All these prooftexts of "Faith Alone" are silly. All, taken in context, speak of "works of the law" or "works of justice"; if you read around them they all at the same time urge good works. The difference is, of course, that works done out of legal obligation are thereby containing their own reward, -- Jewishness, when that legally mattered, in the case of the works of circumcising oneself and one's children, or generally social recognition and temporal freedoms that lawful life offers. Good works, on the other hand, are works done for no temporal reward and instead at a temporal cost: continence, constraint of the passions, denial of self. These, the Gospel teaches, are works that save alongside of faith because, like faith they are possible thanks to divine grace. This simple teaching is brilliantly illustrated by Eph 2:4-10:
[4] But God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, [5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,) [6] And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. [7] That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
Salvation is by sovereign grace of God alone; that grace is not of works. We receive His grace for no merit of our own and our response is twofold, faith and good works. God plants in us the former and prepares us for the latter. We are saved by grace alone through faith and good works.
Of course, it is also a historical fact that "Faith Alone" was a slogan that emerged out of the so-called reformation. People prior to Luther were suffiently informed in the Holy Scripture to know that according to it, we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24).
Rather than teaching that a faith without works is salvific, it [historical Protestantism?] affirms Jame's teaching ...
No it doesn't. The slogan "by Faith Alone" is diametrical opposite of James 2:24. That all the Protestant leaders, old and new, offer up some incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo of which that paragraph is a sample, is not surprising. But so long as the slogan stands, "Faith Alone", so do the anathemas of Trent stand. You cannot believe "A" and "not A" at the same time.
You cannot have one Scripture declaring that a soul is counted righteous because of faith, in contrast to merit of his works, (Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9) and another (it is supposed) teaching that works merit eternal life, which Rome teaches. While she and her defenders seek to make eternal life both a gift to and a reward, the two are Scripturally opposed to each other. (Rm. 6:23; 11:6)
All three, Eph 2:8-10, Titus 3:1-8, 2 Timothy 1:6-10 mention the importance of faith and also of good works. You carved out parts that speak of faith and neglected to also look at the immediate context of each of the three major prooftexts that you offer. (You wisely do not offer anything from Romans and Galatians here, because it must be clear to you that these speak narrowly of works of Jewish law). So, no, the scripture does teach that "soul is counted righteous because of faith", but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of faith ALONE.
Let us turn our attention to your other scriptural references.
Genesis 15:6
"Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice". Indeed. Annalex believes that one must do good works because that is what God says in Matthew 25:31-46. Abram then believed God and crossed the desert on a near-suicidal mission. He also believed God and was ready to sacrifice his beloved son. Catholic saints believed God when God said that that one must do good works and built universities and hospitals, and fought off the Turks. These were all works of faith. Faith without works is dead. Abraham was not saved by faith alone, but rather his faith co-operated with his works (James 2:23, Hebrews 11). We are not saved by faith alone.
Rm. 6:23
... is supposed to illustrate that eternal life is a gift rather than a reward. It is both, in fact: "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works" (Rev. 22:12, note that the rest of the passage speaks precisely of the reward of eternal life given to holy people).
Rm. 11:6
"And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace". Indeed. That is Catholic teaching: grace is not of works and we are saved by grace alone. You take a good and Catholic scripture that speaks of grace, and do a mental substitution of "faith" for "grace". That way, you can "prove" anything.
One either has confidence that his own works merit him acceptance before God, or he realizes himself a sinner
Why, there is no either-or here. St. Paul himself considered himself worst of sinners and at the same time understood that his works "fill what is wanting of the sufferings of Christ".
The apostle Paul clearly establishes that it is on the basis of God-given faith that one is justified by, not of works
Where, exactly? The prooftexts I am familiar with speak of works of the law but not good works of faith and love, to which St. Paul never tired of exhorting his reaers.
Consistent with what Paul himself taught elsewhere, what James is referring to is that the only faith that is salvific is the one that does work obedience, in contrast to one who simply professes but does not possess faith. Before Paul addressed the precise issue of faith versus works, he clearly stated, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rm. 2:13) And elsewhere he and other writers affirm that one can deny the faith by disobedience, (1Tim. 5:8; Gal. 5:1-5) and that it is those who obey Jesus who have eternal life. (Heb. 5:9) The key difference is that works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification.
Your examples are all good and teach the Catholic doctrine which you state well. Except, for no apparent reason, you conclude "works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification". That latter part is a theological fantasy not supported by scripture. If you substitute "grace" in that statement it becomes correct and Catholic, and also it then comes to reflect the scripture accurately. As you stated it, it reflects the Protestant error and nothing else.
salvation comes to the repentant who believe, (Lk. 16:9)
I believe you meant some different verse here. In general, yes, that is a true and Catholic statement that one who does penance and believes will be saved, because full and mature faith incorporates good works, including works of penance.
eternal life upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, (Jn. 5:24)
Yes, and what that faith really entails is explaned a few verses down, "And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment". Faith must be accompanied by good works. We are not saved by faith alone.
the obedient are given eternal life after consideration of their works. (Mt. 25:39-41)
The judgement in Matthew 25:31-46 is not a judgement of the obedient only, but rather of everyone, even, "every nation". The "goats" are clearly not among the obedient as they violated the commadnment given to all in Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:33.
Romans 10:9,10 also testified that it to is a faith which is confessional in quality that justifies
That is probably the best prooftext for Faith Alone as the explanation of the good works that go into that saving faith is deferred to the next several chapters. However, even in isolation, consider that the conclusion St Paul drives towards is that any one -- Greek or Jew -- can have the confessional faith. The polemics here is still with the Judaizers and the pruiported need to obey the Jewish law. but anyone who thinks that St. Paul preched salvation by faith alone in Romans 10 should skip over to Romans 12 and read things like "I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service". That supposedly purely confessional faith of Romans 10:9 turns out to be nothing short of a living sacrifice. Faith Alone anyone?
All these prooftexts of "Faith Alone" are silly.
Not silly, but serious and substantiating, despite those who wrest them.
All, taken in context, speak of "works of the law" or "works of justice"; if you read around them they all at the same time urge good works.
This aspect has been clearly affirmed, yet here, as before, and what follows, you continue to exhibit your fundamental misapprehension of what “faith alone” teachers, supposing that this is opposed to works being required for obedience, and that the character of this faith is one that is marked by obeying these requirements, and that salvation being restricted to this type of faith does not mean salvation is not by faith alone as its procuring means, which in reality it is, but not by a faith which is alone. And thus when you see texts as “to that worketh not but believeth,” “not according to our works” etc., you reject it out of hand as meaning faith as the instrumental means of justification, and that it is by imputed righteousness, and seeing the works which result from such faith you think they merit salvation, you think you have disproved sola fide which affirms faith and works, but the latter being a fruit of justification imputed righteous, not the basis or means of it.
The difference is, of course, that works done out of legal obligation are thereby containing their own reward, -- Jewishness, when that legally mattered, in the case of the works of circumcising oneself and one's children, or generally social recognition and temporal freedoms that lawful life offers. Good works, on the other hand, are works done for no temporal reward and instead at a temporal cost: continence, constraint of the passions, denial of self. These, the Gospel teaches, are works that save alongside of faith because, like faith they are possible thanks to divine grace. This simple teaching is brilliantly illustrated by Eph 2:4-10:
This text is simply affirming what sola fide itself affirms, as i have affirmed, that salvific faith is not one that is not alone, but obeys, but what such texts do not do is make works meritorious for salvation, which Rome does, and hence you must attempt to insist Paul is only excluding works based upon motive, which he somehow forgot to mention when disallowing “works of the law” or “works of righteousness, etc.”
If a man did truly works according to law, due to legal requirement, it required loving God by obedience so that he could be found just before Him and not be cursed, (Gal. 2:20) which required grace and was by faith that he could be justified that way, and which is akin to hoping to merit eternal life by the merit of works as per Rome, but which is what is disallowed. And while there may also be other motives, it is incongruous that Paul would not have made a distinction as to types of works when disallowing them as the meritorious basis for justification. Thus the Bible according to the Spirit of Rome would read like,
“But to him that worketh not — for any other motive but to please God in faith that he could merit eternal life life by the merit of his works — but believeth on him that justifies the unGodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Or “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works — hoping to impress others, or without a heart to please God and merit eternal life by grace — but according to His mercy He saved us — by sprinkling infants (typically) in recognition of their parents faith and thus regenerating them, so that they are just in His sight due to an actual internal righteousness (every mother's dream) and would go to heaven if they died, not be any merit of their own, (CCC 1282) but after baptism they are to merit eternal life by the grace of God dispensed thru Roman Catholic rituals, usually after an indeterminate time being made ready in purgatory, through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967) the least pain of which may surpass the greatest pain of this life, “(Aquinas T. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Appendix I, Article 1.) but out of which one be delivered through “the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints,” and “can always be applied to the dead by way of suffrage. (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; Norms, n. 1;3; cf. Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, Normae de indulgentiis, Libreria Editrice Vaticana 1999, p. 21; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1471) "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. " (2 Corinthians 11:3) |
Salvation is by sovereign grace of God alone; that grace is not of works. We receive His grace for no merit of our own and our response is twofold, faith and good works. God plants in us the former and prepares us for the latter. We are saved by grace alone through faith and good works.
Meaning “salvation by grace through merit,” that by the grace of God one merits eternal life, even though it is an unmerited gift and not by or of works, though these follow, and “not of works” means not of works a regards how one appropriates imputed righteousness, which is justification by declarative righteousness gained by Christ, versus an internal holiness which makes us just in His sight, and then meriting eternal life.
Of course, it is also a historical fact that "Faith Alone" was a slogan that emerged out of the so-called reformation. People prior to Luther were suffiently informed in the Holy Scripture to know that according to it, we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24).
If you want to object to slogans, i might want to list some what Rome has come up with to describe unBiblical teachings, which are allowed as also claiming derivation from the Bible (which word itself is not in the Scriptures) or from it non-codified nebulous tradition, even when falsely claiming unanimous consent. But the same deny sola Scripture when showed that the only objective authority that is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God and thus assuredly infallible are the Scriptures, versus a formulaic AIM. Likewise “faith alone” is disallowed, even when shown that it essentially means one must rest upon the mercy of God in Christ for salvation, not on any merit of his works, but which follow if the faith is true, they misconstrue it and confuse the basis for justification with its effects, and read contrasts into passages that are not supported by it, and which texts are contrary to justification by merit through any system of works-righteousness.
As for “sola fide,” the Reformation was not doing a new thing in teaching that man is justified by imputed righteousness , procured by a faith that results in works but is not merited by it, but articulating what is written. Nor was Luther the first to have “alone” in Rm. 3:28.
And as one researcher finds neither was Rome completely unified in its soteriology before Trent, and between extremes “were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification.” In reaction to the Reformation,”the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone—a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers—Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition." — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959), pp. 51-52.
Also, while church fathers overall did not seem to consider precisely defining justification to be an overall priority, behind my contention is the need for man to see his destitute condition and desperate need for salvation by casting all his faith on the Christ to save him by His blood and righteousness, and thus live that ought continually, which conversion confidence in ones works militates against. And historically evangelical faith has evidenced much more evident forth fruit of repentance and regeneration, in relation to its size, and rather than defending a church which fails in comparison, then manifest Biblical faith with its transformative conversions, not forms and perfunctory professions or trumpeting one church as supreme, should be our priority as we seek to be more ourselves.
Rather than teaching that a faith without works is salvific, it [historical Protestantism?] affirms Jame's teaching ...
No it doesn't. The slogan "by Faith Alone" is diametrical opposite of James 2:24.
No, James, who gave the definitive sentence in Acts 15, confirmed Peter's testimony in which Gentiles were saved by sola fide, being regenerated by faith in Christ, “purifying their hearts by faith,' (Acts 15:7-9), not gaining eternal life on the basis of meritorious works - although obedience (Acts 15:19-21) must follow a lived out living faith. Only by forcing James to make works meritorious for eternal life life can you convert his writings, and by making them to say that works of faith merited justification versus the faith behind them procuring IR, you place him in contradiction with the head theologian of the church.
That all the Protestant leaders, old and new, offer up some incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo of which that paragraph is a sample, is not surprising.
The Roman Catholic incomprehension is caused by the Roman mind meld, and whose plethora of pronouncements published in all their prolixity promotes a populace implicitly placing placating trust in her, and construes salvation by grace through faith with eternal life life being a gift of God into something man merits on an installment plan, through grace dispensed from Rome's treasury, replete with Indulgences and Novenas, “meriting for ourselves and for others the graces needed for...the attainment of eternal life.” (Catechism of the Catholic church, Part 3, Life in Christ, Merit, 2010) And the “the term
But so long as the slogan stands, "Faith Alone", so do the anathemas of Trent stand.
And whoever promotes works as meriting eternal life, versus imputed righteousness procured by a type of faith which does obey, is under a curse, (Gal. 1:6-9) as are they who promote a faith as salvific which teaches saving faith is not one lives it out, and or promotes confidence in the power of a church to get souls into heaven, basically as long as they die in as members, an thus it is Rome who is under the anathema of almighty God for teaching and fostering confidence in one's works as meriting eternal life, while they overall have little!
You cannot believe "A" and "not A" at the same time.
Your FM once again, while Rome attempts to have a gift merited or owed by works of faith.
You cannot have one Scripture declaring that a soul is counted righteous because of faith, in contrast to merit of his works, (Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9) and another (it is supposed) teaching that works merit eternal life, which Rome teaches. While she and her defenders seek to make eternal life both a gift to and a reward, the two are Scripturally opposed to each other. (Rm. 6:23; 11:6)
All three, Eph 2:8-10, Titus 3:1-8, 2 Timothy 1:6-10 mention the importance of faith and also of good works. You carved out parts that speak of faith and neglected to also look at the immediate context of each of the three major prooftexts that you offer.
Your FM once again.
(You wisely do not offer anything from Romans and Galatians here, because it must be clear to you that these speak narrowly of works of Jewish law).
No, i included Rm. 4 already, and dealt with “of the law,” but focused on these due to your attempt to read into them a contrast that is not there or warranted. Paul could have very easily used Gn. 22 if he was making your distinction, but he did not, and never makes the merit of the works of man the basis for man's justification in Christ.
So, no, the scripture does teach that "soul is counted righteous because of faith", but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of faith ALONE.
So, yes, the Scripture and Protestant sola fide does teach that a "soul is counted righteous because of faith," but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of a faith WHICH IS alone, or by merit of works.
Let us turn our attention to your other scriptural references.
"Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice". Indeed. Annalex believes that one must do good works because that is what God says in Matthew 25:31-46. Abram then believed God and crossed the desert on a near-suicidal mission. He also believed God and was ready to sacrifice his beloved son.
This i affirm, though i did not know Annalex was a rendering for Abraham:).
Catholic saints believed God when God said that that one must do good works and built universities and hospitals, and fought off the Turks. These were all works of faith. Faith without works is dead.
And contrary to the New Testament church, (1Cor. 5:12; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 10:3; Eph. 6:12) Rome used to sword of men to rule over those without, and tortured souls who were reported to have deviated from the Catholic faith, and persecuted those who in conscience toward God dissented from Rome, and even killer her “own” who reproved them. Indeed faith with works is dead, and the wrong faith leaves men dead. And while early Protestants also wrongly used the sword of men to rule over those without, having learned this from Rome, yet evangelical faith was largely responsible for the Christian character of America, it being the “civil religion,” resulting in benefits all enjoy today and adding to the kingdom of God, while nations increasingly suffer as they cast off Christian faith and its ethos, and much of the church itself becomes much like the world.
Abraham was not saved by faith alone, but rather his faith co-operated with his works (James 2:23, Hebrews 11). We are not saved by faith alone.
His faith certainty did, but that is not what is in contention, key verse, while your conclusion compels converting Paul to what you perceive James is saying in order to reconcile it to Rome, but rightly dividing the word of truth (2Tim. 2:15) requires honestly seeking to reconcile Scripture with itself as light is given.
The first distinction which needs to be made again is that of the basis for justification, imputed (declared) righteousness procured by God-given faith (qualified as to its confessional character) in Christ and His blood, (Rm. 3:25-4:1-24) versus making justification to be on the basis of infusion, of an actual righteousness, and eternal life life gained by merit of works. The latter is clearly rejected, as the exclusion of merit is what is behind Paul's contrast, and does not allow for grace enabling merit, as even justification by law-keeping was by God's grace. But “the law is not of faith” in the sense that “The man that doeth them shall live in them," (Galatians 3:12) so that one had to keep it perfectly to be just, versus faith in God mercy as an utterly unworthy sinner, justified by the merits of a Substitute versus merit of one's own works. And Rm. 11:6 , despite your attempt further on to reconcile it to the doctrine of merit by grace, contextually it defines grace as regards salvation as not based upon man's merit.
Next, as basically said before, you cannot have Moses and Paul both stating that Abraham was justified in Gn. 15:6, with many other verses stating justification is by faith, and never saying that justification was procured by any kind of works, but always contrasting faith-procurement to works (though again, such faith surely must be of a character that expresses itself in obedience to its Object), and then have James saying he was lost until Gn. 22 when he did works which merited justification.
However, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” may be reconciled with Moses and Paul as referring to Abraham's initial justifying faith of Gn. 15:6 also being justificatory in its confirmatory or fulfilled status as manifested in works, showing “how” that man is not justified by faith alone in the sense that it is not an inert faith that remains without evidences, which James is opposing, but one that overall enduring responds by works.
But as said before, if that means that making a manifest response such as Gn. 22 evidences is absolutely necessary to be justified then Gn. 15:6 must be rejected as being a present justification, and thus Abraham was not saved until such an expression, and Rome's infants cannot be justified (and insofar as merit is concerned, the sola fide position is like that of Rome concerning infants, except that it is by imputed righteousness, and proxy faith is usually disallowed.) And the souls in Acts 10 were not purified by faith and regenerated until they were baptized, and baptism by desire cannot be allowed, which is consistent with sola fide, and if it is then it is allowed at all then it is contrary to what you have James teaching.
What seems most evident is that Abraham was initially justified in Gn. 15:6 by faith alone, while Gn. 22 shows him being manifestly justified, having a confirmed confessional-type faith, of the character that endures, which is the only type that is salvific. And thus it is that believers must be “followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” "For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. {37} For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry. {38} Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. {39} But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." (Hebrews 6:12; 10:36-39) "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; " (Hebrews 3:14) And thus the fundamental Calvinistic doctrine of the Perseverance of the saints, that the elect finally perseverance in faith, though Roman Catholic apologists ignore in construing the “sola” of sola fide to mean works have no place as regards faith, rather than it alone, versus works of merit, procures justification by imputed righteousness .
... is supposed to illustrate that eternal life is a gift rather than a reward. It is both, in fact: "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works" (Rev. 22:12, note that the rest of the passage speaks precisely of the reward of eternal life given to holy people).
This is part of Paul's continual discourse that eternal life is not of merit, not a recompense due to merit, And the CCC states that The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment.” While it tries to reconcile it with unmerited grace, the contrast it makes in so doing is duplicitous. “no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. [But] Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (CCC 2006,10)
Yet works are the barometer of faith, and thus Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to them that obey him. (Heb. 5:9) And while works manifest who true believers are, who are not simply professors, there is a distinction between rewards because one did works by grace, versus eternal life being merited, and Rv. 22:13 conflates to Rev. 11:8, which corresponds to texts such as 1Cor. 3:13-15.
"And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace". Indeed. That is Catholic teaching: grace is not of works and we are saved by grace alone. You take a good and Catholic scripture that speaks of grace, and do a mental substitution of "faith" for "grace". That way, you can "prove" anything.
Thar may sound convincing to yourself, but it is you who are using a specious substitution here, ignoring the actual means by which justification by IR is appropriated by God's grace (“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace” — Rm. 4:16), which is by God-given faith in Christ and His blood, so you can teach salvation by grace through merit, while the very verse you want to hijack to that end is about election NOT being a result of any merit of man! The context is why and how some are elected and others were not, which is answered (albeit not without mystery) as due to God's purely sovereign choice, "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." (Romans 9:11-13) And why were the natural branches rejected and on what basis were the Gentiles accepted? “Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” (Rm. 11:20)
One either has confidence that his own works merit him acceptance before God, or he realizes himself a sinner
Why, there is no either-or here. St. Paul himself considered himself worst of sinners and at the same time understood that his works "fill what is wanting of the sufferings of Christ".
Seriously. While Paul did try to be an approved servant (2Cor. 5:10) he preached acceptance via IR through faith, while using private interpretation you attempt to insert confidence in one's merit for salvation into a verse (Col. 1:24) with an obscure meaning, which Roman commentators surmise may refer to filling up the quota of Messianic sufferings need for His return, or perhaps something else, while Roman Catholic on Catholics answers also speculate (“clear as mud” one says), and some Protestant commentators as well as JP2 and Haydock Bible Commentary see it referring to the union the church has with Christ, and suffering with Him as believers are called to do till He come. I see as thus also, but more specific to Paul, he was foretold what things he himself would have to suffer, for Jesus name, (Act 9:18) and thus His church, and while there is no insufficiency in the expiatory sufferings of Christ in redemption, it is the believers part to endure all things for the elects sake, (2Tim. 2:10) working to keep them in the faith present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. (2Cor. 11:2)
What this does not support is a type of bank account or “treasury of the satisfaction” won by Paul which he deposited into for future withdrawals via Rome. However, in a cause and effect sense men do benefit from the labor of others, as in Jn. 4:37,38) or suffer due to the contrary.
The criminal on the cross or the penitent publican hardly can be said to have had confidence in their own works as meriting eternal life. If we do, we are in serious error.
The apostle Paul clearly establishes that it is on the basis of God-given faith that one is justified by, not of works
Where, exactly? The prooftexts I am familiar with speak of works of the law but not good works of faith and love, to which St. Paul never tired of exhorting his reaers.
I have i deal with both “works of the law,” that if there was a way to merit justification it would have been by the law, as well as “work of righteousness,” and just plain “not according to our works,” and “not by works,” showing you that all you attempt to restrict them to motive is untenable. Read on below. Your attempt to do so is honestly like the pro-homosexuals who claim that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships in Rm. 1 are not condemned, only a certain other kind is in view. You make works being the cause of justification, and meriting eternal life, but what Paul teaches is that man's essential justification is by IR procured by faith, and though it is expressed by works, they do not merit it.
Consistent with what Paul himself taught elsewhere, what James is referring to is that the only faith that is salvific is the one that does work obedience, in contrast to one who simply professes but does not possess faith. Before Paul addressed the precise issue of faith versus works, he clearly stated, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” (Rm. 2:13) And elsewhere he and other writers affirm that one can deny the faith by disobedience, (1Tim. 5:8; Gal. 5:1-5) and that it is those who obey Jesus who have eternal life. (Heb. 5:9) The key difference is that works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification.
Your examples are all good and teach the Catholic doctrine which you state well. Except, for no apparent reason, you conclude "works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification". That latter part is a theological fantasy not supported by scripture. If you substitute "grace" in that statement it becomes correct and Catholic, and also it then comes to reflect the scripture accurately. As you stated it, it reflects the Protestant error and nothing else.
The theological fantasy is yours, as Rome has works meriting (recompense owed) eternal life while the Bible plainly states, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. { But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," (Romans 4:4-6) Your issue is with the Holy Spirit's choice of words, not mine. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: {9} Not of works, lest any man should boast. {10} For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. " (Ephesians 2:8-10)
Notice the means by which one is saved, grace through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast. Not grace through works, nor simply works that one does to boast, but “not according to our works” (2Tim. 1:9) but by God-given faith which appropriates IR. Men who could choose themselves to be elect, as well as those who merit eternal life by choosing to cooperate with God both can have a reason to boast over those who did not. But as regards salvation, no one may not.
salvation comes to the repentant who believe, (Lk. 16:9)
I believe you meant some different verse here. In general, yes, that is a true and Catholic statement that one who does penance and believes will be saved, because full and mature faith incorporates good works, including works of penance.
Sorry, two chapters off. (Lk. 18:9) But you are ignoring that this justification by faith out of a poor and contrite heart is contrary to one meriting eternal life, and one needing to do manifest works of faith in order to be justified in the first place, while i have already responded to the penance versus repentance issue.
"But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? {41} And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. {42} And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. {43} And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. " (Luke 23:40-43)
“Question. Dost thou believe that the Lord Jesus died for thee? Answer. I believe it.
Qu. Dost thou thank him for his passion and death? Ans. I do thank him. Qu. Dost thou believe that thou canst not be saved except by his death? Ans. I believe it.” And then Anselm addresses the dying man: “Come then, while life remaineth in thee; in his death alone place thy whole trust; in naught else place any trust; to his death commit thyself wholly; with this alone cover thyself wholly; and if the Lord thy God will to judge thee, say, ‘Lord, between thy judgment and me I present the death of our Lord Jesus Christ; no otherwise can I contend with thee.’ And if he shall say that thou art a sinner, say thou: ‘Lord, I interpose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my sins and thee.’ If he say that thou hast deserved condemnation, say: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between my evil deserts and thee, and his merits I offer for those which I ought to have and have not.’ If he say that he is wroth with thee, say: ‘Lord, I oppose the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thy wrath and me.’ And when thou hast completed this, say again: ‘Lord, I set the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between thee and me.’” Anselm, Opera (Migne), 1:686, 687.
eternal life upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, (Jn. 5:24)
Yes, and what that faith really entails is explaned a few verses down, "And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment". Faith must be accompanied by good works. We are not saved by faith alone.
Again, that is true in the sense that a saving faith is not of a character that is alone, but is or will be accompanied by works corresponding to the will of its object, thus baptism is usually concomitant with the conversion event, but one is justified by IR through their faith which is behind its works, versus works being meritorious. Without the precise distinction men will presume their works merit justification, essentially like men presumed works of their law did.
the obedient are given eternal life after consideration of their works. (Mt. 25:39-41)
The judgement in Matthew 25:31-46 is not a judgement of the obedient only, but rather of everyone, even, "every nation". The "goats" are clearly not among the obedient as they violated the commadnment given to all in Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:33.
True, and as said,
Romans 10:9,10 also testified that it to is a faith which is confessional in quality that justifies
That is probably the best prooftext for Faith Alone as the explanation of the good works that go into that saving faith is deferred to the next several chapters. However, even in isolation, consider that the conclusion St Paul drives towards is that any one -- Greek or Jew -- can have the confessional faith. The polemics here is still with the Judaizers and the pruiported need to obey the Jewish law. but anyone who thinks that St. Paul preched salvation by faith alone in Romans 10 should skip over to Romans 12 and read things like "I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service". That supposedly purely confessional faith of Romans 10:9 turns out to be nothing short of a living sacrifice. Faith Alone anyone?
You miss what “therefore” establishes, a justification by faith not merit, while if you read my replies you should have known that Faith Alone is not a faith that is alone, but the straw man is polemically convenient for you, unless you fail to understand this. But having begun with a fundamental misapprehension you should not end with the same, supposing that Paul's “therefore” exhortation to respond to the great truths of justification through faith means that now he is teaching justification is procured on the basis of works of merit, which basis he had destroyed, and that the call to live out faith is in conflict with sola fide, supposing it holds to a type of faith that does not obey Acts 26:20, which it does not.
Extended:
Paul began by showing both the Gentiles and the Jews were guilty before God, (cps 1-3) and rather than meriting eternal life by better kind of obedience, he told them they needed justification by faith being counted for righteousness; That just as Abraham was utterly unable to effect or appropriate the promise of God, as his and Sarah's procreative ability was defunct, yet "He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; {21} And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. {22} And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. {23} Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; {24} But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; {25} Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. " (Romans 4:20-25)
The whole thing is about faith procuring justification; not on the basis of works-merit, nor by a faith that will not work, but faith nonetheless, as the man was helpless to do works to gain the promise, which physical helplessness corresponds to our inability to merit eternal life. Instead, one must believe and be counted as righteousness.
Next they were told, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: (Rm. 5:1) He then goes on to explain the transaction Christ made by the grace of God, "For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) {18} Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. " (Romans 5:17-18)
And therefore, since they were justified by faith, not by merit of works, the necessary question was, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? " (Romans 6:1) If one had received justified by merit of his works of faith, rather than grace saving sinful men by faith, this question would be superfluous. But if saving faith were of a character that was not to show forth fruit unto holiness and continue therein, and that living after the flesh was not a denial of faith that resulted in death, then what follows is also superfluous. And cps 6-8 tell how and exhort thereto. Unlike salvation by works of merit, in which the souls is ever seeking to merit heaven, those justified by faith are accepted in the Beloved, and risen with Christ, and seated in heavenly places, and translated in His kingdom. They therefore can deal with life from a position of strength, practically living out and becoming what they are positionally in Christ, having become “washed, sanctified and justified,” at conversion, and thus living it out. (2Cor. 6:11; Rm. 4:5; Acts 13:39; 26:18; 2Thes. 2:13)
Rm. 9-11 establishes that election is purely by grace, and the Gentles are warned that the because of unbelief they [the Jews as a whole; the natural branches] were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. (Rm. 20-21)
So here again it is faith, with cps 11-15 exhorting living out that faith, as faith that justifies is of a character that will follow Jesus, (Jn. 11:27,28) suffering with Him, putting to death the deeds of the flesh, as those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God, calling upon the Father in Heaven (not Mary, etc.), these being foreordained to glory. (Rm. 8:13-17,30) To His glory. Amen.