Graced Works

[jesussaves]

I will level with you and say that how you can read one passage in light of the other, and make the bible say what you want. I do believe the holy spirit will guide us, though we will err occasionally.
Do we take James in light of Romans, or Romans in light of James? James says we are justified by works, and Romans says we are justified by faith apart from works. (he said works, not the law. "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5). Both were talking about Abraham and applying a seemingly different approach. I choose to say James was talking about the necessity of works as Luther described it, "faith alone, but faith is never alone". So, in a sense, Luther did not beleive in "faith alone", if you understand him correctly. For that reason, I err more on the side of Romans terminology.

I do second guess whether I will accept that we can add to Christ, given Romans.

Whatever the case, your church's idea of what "merit" means may be more in line with what I believe. But, given how catholics perceive their own teaching, it doesn't seem that way. "good enough" stuff I am saying seems more like it. I am open to writings that show me these catholics are simply poorly catechised.

I am not familiar with semi-pelgianism enough to comment on it.

EDIT: I looked up semi-pelagianism. "Semi-Pelagianism, admitted that man's nature was "injured" by original sin, but maintained that man still has free will and the ability to cooperate with God's grace in the salvation process." [url="http://www.theopedia.com/Semi-Pelagianism"]http://www.theopedia.com/Semi-Pelagianism[/url] If this website is accurate, it seems that may I have mischaracterized with the "good enough" stuff, and perhaps you are more in line with what I believe.
This could only mean Catholics are not very catechised, then.
(It is interesting that website must be wrong and teaches you do teach semi-pelga: "Over the course of time, Semi-Pelagian doctrine (although couched in terms of grace) became the dominant theological perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, and essentially remains so today.")
I need to figure out if semi-pelgianism meant that you could earn it at the end, because technically I agree you do not teach you can earn it, but moreso it seems to me you teach you can be "good enough".

Your simple mention of semi-pelag was informing. I will think about that and get back to you.

Edited April 29, 2007 by jesussaves

[mortify]

I think it's clear that a man in a justified state, that is in a state of Grace where the Holy Ghost has transformed him into a Son of God and heir to Christ's merit on the Cross, can merit something from God, as will be proven from scripture but first I want to address some things. In a state of sin man can't merit anything from God, he can't merit grace, he can't merit salvation, nor can he merit justification. Secondly, theologians have always recognized that we can't merit according to absolute equality, since there is an infinite gap betwen us and God (Only Jesus could merit for us in this way), and so there are different types of merit, I've provided an article, albeit a bit too sophisticated at the end of this post. What man can merit in a state of grace is the following:

[quote]Merit in the strict sense (meritum de condigno) gives a right to a threefold reward: increase of sanctifying grace, heavenly glory, and the increase thereof; other graces can be acquired only in virtue of congruous merit (meritum de conqruo).[/quote]From: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm[/url]
(perhaps a better article to read than the one provided at the end)


Proof of the existence of merit from scripture:

[color="#FF0000"]For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.[/color]
Matthew 16:27

[color="#FF0000"]Now he that planteth and he that watereth, are one. And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour[/color]
1 Corinthians 3:8

[color="#FF0000"]Now this I say: He who soweth sparingly shall also reap sparingly: and he who soweth in blessings shall also reap blessings.[/color]
2 Corinthians 9:6

[color="#FF0000"]Who will render to every man according to his works.[/color]
Romans 2:6 sqq.

[color="#FF0000"]For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil.[/color]
2 Corinthians 5:10

[color="#FF0000"]Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for, when he hath been proved, he shall receive the crown of life which God hath promised to them that love him.[/color]
James 1:12

[color="#FF0000"]Thus saith the Lord: Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes tears: for there is a reward for thy work, saith the Lord: and they shall return out of the land of the enemy.[/color]
Jeremiah 31:16


What do the protestants make of these inspired words? Do they know why Luther and Calvin rejected the idea of merit? Do they know Luther tampered with scripture by adding the word "alone" in Romans 3:28? I wonder...



There is a very detailed explanation of our theological understanding of Merit which I will post for you, however if you aren't philosophically minded or have some understanding of theology it will go beyond you (as it has done for me). You can read it here:

[quote]The conclusion of St. Thomas is that man can merit something from God, not according to absolute equality, but according to the presupposition of a divine ordination.[/quote]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace11.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace11.htm[/url]

Edited April 29, 2007 by mortify

[Katholikos]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1259565' date='Apr 29 2007, 11:49 AM']I will level with you and say that how you can read one passage in light of the other, and make the bible say what you want.[/quote]That's why the only rightful interpreter of Sacred Scripture is the Church that wrote the New Testament and formed the Bible.

[quote] I do believe the holy spirit will guide us, though we will err occasionally.[/quote]Does the Holy Spirit, who is God, Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, "err occasionally"? Either you cannot err (are infallible) or the Holy Spirit is not guiding you. But if the Holy Spirit is guiding you to read and interpret the Scriptures, He must also be guiding me. And we have different beliefs. Poor maligned Holy Spirit. Protestants have as many different beliefs as there are denominations, and that's many thousands. And they all claim the Spirit is guiding them. If He isn't guiding everyone in reading and interpreting the Scriptures, and He obviously isn't, what makes you think He's guiding you?

[quote]So, in a sense, Luther did not beleive in "faith alone", if you understand him correctly.[/quote]

Hey, this is Protestantism 101. You must have missed the class on Sola Fides. :

Peace be with you,

Likos

[jesussaves]

Thanks for the article mortify. That was right on point. Now, in addition to the semi-pelga article from new advent, I also have that one...
The issue is a bit more academic than I would have liked. Apparently none of us really know what we are talking about completely that we have to cite to these, indicating we're knowledgeable but can't explain the nuances well enough.

Unless I'm mistaken, in which case, I would like this explained from brother adam as it's at the heart of the matter.
[quote]This is most certainly not Catholic teaching.[/quote]

[jesussaves]

I think I have here, correct me if I am wrong as I have not read it all, evidence that you do have to be "good enough".

The first quote is from mortify. The second from Mat Feo. The first condign essenially says there's two ways to earn something, by award of justice (if i give you an apple, justice demands you pay me), the second congruous essentially says you earn it by award of fairness. (it would be the good to give me money for the apple if you were a nice person)

THese are explained by Aquanis in the second quote. Aquais says that if what you do is by your own free will, you can't get eternal life condignly, but if it comes by the grace of the holy spirit, you do get eternal life condigly.

So, you get eternal life by the demands of justice, "good enough".

[quote]Condign merit supposes an equality between service and return; it is measured by commutative justice (justitia commutativa), and thus gives a real claim to a reward. Congruous merit, owing to its inadequacy and the lack of intrinsic proportion between the service and the recompense, claims a reward only on the ground of equity. This early-scholastic distinction and terminology, which is already recognized in concept and substance by the Fathers of the Church in their controversies with the Pelagians and Semipelagians, were again emphasized by Johann Eck, the famous adversary of Martin Luther (cf. Greying, "Joh. Eck als junger Gelehrter," Münster, 1906, pp. 153 sqq.). The essential difference between meritum de condigno and meritum de congruo is based on the fact that, besides those works which claim a remuneration under pain of violating strict justice (as in contracts between employer and employee, in buying and selling, etc.), there are also other meritorious works which at most are entitled to reward or honour for reasons of equity (ex œquitate) or mere distributive justice (ex iustitia distributiva), as in the case of gratuities and military decorations. From an ethical point of view the difference practically amounts to this that, if the reward due to condign merit be withheld, there is a violation of right and justice and the consequent obligation in conscience to make restitution, while, in the case of congruous merit, to withhold the reward involves no violation of right and no obligation to restore, it being merely an offence against what is fitting or a matter of personal discrimination (acceptio personarum). Hence the reward of congruous merit always depends in great measure on the kindness and liberality of the giver, though not purely and simply on his good will. [/quote][quote]Objection 1. It would seem that a man in grace cannot merit eternal life condignly, for the Apostle says (Romans 8:18): "The sufferings of this time are not worthy [condignae] to be compared with the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us." But of all meritorious works, the sufferings of the saints would seem the most meritorious. Therefore no works of men are meritorious of eternal life condignly.

Objection 2. Further, on Rm. 6:23, "The grace of God, life everlasting," a gloss says: "He might have truly said: 'The wages of justice, life everlasting'; but He preferred to say 'The grace of God, life everlasting,' that we may know that God leads us to life everlasting of His own mercy and not by our merits." Now when anyone merits something condignly he receives it not from mercy, but from merit. Hence it would seem that a man with grace cannot merit life everlasting condignly.

Objection 3. Further, merit that equals the reward, would seem to be condign. Now no act of the present life can equal everlasting life, which surpasses our knowledge and our desire, and moreover, surpasses the charity or love of the wayfarer, even as it exceeds nature. Therefore with grace a man cannot merit eternal life condignly.

On the contrary, What is granted in accordance with a fair judgment, would seem a condign reward. But life everlasting is granted by God, in accordance with the judgment of justice, according to 2 Tim. 4:8: "As to the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the Lord, the just judge, will render to me in that day." [b]Therefore man merits everlasting life condignly. [/b]

I answer that, Man's meritorious work may be considered in two ways: first, as it proceeds from free-will; secondly, as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost. If it is considered as regards the substance of the work, and inasmuch as it springs from the free-will, there can be no condignity because of the very great inequality. But there is congruity, on account of an equality of proportion: for it would seem congruous that, if a man does what he can, God should reward him according to the excellence of his power.

If, however, we speak of a meritorious work, inasmuch as it proceeds from the grace of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting, it is meritorious of life everlasting condignly. For thus the value of its merit depends upon the power of the Holy Ghost moving us to life everlasting according to Jn. 4:14: "Shall become in him a fount of water springing up into life everlasting." And the worth of the work depends on the dignity of grace, whereby a man, being made a partaker of the Divine Nature, is adopted as a son of God, to whom the inheritance is due by right of adoption, according to Rm. 8:17: "If sons, heirs also."[/quote]

I'm not sure if I am misinterpreting Aquanis. He may be saying we earn the next step, but the ultimate grace is by God. Or he may be saying ultimately it's our merits which save us, even if it's a final undeserved grace.

Edited April 29, 2007 by jesussaves

[jesussaves]

If anyone wonders why it matters ultimately. Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

Catholics are always saying that passage means works without God, but works with God can save you. Now, it seems Catholics are saying that works with God cannot save you either. THe last post says you do think the graced works save you.

If ultimately at the end it's by grace that we are saved, but the basis to get the unmerited final grace is to do graced works, I would argue you are essentially earning your salvation. I think the last post says it more even directly though, if you do good works assisted by God's grace, justice demands God give you eternal life.

This is all why I say Catholics like to tip toe around Ephesians, and Romans.
Though I do admit your theology is complicated enough to be tempted to just say, well it must be right...

Edited April 29, 2007 by jesussaves

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1259565' date='Apr 29 2007, 12:49 PM']I choose to say James was talking about the necessity of works as Luther described it, "faith alone, but faith is never alone". So, in a sense, Luther did not beleive in "faith alone", if you understand him correctly. For that reason, I err more on the side of Romans terminology.[/quote]If he didn't believe it, why is it central enough to be one of the five "solas"?

As for the other posters (Katholikos, mortify, Bro. Adam, etc), what an abundance of quotes from Holy Scriptures. I always found it interesting that Our Lord can never be seen supporting the "Faith Alone" doctrine. It seems that the only way to argue Faith Alone is to isolate a few quotes from St. Paul.

A comment regarding the term "graced works". In my mind, there's not much of a difference between these works and the initial "yes" (in evangelical language, "accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior"). In fact, what is the initial "yes" other than a first "graced work" in the life of a Christian? This "yes" opens the door to eternal life (i.e. salvation) for that person. It is a direct result of grace ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians12.htm#v3"]link to 1 Cor 12:3b[/url]):[quote]And no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the holy Spirit.[/quote]Yet, if I asked evangelicals, "What must I do to be saved?" they would answer that I must "accept Jesus as my (personal) Lord and Savior." I don't think that evangelicals are going around telling every potential convert that such a conversion is solely due to the Holy Spirit (as mentioned in 1 Cor 12:3), and has nothing to do with free will. Given that evangelicals aren't making such a big deal out of this, I still don't feel the need to claim that they believe in a works-based religion (i.e. saying "yes" to merit salvation).

But this is what you do. You accuse Catholics of having a works-based religion, because that's what you want to see. I could cite numerous passages in the New Testament and build a much stronger case that the Gospels describe Christianity as a works-based religion (one example is Matt 25, let me know if you want a list). If I had such an agenda, it would be quite easy. I just say this in the hopes of persuading you to not try to infer the worst of Catholicism, especially when its own adherents disagree with the way you characterize their religion.

To wrap up: if you'd like to consider "graced works" (as you call them), let's always keep 1 Cor 12:3 in mind. It reveals the ultimate source of merit. Finally, summarizing St. Thomas Aquinas (in question #2 of the section on merit): [b]No one without grace can merit eternal life.[/b] (see [url="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2114.htm#2"]link[/url])

[jesussaves]

My working vocabulary has helped me improve the quality of my my google searches, such as this article:
[url="http://www.sxws.com/cwrc-rz/thlarchive/thla-007.php"]http://www.sxws.com/cwrc-rz/thlarchive/thla-007.php[/url]

So does the catholics church teach graced works? I'm not sure of your stance. I want to get that straight before talking about the merit, pardon the pun, of that versus the more typical protestant argument.

Edited April 30, 2007 by jesussaves

[Paddington]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1260148' date='Apr 30 2007, 01:15 AM']So does the catholics church teach graced works? I'm not sure of your stance.[/quote]



First of all, I'm not Catholic. (sorry?)
But, I'm PRETTY SURE you can say that Catholics believe in 'Grace Alone' and 'Graced Works' at the same time.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='jesussaves' post='1260148' date='Apr 29 2007, 11:45 PM']My working vocabulary has helped me improve the quality of my my google searches, such as this article:
[url="http://www.sxws.com/cwrc-rz/thlarchive/thla-007.php"]http://www.sxws.com/cwrc-rz/thlarchive/thla-007.php[/url]

So does the catholics church teach graced works? I'm not sure of your stance. I want to get that straight before talking about the merit, pardon the pun, of that versus the more typical protestant argument.[/quote]Not sure if I understand your question. There are good works that are the fruit of graces given to us. Is this a problem in your eyes?

Turning this around: in your opinion, can a person be saved by the "graced work" of accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior? How is this any different from other "graced works"?

Related to this topic: do you believe in OSAS?

Small aside: do you know why R.C. Sproul (a Calvinist) was cited in your link to explain teachings of the Catholic Church? I was a little surprised by that.

[Apotheoun]

The following text presents an Eastern Christian understanding of the nature of salvation as a synergistic infusion into man of the divine energies:

[quote]To share in the divine glory is one way in which the New Testament speaks of participating in the divine life. There is also another way—one that is equally prominent in Scripture, and equally fundamental for the Greek Fathers. One of the most familiar verses of the New Testament is that in which St. Paul urges the Philippians to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” The full passage is as follows: “Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you ([i]ho energōn en humin[/i]) both to will and to do ([i]energein[/i]) of his good pleasure" (2:12-13). What is remarkable here is that the exhortation to act is coupled with a reminder that it is God who is acting. Neither negates the other; the Philippians are both free agents responsible for their own salvation, and the arena in which God works to bring about that salvation. St. Paul shows no interest in distinguishing precisely what is contributed by God, and what by the Philippians; he writes as if the whole process were the activity of both.

The English translation of this passage somewhat obscures the force of the Greek, in that ‘worketh’ and ‘to do’ both translate the same Greek verb, [i]energein[/i]. The noun that is cognate to this verb, [i]energeia[/i], is the word from which we derive the term ‘energy.’ By the time of the New Testament it had in some contexts already acquired that meaning. Likewise, although [i]energein[/i] normally means simply to act or to operate, in theological contexts such as this one it often has a further shade of meaning: that of acting in a way that itself imparts energy. That is perhaps why St. Paul and other early Christian authors tend to reserve both terms for the action of supernatural agents (God, angels, or demons), since only such agents are capable of entering as a force into others. Giving this notion full weight, we could render the passage as follows: “it is God who energizes in you both to will and to energize of his good pleasure.” This rendering helps bring out why for St. Paul there is no contradiction in urging the Philippians to do something that he also sees as the work of God. The peculiar nature of God’s activity is that it imparts the energy to do His will; yet this energy must be expressed or “worked out” ([i]katergazesthe[/i]) in order to be effective.

Another passage that speaks of a coalescence of human and divine energy is that in Colossians where Paul refers to himself as “striving according to his [Christ's] working, which worketh in me mightily ([i]agōnizomenos kata tēn energeian autou tēn energoumenēn en emoi en dunamei[/i])” (Col. 1:29). Giving full weight to the connection between [i]energeia[/i] and [i]energein[/i], we could render this, “striving according to his energy, which is being energized in me mightily.” It is important to note that the divine energy here serves two distinct functions. It is at work within Paul, transforming him, so that from this standpoint he is the object of God's activity; at the same time it finds expression in Paul's struggle to promote the Gospel, so that he may also be seen as the agent or conduit through whom God is working. Yet nothing in such external direction prevents his actions from remaining his own. It would be possible to fill out in detail the events in Paul's life that this passage alludes to, for he has left us some vivid descriptions of his various trials and exertions. Not only do they exhibit full engagement and self-control, they do so more than did his actions prior to his conversion. As the story is told in Acts, Saul was trapped in self-deception until God set him free on the road to Damascus. Now the divine energy that works in him is also his own energy, more truly than anything he did was his own before he ceased to “kick against the pricks” (Acts 9:5).

The belief that God is active in human beings is, of course, deeply rooted in the Old Testament. There it is usually God's Word or Spirit that is the vehicle of divine indwelling. These ways of speaking tend to suggest a kind of control from without—most obviously in cases of prophetic inspiration, but also even in cases where the Spirit is present continually and in ordinary actions, as with Kings Saul and David. Paul's use of [i]energeia[/i] and related terms, such as [i]sunergein[/i] and [i]sunergos[/i], shifts the emphasis from one of external control to one of cooperation. This is true even where Paul himself speaks of the Spirit. A passage that would prove particularly important for the Greek Fathers is Paul’s description in I Corinthians of the gifts of the Spirit.

[quote]Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are diversities of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operation ([i]energēmatōn[/i]), but it is the same God which worketh ([i]ho energōn[/i]) all in all . . . For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues; but all these worketh ([i]energei[/i]) that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will. (12:3-11)[/quote]

This passage begins by asserting that even such an ordinary and voluntary action as calling Jesus lord requires the cooperation of the Spirit. It goes on to list a variety of spiritual gifts, each one an [i]energēma[/i] (something performed) of the Spirit. They include not only extraordinary gifts like the working of miracles, but also more ordinary qualities such as faith and the “word of wisdom.” Again there is no dividing line between the natural and the supernatural. Any believer is called to a life of continual cooperation with the Spirit, a cooperation that can manifest itself in any number of ways both exceptional and mundane.

[. . .][/quote]

Click the link in order to read the whole article: [url="http://www.uky.edu/~dbradsh/papers/Divine%20Glory%20and%20Divine%20Energies.doc"]The Divine Glory and the Divine Energies[/url] by Dr. David Bradshaw

[The Joey-O]

Not to add to the problem but, the Council of Trent and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification put out by Roman Catholic and (ELCA???) Lutherans contradict:

[quote] [i]Council of Trent[/i] Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."[/quote]

[quote] [i]Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification[/i] 37. We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.[/quote]

We were talking in class about how we could either understand that the Catholic Church came to a "fuller understanding of the Luther position" on works as fruits of justification or we can say that the Joint Declaration made at least one misstep. I don't know what to do with it. I did think it was pertinent to this discussion, however.

[The Joey-O]

I talked to a professor about this. He said that Avery Dulles wrote a good article in First Things about this very subject. I haven't read it yet, because I'm still in class. Here's the link to what I think is the article my prof was talking about: [url="http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3248"]http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3248[/url]

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='The Joey-O' post='1260632' date='Apr 30 2007, 12:58 PM']I talked to a professor about this. He said that Avery Dulles wrote a good article in First Things about this very subject. I haven't read it yet, because I'm still in class. Here's the link to what I think is the article my prof was talking about: [url="http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3248"]http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3248[/url][/quote]

Unfortunately, Cardinal Dulles does not refer specifically to paragraph 37 of the declaration. The Vatican website does have an long appendix which digs deeper into the meaning of each section of the declaration, including a discussion of paragraph 37 and Canon 24 from the session at Trent. Here is the link:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...aration_en.html[/url]

Edited April 30, 2007 by Mateo el Feo

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1260747' date='Apr 30 2007, 02:17 PM']Unfortunately, Cardinal Dulles does not refer specifically to paragraph 37 of the declaration. The Vatican website does have an long appendix which digs deeper into the meaning of each section of the declaration, including a discussion of paragraph 37 and Canon 24 from the session at Trent. Here is the link:
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontific...aration_en.html[/url][/quote]

Thanks, it was really helpful for me.