continuously talking, from Rom. 2 through 3, about genuine works of obedience to the moral law (love being a sine qua non of such), written in books to the Jews and on the heart for the Gentile; and therefore that when he gets to 3.20 he can only mean that no flesh will be justified by such works (i.e., the kinds of works he has been talking about) in God’s sight.
3. You say that the charge given in 3.9-19 is not about everyone simpliciter but about everyone apart from grace, and you say that 3.20 only denies that one will be justified through works that are done outside a state of grace. But since “initial justification” concerns the introduction into the state of grace, one can obviously not be justified in the sense of “initial justification” through works of the moral law done in the right mode (since if one were able to do such in such a mode, one would already have been “initially justified”). So, if 3.20 refers to “initial justification,” would it not have to mean that no one can be justified by any works of the Law, whether or not they be works of the moral law done in the proper mode?
Dan,
You said: “Further, as Christ clearly teaches, the laws against murder and adultery comprehend more than merely external matters, but comprehend the attitudes and thoughts of the heart as well. Hence, these commandments themselves can be broken without committing mortal sin.”
I’m no trained confessor, but I’m pretty sure that people can fall into mortal sin through thoughts of the heart. For those who believe in mortal sin, scripture attests to this when Jesus says that those who look at a woman lustfully have already committed adultery with her in their heart. Since adultery is (in general) a mortal sin, and since those who look at a woman lustfully are committing adultery, looking at a woman lustfully is also (in general) a mortal sin. One of the cool things about being Catholic is receiving the encouragement (from pastors, confessors, and friends) to take seriously the thoughts of the heart as avenues that can lead to either holiness or sin — and thus to purify the inside, instead of just the outside. An inside that gets purer over time makes for a happy life!
Sincerely,
K. Doran
K. Doran,
I’m glad you (apparently) have sources of encouragement to take seriously the thoughts of the heart, but I’m puzzled by the apparent implication that this is something distinctively Catholic or that it is distinctively Catholic to “purify the inside” “instead of just the outside.” I’m not sure exactly what you mean by your “(in general)” qualifiers. In order for the part of my argument that you quote to be rebutted, so as to maintain that James is only talking about mortal sins when he talks about being “guilty of all” in virtue of breaking the law “in one point”, it seems that one would need to maintain that every breaking of the commandment against adultery (and murder) is a mortal sin (not just some, or even most). For if it is so much as possible for one to break one of these commandments without sinning mortally, then it is possible for one, without sinning mortally, to stumble “in one point” and thereby become “guilty of all”; in which case James’s principle (breaking one point is as if you break all) does not merely apply to mortal sins.
That is, unless one supposes that when James invokes these two commandments he is only talking about “external” murder/adultery. But even if this is the case, I gave two other independent reasons to conclude that James is not talking only about mortal sins. These two other reasons assume that partiality is not a mortal sin, and that the “whole law” in v. 10 comprehends, at least in part/points, non-mortal sins. If partiality were a mortal sin, or if the “whole law” James talks about were such that every point of it concerns mortal sins, then these reasons would fail.
Dan,
I wasn’t trying to rebut your argument, or say anything about non-Catholics. I was only saying that Catholics (the people who believe in the mortal non-mortal distinction) would disagree that the very fact that the laws against murder and adultery “comprehend more than merely external matters, but comprehend the attitudes and thoughts of the heart as well,” implies that “these commandments themselves can be broken without committing mortal sin.” This statement needed to be corrected for your own understanding of Catholic moral thought, whether or not it has anything to do with your overall argument.
Sincerely,
K. Doran
K. Doran,
So you are you saying that all sins of the heart (that do not result in action), at least when it comes to murder and adultery, are mortal sins? Its true I didn’t think this was the case, and I’ll be glad to find out if I’m wrong. I didn’t mean to imply in the original claims that it was impossible to mortally sin in one’s mind/heart; but I did think that, in general, such sins were not classified as mortal.
Hi Dan,
From my interpretation of your original claim, I thought you believed that it was impossible according to Catholic moral theology to mortally sin in one’s mind/heart — thus I thought it imperative to correct this misconception, both regarding Catholic moral theology and its practical application in our interactions with pastors, confessors, and friends.
It is definitely possible to mortally sin in one’s mind/heart. Furthermore, I can say (with the important caveat that I am not an official teacher of the faith) that any sin of the mind/heart that was severe enough to be termed “murder of the heart” or “adultery of the heart” would be a mortal sin. For instance, depending on the level of intentionality, _intentionally_ indulging in a lustful fantasy in one’s heart and mind would definitely be a mortal sin. In fact I would go so far to say that if a person did this, then _even_ if they went to confession afterwords, they would still need to get this vice out of their habits (i.e., completely reject this vice so that it is essentially never part of their lives again) to make any real progress in the spiritual life (though a good confession is all that is necessary to return to a state of grace, a good confession combined with the successful development of the virture of chastity is necessary to grow in grace).
Sincerely,
K. Doran
K. Doran,
I don’t think it impossible to mortally sin in one’s heart/mind. This is not because of something I’ve read on the mortal/venial distinction (my knowledge is sparse when it comes to this), but because it just seems obvious that Catholics would hold that it is possible for a sin of the heart to be of such a level or degree that it counts as mortal. My concern has been not whether it is possible to sin mortally in the heart but whether it is possible to sin venially in the heart when it comes to murder and/or adultery. If one can break either of these commandments, as James is invoking them, venially, then one can become “guilty of all” (it being as if one broke the whole law) in virtue of breaking one part (or stumbling in one point) even “venially.”
You seem to think that anything worthy of being considered “murder of the heart” or “adultery of the heart” is worthy of being counted mortal. After quoting “you shall not commit murder” (Mat. 5.21), Christ speaks of one being angry with his brother, and calling him “good-for-nothing,” and calling him a “fool.” After quoting “you shall not commit adultery” (v. 27), Christ says that “everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Do you think that all these things can only be done mortally, or that there are venial sins under these categories (such as a venial sin of anger)? I would think a Catholic would believe that these commandments can be broken venially as well as mortally, not just mortally. And supposing someone can venially break the commandment against murder, would you then say that it does not deserve to be called “murder of the heart”? What would it deserve to be called, if it is indeed a sin of the heart and is a sin against the commandment against murder?
Dan,
I think it is possible to list both venial sins and mortal sins, of both external actions and internal actions, under each of the ten commandments. But I wouldn’t personally want to call either an internal or external sin that was merely venial “adultery of the heart”. My linguistic preference would be to reserve that particular phrase for sins (internal or external) that are mortal. Thus, I would still consider the venial sins associated with disordered sexual appetite as being usefully listed under the heading of the commandment against adultery, but I would only want to use the strong phrase “adultery of the heart” for that subset of those sins against chastity that are mortal. It may be that most other (and better informed) Catholics would want to apply “adultery of the heart” to even venial sins committed against chastity (I’ve never checked). But I am sure that they would still preserve the essential distinction between venial sins committed against chastity and mortal sins against chastity, and that is the distinction that counts.
To be more explicit, the world the flesh and the devil sometimes introduce before either your mind or your eyes (on a billboard) an image of a half-naked woman. God doesn’t punish us for the fact that this occurs, but He does expect us, as soon as we are conscious of the image, to form in our will the intention to think about / look at something else. There is a level of intention to look away that is strong enough that there is no sin whatsoever arising from this circumstance (this is the level of intention that someone with the virtue of chastity will always have in such a circumstance). There is presumably some level of intention to look the other way that is weak enough or slow enough to arise that it would be a venial sin — and a venial sin only. But it is equally clear to me that there is a level of intention to continue looking that would be a mortal sin: “Wow, I am going to keep looking at that, and start thinking lustful thoughts, even though I know its wrong to do so and my conscience tells me not to.” I wouldn’t want to call the person who is sinning venially an “adulterer of the heart,” but I would definitely call the latter person who is sinning mortally one. As such, the latter person would no longer be in a state of grace, and it would be best for that person to experience the healing grace of the sacraments as soon as possible.
But since you know that Catholics consider both external and internal sins to be capable of being either venial or mortal, I don’t know that there’s much point in us continuing to discuss the exact application of “adultery of the heart” or “murder of the heart.” My intention was just to make sure you weren’t confused about Catholic moral theology, not to arrive at a mutually-agreed-upon definition of “____ of the heart,” either as it is used in scripture, in Catholic /Protestant doctrinal statements, or in our every day navigation through the moral life. This isn’t because I think that such discussions can’t be valuable, but because I think they are only valuable when both participants in the discussion like to think lexicographically. Since I don’t, and hence have no practice in doing so, I won’t be much use to you!
But returning to your larger argument, I think you _will_ be able to find other Catholics who think lexicographically, and hence can be useful to you in seeing how a Catholic approaches the distribution of greek words and word-parts across those passages of scripture that may have to do with justification (and who will be able to continue slicing and dicing what exactly various people living today mean when they say “justification”). I hope you find such a person soon!
Sincerely,
K. Doran
K. Doran,
What does it mean to “think lexicographically”?
What I mean is to determine doctrine about a particular concept by:
(1) finding all of the passages in scripture that may refer to that concept
(2) for each important Greek word in the best available manuscript texts, writing down a set of English language words that may be associated, using primarily dictionaries, and studiously avoiding mystical or poetical possibilities for the important words.
(3) thinking carefully about sentence structure and flow of argument around these passages
(4) using the above information and analysis to construct several possible meanings that the human authors of scripture may have held for the concept in question (without focusing on the possible hidden mystical meanings of the God who inspired the text).
(5) using the above information and analysis to put probabilities on these possible meanings, ruling some out as too improbable (because they imply seeming contradictions with other very probable passages) and favoring others as likely.
There is nothing wrong with this approach in general, but I don’t personally enjoy it, so I was explaining that there are other Catholics who would be better suited to interacting with you (indeed, there were others who were interacting, until I cut in!).
I do have doubts about how much this approach can give us, since I suspect the human element in scripture’s creation has created a non-perspicuous text that contains (as a data set, though not as a source for ecclesiastical debate) limited information about important doctrines — and I have found in life that it takes a lot of very clear and clean data to tease out and distinguish definitively (rather than 70-30) between competing hypotheses with subtle differences. Since it seems the Catholic and Reformed doctrines of justification are subtly different (by my observation, perhaps not yours), I don’t think a close-reading, lexicographic style of scripture analysis on this limited data set (minus the divine help of ecclesiastical decision-making) is going to give either party enough certainty to give the discussion any closure. But it might, and so that is why I am encouraging you to interact with Catholics who like to think this way, so that you can have the kind of discussion that your detailed assertions and questions deserves.
Sincerely,
K. Doran
Dan, (re: #83)
Here’s the recap. I initiated my comments to you in comment #21, when I pointed out that you were oversimplifying the Catholic doctrine concerning justification by treating “the whole of justification” as a singular thing, then claiming that it was by works, and that it is thus contrary to Scripture. I made a few more subsequent comments to clear that point up. Then in #61, in response to your claim that Scripture teaches that justification is not by works, while Trent “seems to teach that one is justified by works,” I explained that the passages of Scripture to which you referred, are not referring to the increase in justification, whereas the role of wo