catholicguy Posted July 24, 2004 Share Posted July 24, 2004 To Ichthus, from Hananiah in an email to me. This is from his website. The link is below and the text below it. He said that it is necessary that you read this as soon as possible. God bless. [url="http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/soteriology.htm"]http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/b/m/bmd175/soteriology.htm[/url] In Defense of Catholic Soteriology [1] [2] “Nothing unclean shall enter [heaven], nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood” (Apoc 21:27). Sin and God’s holiness are absolutely incompatible, as diametrically opposed as light and darkness, life and death, Christ and Satan (cf. 2 Cor 6:14ff). This leads us to a sobering conclusion; before we may enter into God’s presence, we must become perfect (cf. Matt 5:48). How is this possible? How can a sinful creature be justified before his righteous Creator? I shall endeavor herein to explain the Catholic position, and to prove it from Scripture. I should like to begin by stating something Catholics and Protestants can agree upon; as taught by Eph 2:8f, justification is wholly and entirely the work of God’s grace; it is not our own doing. Moreover, nothing that we possess, whether faith or works, can merit the grace of first justification; it is by nature gratuitous, free, and undeserved; otherwise, “grace is no longer grace” (Rom 11:6). I shall later prove that grace can merit more grace, and that by the final judgment God will have providentially produced merits in His elect, but that is beside the present point, namely, we cannot claim any part in the work of salvation as our own. That having been said, it is no good simply to say that justification is by grace alone without first having a proper understanding of what grace is and what it does. Most Protestant theologians define grace solely as an attribute of God, i.e. His gratuitous, unmerited, and unmeritable favor. Catholics, by contrast, in addition to allowing the word to refer to the relationship with God which Christians enjoy (e.g. Rom 6:14f), define grace as supernatural aid, which is created, quantifiable, transferable, has ontological existence like a spirit, and which God infuses into the souls of men in order to sanctify and strengthen them [3]. Obviously, the view of grace which one adopts will have important ramifications throughout one’s soteriology (i.e. if grace is extrinsic to the individual and justification is by grace alone then justification must be extrinsic to the individual, but not so if grace inheres in the soul), so I will provide the scriptural support for the Catholic position here. "Scripture... speaks of grace as coming in various measures [4]. Scripture also speaks of grace given in proportion to the need at hand or the specific service to be performed [5]." [6] When one receives the grace of God in one’s soul, one is strengthened (Heb 13:9), yet grace is possible to waste (2 Cor 6:1). Incidentally, 2 Corinthians 6:2 says that now is the day of salvation, whereupon God is to "help" His people. Given that St. Paul identifies this fact as the reason he is urging the Corinthians not to recieve the grace of God in vain, it seems that he is identifying the "help" described in v 2 as grace. This is further support for the Catholic view of grace as supernatural aid, and not merely favor. Finally, probably the most explicit endorsement of the Catholic view to be found in all of Scripture is 1 Corinthians 15:10: “I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God within me.” The image which is created is not that of a mere attribute of God, but that of a God-given spiritual power which inheres in St. Paul’s soul and produces good works through him. This alone should be enough to prove the Catholic doctrine of justification; if grace justifies and grace inheres in the soul then our justification is predicated upon a quality which inheres in the soul. In any case, our justification must begin with God’s call. We cannot come to Christ without God’s grace first having gone before us, drawing us to Him (John 6:44). The grace of God does demand our free cooperation and consent (cf. Zech 1:3); however, even this is produced in us by God. “The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, ‘since He who completes His work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it.’”[7] The council of Trent defined justification, in accord with the Catholic conception of grace, as well as the etymology of the word [8], as “a 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,” which includes “not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man.”[9] Upon justification, God pours His love into our hearts, transforming us and making us inwardly, ontologically righteous. We become “partakers in the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4) and “new creations” (2 Cor 5:17), “for just as through the disobedience of one person many were made sinners, so through the obedience of One many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19). This translation is effected at “the washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5) i.e. baptism [10]. The Bible teaches this truth repeatedly. First, Our Lord said Himself that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). The context of this statement is that Jesus had just been baptized with water by St. John and received the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove [11]. The water and the Spirit are, of course, both literal, which should give us a clue as to the correct interpretation of 3:5. Likewise, soon after this statement Jesus’ disciples begin baptizing people with water. This is also a contextual clue. But context aside, the Protestant interpretation of 3:5 does not even work when one considers the statement by itself. As no one denies that the Spirit of 3:5 is a literal reference to the Holy Spirit, one who attempts to make the water into a metaphor runs into the serious exegetical problem of having to switch from a metaphorical to a literal interpretation in the middle of a sentence! Hudatos [that’s a metaphor] kai [here comes the switch] pneumatos [that’s literal]. This is absurd. My father might as well tell me to fetch him an apple and a peach then chastise me for not bringing him an apple and a woman from Georgia. Finally, every Church Father who ever exegeted this passage interpreted it as a reference to baptism [12]. Protestants who believe baptismal regeneration to be contradictory to the very essence of the Gospel are thus forced to make a claim similar to that of Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, namely that the early Church lost the Gospel very, very quickly [13]. Romans 6:3ff also teaches baptismal regeneration. Baptism is the means by which we are buried with Christ into death (v 4) and when we die with Christ we are justified from sin (v 7). Hence baptism is the means by which we are justified from sin. Colossians 2:11ff is almost identical. In baptism we receive a spiritual circumcision (v 11) and we die and are raised with Christ through faith (v 12). Baptism is not merely a figure of something which truly happens some time before or after the ceremony, when one apprehends the alien righteousness of Christ through faith alone; the following two verses speak of God resurrecting the spiritually dead and forgiving them all their sins. This is a description of justification. And as sound exegesis demands that we identify the spiritual resurrection v 13f as the same described in v 12, namely baptism, we must necessarily conclude that baptism justifies. To do otherwise is to do violence to the plain teaching of Scripture. 1 Peter 3:21 teaches the great Catholic truth of baptismal regeneration as well. When St. Peter says that baptism saves, he is using the word "save" in the sense of justification. This can be seen from his typological use of the ark. In the ark, eight persons were saved from death and divine judgment. God used the ark as His instrument in setting apart and saving the righteous few, and those not abiding in it perished under His holy wrath. St. Peter says that this prefigured baptism, which now saves us. If the type/antitype comparison is to have any meaning, the word "save" must mean essentially the same thing in both clauses. Thus, baptism is God's instrument whereby He sets apart and saves the righteous few, and those who do not receive this sacrament will perish under His holy wrath. There are many other Scriptures to this effect [14]. Having received salvation at baptism through faith in Jesus Christ, it is incumbent upon us to “strive for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14). We must continually cooperate with the sanctifying grace of God until we attain final perfection in heaven. I shall here exegete a few of the passages which teach that this inward holiness infused through faith (which is itself an infused gift of grace [15]), and the works wrought therewith, are the grounds of our justification, and not the alien righteousness of Christ apprehended through faith alone. I shall start with James 2. The train of though of which v 2:24 is a part begins at v 14. St. James poses a question: "What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but he has not works? Can the faith save him?" This question should frame our understanding of the following verses, as it is in response thereto that they are written. After asking this question, St. James goes on to present the evidence upon which he will base his conclusion (even demons believe that God is one, etc.). Then in v 24, the conclusion comes: "So you see that man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Here we have an explicit affirmation of Catholic theology on justification. Most Protestants will retort that St. James is not speaking about justification in the sense of salvation (a la Rom 5:1, et al.), but rather is speaking about justification before men, a vindication of a salvation already received. However, this theory is untenable when we recall the question which this statement answers: "can the faith save him"? And the answer of course is no, we are justified by works and not by faith alone. So the context of James 2:24 is clearly about salvation, not vindication, and there is no justification for positing that St. James suddenly switched without warning. Shortly after this statement St. James contradicts faith alone theology once again, albeit this time the contradiction is only implicit. The contradiction is found in 3:1, which reads, "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you realize that we will be judged more strictly." According to faith alone theology, we will all be judged by the same standard by God, namely the standard of perfection. Hence, since no one is perfect, we must all be legally accredited with Christ's perfect righteousness or we will never make it past the bar. Yet, here St. James states quite plainly that there are varying degrees of judgment in God's court, for teachers will be held to a higher standard than students. And if one standard is higher than another, obviously the lower cannot be the standard of perfection. Hence, there are at least some people who will not be judged by the standard of perfection, and thus do not need to be legally accredited with the perfect righteousness of Christ. And as this soteriology presupposes that everyone needs this accreditation, thus the whole legal imputation scheme falls. Perhaps one might reply that St. James is speaking only of a judgment regarding personal rewards for those whose salvation is already guaranteed, however this interpretation does not nearly do justice to the ominous context of this epistle’s statements about judgment and damnation (e.g. 1:9, 13; 3:6; 4:12; 5:1, 9). Finally I should like to mention v 5:20, which again teaches that good works save us from death, and, like Daniel 4:27, that works atone for sin. St. Paul clearly teaches the insufficiency of faith alone for salvation in 1 Corinthians 13:2: “if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” Can anyone reasonably assert that “all faith, so as to move mountains” is a dead faith, the intellectual assent which even the demons render to God and tremble? On the contrary, if this is not a saving faith nothing is. Moreover, can anyone reasonably assert that a new creation in Christ who partakes of the divine nature is nothing? This is to insult the saving work of God. No, this passage admits of only one interpretation: love must be added to faith or faith will not justify. If St. Paul had wanted to teach justification by faith alone, he would have used the words “faith alone.” He knew the word mónon; he used it more than any other New Testament writer, often right beside important statements regarding justification by faith [16]. And if this qualification were essential to the very essence of the Gospel, one would think that for the sake of souls St. Paul would have made it. But he did not. I shall use Galatians 5:6 as a case in point. According to the Protestant interpretation, the Galatians had added works to the Gospel, and in Ch. 5 Paul is giving them a vigorous sola fide rebuke. “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but [only] faith.” This would be a perfect place to stop, were this interpretation correct. Yet he goes on: “faith working through love.” Jesus Himself plainly teaches the Catholic position when the rich young man asks Him how to obtain salvation in Matthew 19:16ff; He tells him to keep the commandments in order to inherit eternal life, and that if he sells all his possessions, gives to the poor, and follows Him he will be rewarded with heaven. After the rich man leaves, Jesus tells his disciples that those who do act thusly will indeed be so rewarded. This theme of heaven as a reward for works is prominent throughout the Bible, most especially in the teachings of Christ and Paul and in the Apocalypse [17]. God actually arranges for His elect to merit heaven. Make no mistake; this is not strict merit, as an employer is obligated to pay those who render him a needed service. Rather, it is condign merit, the debt in which God places Himself through promise [18]. God has promised to reward His adopted sons for the works wrought through them by His Only-Begotten Son [19], therefore He is legally obligated to do so, as He cannot sin (cf. Heb 6:10; 2 Tim 4:8). Lest one reply that these Scriptures are about personal rewards for those whose salvation has already been secured by the imputed righteousness of Christ, this interpretation does violence to the context in nearly every case. For example, Matthew 16:26f is about the last judgment. Those who sin will be recompensed with hell, and those who do good works will be recompensed with heaven. Again in Matt 25:31ff everyone is judged based upon their deeds. Likewise Romans 2:5ff: the contrast is between the elect and the reprobate [20]. 2 Corinthians 5:10 is almost identical to Matthew 16:26f: the righteous are recompensed with heaven for their good works and the wicked with hell for their sins. Again, in Colossians 3:24 the reward described is not merely a nifty personal crown; it is the believer’s inheritance i.e. eternal life. Finally, Apocalypse 20:11ff is the ultimate Biblical judgment scene, yet here again all are judged on the basis of their works; there is absolutely no mention of those “hid from God’s eyes under the blood of the lamb” versus those exposed to shame. These passages are quite simply incompatible with faith alone theology, and the argument that they are about personal rewards and not the destination of the immortal soul is utterly devoid of merit. It is only so much sophistry. A slightly better argument is that these passages are merely describing the general characteristics of those who go to heaven i.e. righteousness, good works, etc., and not the reason why they go there, namely the imputed righteousness of Christ apprehended through faith alone. This is called a descriptive, as opposed to a proscriptive reading. To give credit where credit is due, this interpretation actually has equal exegetical merit to the Catholic interpretation of such verses as John 5:28f and Apocalypse 21:27. But on the other hand, it is far more strained than the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 25:31ff, and it makes absolutely no sense at all with regards to Romans 2:5ff, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Matthew 16:26f, for example, which explicitly say that the works are the basis upon which we shall be judged. When faced with these verses, the descriptive reading simply breaks down, and it becomes abundantly obvious that the Biblical Catholic truth that we will be judged according to our deeds, the righteous being recompensed with heaven and the wicked with hell, is ultimately impossible to avoid. There are many more passages to this effect which I could discuss, but this essay is not meant to be exhaustive. It is time to move on to the next section, wherein I shall exegete one the passages most commonly used by Protestants in support of their view. I am of course referring to Romans 4:1ff. This is a difficult passage; it will require me to lay some lexical and contextual groundwork before tackling the sacred text itself. But if the reader will bear with me I promise that this essay will eventually get interesting again. To begin, a proper understanding of the Greek word logizomai (= reckoned, credited, counted) is crucial to a proper understanding of this passage, in which the word logizomai appears twelve times. In this vein the excellent work of Robert Sungenis deserves to be quoted at some length. [Contrary to the Protestant contention], the Greek verb logizomai does not most often indicate what someone or something is merely “considered” to be but is not so in reality. The New Testament uses logizomai 41 times. Most of these refer to what someone is thinking as a mental representation of the reality they are witnessing (cf. Lk 22:37; Rm 3:28; 6:11; 9:8; 1Co 4:1; 13:5, 11; Ph 3:13; 4:8; Hb 11:19, et al)... [I]n only a few instances is logizomai used as a mental representation of something that does not exist in reality (cf. Rm 2:26; 2Co 12:6). Hence, the preponderant evidence shows that logizomai denotes more of what is recognized or understood intrinsically of a person or thing than a mere crediting to the person or thing something that is not intrinsic to it. [21] It is also helpful to analyze the specific construction used in Romans 4:3: "it (Abraham's faith) was credited to him as righteousness" (elogisthe auto eis dikaiosune) [22]. It is a quotation from Genesis 15:6 (the Hebrew parallel is chashab lo tsadaqah), and given the above lexical analysis of logizomai, it should be obvious to anyone without an overarching theological bias that the meaning of the text is that God is recognizing Abraham's faith for what it is, namely an inherently righteous quality in Abraham's soul. But if anyone is still not convinced, this position is further buttressed by the parallel usage of the construction in Psalm 106:30f, the only other time in the Old Testament in which it is used: "Then Phinehas stood up and interposed, and so the plague was stayed. And it was reckoned to him for righteousness to all generations forever." Phinehas did an actual righteous deed (skewering an Israelite man and a Moabite woman who were fornicating in the tent of meeting (cf. Num 25:6ff)) and all generations forever recognized it for what it was. They did not credit Phinehas with the alien righteousness of Christ. Neither did God do so to Abraham. Neither will God do so to us. Rather He will look at the righteous qualities which He has infused in us by grace and then declare that He is well pleased. Next, there are two contextual issues which must be addressed. The first is Abraham's status before God at the time his faith was credited to him for righteousness in Genesis 15:6. This is very important because Protestants view Genesis 15:6 as the time when Abraham received the one-time imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ. If it could be proven that Abraham had been justified beforehand this would deal a serious blow to their position. Contrariwise, it would present absolutely no problem to the Catholic position which holds that Genesis 15:6 was only one of many times whereupon God recognized inherent righteousness in Abraham's soul. And in point of fact this can be proven. In Genesis 12:4 Abraham trusts God and abandons everything he knows to follow His commands. Hebrews 11:8 calls this an act of faith. In Genesis 12:8 Abraham worships the Lord and calls on His Name. In Genesis 14:19f Melchizedek calls Abraham blessed by God. As should be abundantly obvious, these are not the faith and works of an unregenerate heathen; Abraham is an adopted son of God; he did not recieve the one-time imputation of Christ's alien righteousness at Genesis 15:6. The second contextual issue is exactly kind of works St. Paul is excluding from the Gospel in vv 2, 4f; his language in v 4, the rest of this epistle, as well as his epistle to the Galatians makes it clear that he is only excluding works done on a principle of strict merit. St. Paul is condemning the proposition that we can earn salvation as a worker earns a wage. His reasoning goes like this: a worker renders to his employer a needed service, and thus "his wage is not reckoned as a gift, but as what is due." The employer is legally obligated to pay him back. Obviously, if one were able to place God in such a position, this would be highly conducive to boasting. Moreover, the proposition that man can actually do so is inherently absurd, as no one is able to render to God anything that He does not have and needs. The Catholic system of condign merit is entirely different, and is not at all in conflict with the teachings of Paul. Indeed, Paul often taught it, as discussed above. It holds that man can never, under any circumstances whatsoever, perform a service that God needs. Man can never place God in debt. However, God can place Himself in debt by making promises which He is obligated by His own justice to fulfill. The system of condign merit also holds that the works which God obligates Himself to reward with heaven are not actually performed by man, but by God through men. As one can see, far from being conducive to boasting, this system is conducive to humility, as it forces man to recognize his radical dependence on God, and to worship, as one who understands this system can do naught but praise God for such a glorious condescension, that He would place Himself in debt to lowly man, promising to reward works and then producing the works which would merit the reward. So by now we are ready to read Romans 4:1ff with Catholic eyes. Abraham cannot boast about works which he has done in order to obligate God to repay him with eternal life (v 2). Rather, he can trust in God, and God will graciously look upon this as an inherently righteous quality in his soul (v 3). A worker's wage is not a gift, but what is due to him for his service (v 4). But to one who does not attempt to thus earn salvation, and who trusts in God to justify him instead of attempting to thus justify himself, God will graciously see his faith as righteousness and declare that He is well pleased (v 5). As an aside, in the next few verses St. Paul evokes the example of King David to illustrate his teaching on justification. He quotes a Psalm which David wrote after being re-justified; David had been justified before but had lost his salvation through sin. Moving on, I shall briefly touch upon the issue of Purgatory. Upon our death, God will draw us up into the holy and consuming fire of His love, and whatever work of sanctification He did not finish on earth, He will finish then. Whatever dross is left upon our souls, he will eradicate. This is described in 1 Corinthians 3:12ff. The adverb houtos which is translated as “yet so” in v 15 is often translated as “in the same way.” [23] “It is pointing out in what manner the person is saved, e.g., ‘he is saved thusly.’” [24] The only thing to which St. Paul could be referring is the manner in which the man’s work is burned and refined as described in v 13. Hence the meaning of v 15 is that just as the fire burns and refines the work so does it burn and refine the individual. Finally, I shall address the doctrine of eternal security, which is contradicted by the Bible numerous times. St. Paul tells the Galatians, in the plainest language, that they have been severed from Christ, and have fallen from grace (Gal 5:4; cf. 1:8f). This statement presupposes that they were once attached to Christ and under grace. Moreover, the Galatians had received the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:2f), the first installment of their heavenly inheritance (Eph 1:14). In sum, the Galatians had been justified. Yet they are not merely under God’s fatherly displeasure; Paul’s language is much stronger than that; they have been disowned. Next, in Romans 11:20ff Paul uses the metaphor of an olive tree to describe how salvation had come to the Gentiles; the Jews had been cut off for their unbelief and the Gentiles had been grafted in. Yet Paul warns the Romans that if they do not continue in God’s kindness they too will be snapped off from the salvation tree. Again, in 1 Cor 9:24ff Paul likens the Christian life to a race, with eternal life the prize at the end, and he allows for the possibility that even he himself might be disqualified and miss the prize. Obviously, Paul knew that he had been justified at some point in the past. Therefore he believed that justification was possible to lose. Hebrews contains probably the most explicit contradiction to eternal security of all, thundering hellfire and brimstone at those who apostatize after being sanctified by the blood of the covenant (Heb 10:26ff). Jesus also taught that salvation could be lost in the parable of the unforgiving servant (Matt 18:23ff). We know from vv 23 and 35 that this parable is a metaphor for our relationship with God. The king represents God and the servant represents us. The monstrous debt, ten thousand talants in all, represents the debt of sin. Hence, when the servant humbly begs his lord for forgiveness and the lord is moved to mercy and cancels the debt, Jesus is representing justification. The relevant part of the parable: immediately after "justification" this servant goes out and commits an atrocious sin, so his lord reinstates the debt and throws him to the torturers. So will God do to us. And these Scriptures are only the tip of the iceberg [25]. Actually, there is one more argument I should like to make: the Protestant view of justification is a metaphysical impossibility. It involves God declaring something to be so (i.e. that the sinner is righteous) and it not actually being so. As should be intuitively obvious to all Christians, and as testified to by Holy Scripture [26], the Word of God is absolutely efficacious; it effects what is pronounced. Ben Douglass -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Soteriology is the study of salvation. [2] St. Francis de Sales, pray that the following may bear fruit for the salvation of souls. [3] cf. Baltimore Catechism, § 2, Lesson 10, Q. 103: "[Grace is] a supernatural gift of God bestowed on us, through the merits of Jesus Christ, for our salvation. [4] e.g. Acts 4:23; Jas 4:6; 1 Pet 4:10; 2 Pet 1:2 [5] e.g. Rom 12:6; 15:15; 2 Cor 9:8; Eph 4:7; Heb 4:16 [6] Robert Sungenis, Not By Faith Alone. (Goleta, Ca: Queenship Publishing, 1997) p. 306 [7] Catechism of the Catholic Church. (Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997) § 2001, citing St. Augustine, De gratia et libero arbitrio, 17 [8] The Greek verb to justify is dikaiów. Verbs ending in ów normally mean to make whatever the root indicates, e.g. delów, to make manifest (cf. 1 Cor 3:13; Col 1:8), phanerów, meaning the same (cf. 1 Cor 4:5; 1 Tim 3:16), and tuphów, to make blind (cf. John 12:40). Cf. Sungenis, op. cit., p. 300, f. 1 [9] The Council of Trent, “Decree on Justification,” Chs. IV, VII [10] cf. St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61 [11] cf. Matt 3:16f; Mark 1:9ff; Luke 3:21f; John 1:31f [12] cf. St. Justin Martyr, First Apology, 61; St. Irenaeus, Fragment, 34; Tertullian, Baptism, 12:1; St. Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 8; St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letters, 71:1; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:4; St. Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, 3:26; St. Augustine, The City of God, 13:7 [13] To be fair, in order to avoid making Jesus into a false prophet (cf. Matt 16:18f), most Protestants of this mindset will argue that there has been at all times at least a remnant of true Christian believers left on earth. This is opposed to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses who believe in a total apostasy of the early Church. But this view has the conspicuous problem that there is no evidence of these true Christian believers having existed during the patristic and medieval ages. “Histories” such as Fox’s Book of Martyrs and The Trail of Blood which purport to trace this Church from apostolic times right up to the Protestant Revolution are quite simply devoid of scholarly merit. [14] e.g. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38f; 22:16; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:26f; Eph 4:5; 5:26 [15] cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, op. cit., § 153; Matt 16:17; John 15:5; 1 Cor 12:3; Gal 1:15f [16] cf. Sungenis, op. cit., pp. 1-3 [17] cf. Prov 11:18f; 24:12; Matt 5:12; 6:3f; 16:26f; 25:34ff; Luke 6:35; 14:13f; John 5:28f; Rom 2:5ff; 1 Cor 3:8; 2 Cor 5:10; Eph 6:8, Col 3:23f; 2 Tim 4:8; 2 John 8; Apoc 3:21; 20:12f; 22:12 [18] cf. St. Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, 83:16: "The Lord made himself a debtor not by receiving something but by promising something. One does not say to Him, ‘Pay for what You received,’ but ‘Pay what You promised’"; Letters 194:5:19: "What merit, then, does a man have before grace, by which he might receive grace, when our every good merit is produced in us only by grace and when God, crowning our merits, crowns nothing else but his own gifts to us?" [19] Lest we boast, we must always remember that the works which justify are not wrought by us, but by God through us (cf. 1 Cor 15:10; Phil 2:13; Gal 2:20). Our will is by no means passive, as God works in it and through it in a mysterious way such that while under the operation of grace we yet remain free. However we cannot, and must not, glory in having performed a single meritorious act before God under our own power. [20] John Calvin believed Romans 2:5ff to be a hypothetical impossibility. Supposedly if anyone were able to go his entire life without sinning, he would be able to make it to heaven under such a judgment, but no one actually does so, therefore we all need the imputed righteousness of Christ apprehended through faith alone. This interpretation is not only devoid of contextual support; it directly contradicts v 6 which says that this is what God will do. Like Balthasar on extra ecclesiam nulla salus, Calvin’s commentary on Romans 2:5ff is nothing more than sophistry and exegetical gymnastics. As and aside, many Protestants make similar claims regarding Jesus’ answer to the rich young man’s query in Matthew 19:16ff (see my debate with Jason Engwer, for example), which claims are, of course, patently absurd. They are born of desperation, and not of logical thought. [21] Sungenis, op. cit., p. 325 [22] Likewise Romans 4:5: "His faith is reckoned for righteousness" (logizetai he pistis autou eis dikaiosunen). [23] e.g. Matt 17:12; Luke 15:7, 10; 17:10; Rom 6:11; 1 Cor 2:11, NIV [24] Sungenis, op. cit., p. 509, f. 41 [25] cf. Ezek 3:20f; Matt 10:22; 24:12f; John 15:6; 2 Cor 11:3; Col 1:21ff; 2 Tim 2:12; Heb 2:1ff; 3:6; 6:4ff; Jas 5:9; 2 Pet 2:20ff; 2 John 8; Apoc 2:26; 3:3, 11; 22:19 [26] cf. Gen 1:3ff; Matt 8:31; Luke 8:24; John 11:43; Matt 26:26, 28 ~;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catholicguy Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 Bump to Ichthus. Please respond to him in whatever way possible or on here. Thank you. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catholicguy Posted July 28, 2004 Author Share Posted July 28, 2004 Bump to Ichthus. Did you contact him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 Locking this thread. Please don't use this phorum as an alternate to e-mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts