Requesting A Catholic Interpretation Of Galatians

[Guest reccanboy]

The Galatian Churches being addressed in this epistle are said to accept the atonement of Christ, and thus they believe in grace.

Galatians 5:2-4 "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

Now, I repeat yet again, the audience of Paul's epistle were part of the Church community, and thus recognized the necessity of the atonement of Christ, but they didn't recognize the sufficiency of the atonement for justification, which is why they wanted to be circumcised. Thus one cannot say that Paul was arguing against individuals who believed that one is justified solely upon the basis of the Law, apart from grace, since they already believed in the offering of Christ upon the cross for their very sins.

I am also crystal clear on the fact that Paul recognizes the "works of the law" as being the ceremonial elements of the Law. My interpretation of Paul assumes that "works of the law" only refers to the ceremonial aspects of the Law, not the moral aspect.

Now, this is the heart of the issue:

Paul said that: "it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for The righteous shall live by faith." (Gal. 3:11)

Paul quotes from the book of Habakkuk, which is from the Old Testament. This means that even in the OT, as a Jew living under the Old Covenant, you were not justified sacramentally by the ceremonial law of circumcision, even in light of the expectation of the coming sacrifice of the messiah.

Catholic teaching maintains that the Mosaic ceremonial law of circumcision functioned as a sacrament of initiation, and thus was necessary for salvation in the Old Covenant, yet Paul quoted from the OT book of Habakkuk 2:4 in order to refute the claim that the Judaizers are to be justified by circumcision under the New Covenant.

This shows that under the Old and New Covenants, circumcision was not a means of justification. However, if this is the case, then could David decide not to circumcise himself, because it is not necessary for justification under the Old Covenant?

This leads me to believe that Paul speaks of only faith as a means of justification.

I thank in advance those who respond.

Edited August 26, 2009 by reccanboy

[dairygirl4u2c]

these verses in particular, deal with the Jewish Law. obviously christians of all stripes don't follow that.
there's an important distinction between "law" and "works". "works" are what catholics say justify, albeit through God's grace. (how exactly isn't defined as much)
those passages that deal with the law, though, are in fact analogous and arguably applicable to the issues of "faith v. works".

if i were you, i'd have a greater hang up, with the verse from galatians, or ephesians, i forget which, that says "it is by grace that ye are saved, not of works, lest any man should boast"

that most straightfowardly lends itself to the protestant idea. so naturally you have to look at the rest of the bible.

if you ask me, both catholic and protestant views have a lot of merit to them, no pun intended.

if your only stumbling block is 'sola fide', but you seem to think the pope is true (you said your only stubling block was sola fide), i dont see why ya wouldn't just trust in the pope if it could go either way. makes sense to me, unless you in fact do have issues with the catholic authority of the pope, in which case your original statement was not correct.
or if you don't have issues with their authority, but don't know much about it, i'd question why you'd so blindly accept its authority.

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is a recent link that i think is helpful on the matter. i like my posts in that thread. of course, im a little bias.

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=97202&view=&hl=justification&fromsearch=1

Edited August 26, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='reccanboy' date='26 August 2009 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1251325929' post='1956608']
The Galatian Churches being addressed in this epistle are said to accept the atonement of Christ, and thus they believe in grace.

Galatians 5:2-4 "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

Now, I repeat yet again, the audience of Paul's epistle were part of the Church community, and thus recognized the necessity of the atonement of Christ, but they didn't recognize the sufficiency of the atonement for justification, which is why they wanted to be circumcised. Thus one cannot say that Paul was arguing against individuals who believed that one is justified solely upon the basis of the Law, apart from grace, since they already believed in the offering of Christ upon the cross for their very sins.

I am also crystal clear on the fact that Paul recognizes the "works of the law" as being the ceremonial elements of the Law. My interpretation of Paul assumes that "works of the law" only refers to the ceremonial aspects of the Law, not the moral aspect.

Now, this is the heart of the issue:

Paul said that: "it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for The righteous shall live by faith." (Gal. 3:11)

Paul quotes from the book of Habakkuk, which is from the Old Testament. This means that even in the OT, as a Jew living under the Old Covenant, you were not justified sacramentally by the ceremonial law of circumcision, even in light of the expectation of the coming sacrifice of the messiah.

Catholic teaching maintains that the Mosaic ceremonial law of circumcision functioned as a sacrament of initiation, and thus was necessary for salvation in the Old Covenant, yet Paul quoted from the OT book of Habakkuk 2:4 in order to refute the claim that the Judaizers are to be justified by circumcision under the New Covenant.

This shows that under the Old and New Covenants, circumcision was not a means of justification. However, if this is the case, then could David decide not to circumcise himself, because it is not necessary for justification under the Old Covenant?

This leads me to believe that Paul speaks of only faith as a means of justification.

I thank in advance those who respond.
[/quote]

I don't think that is a valid argument as Paul never states "faith alone" in a clear manner and even if Paul seems to say "faith alone," he never quite says it, and actually a few verses he says argue against it.

Note Galatians 5:6. I saw you did quote Galatians 5:2-4, and that's good, however Galatians 5:6 is important and should be read with it.

[i]"For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."[/i]

-Galatians 5:6

Paul is emphasizing that we need faith working through love (works). Paul is not advocating faith alone here but rather that we need to believe in Jesus, and we need to demonstrate it as well. If Paul was advocating "faith alone," he would have left out the "working through love" and definitively said "faith alone."


In Galatians 3:11 it says that

[i]"And no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for ''the one who is righteous by faith will live.''"[/i]

Paul is not saying "faith alone" here. We says we need faith, but not solely faith. In Galatians 3:9, he cites how Abraham had faith. In theses chapters, Paul is combating the idea of "works alone" and is pointing out that we need faith. In comparison to James 2:20-24 where it comes from the opposite viewpoint and says that

[i]20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?[/i]

So Both James and Paul use Abraham as an example to combat the ideas of "faith alone" and "works alone" respectively. Both by themselves are insufficient but only as Paul puts it "faith working through love" and then James says in 2:17 [i]"So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself."[/i]

Hope this helps to start off with.

Edited August 26, 2009 by eagle_eye222001

[Guest reccanboy]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='26 August 2009 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1251327738' post='1956631']
I don't think that is a valid argument as Paul never states "faith alone" in a clear manner and even if Paul seems to say "faith alone," he never quite says it, and actually a few verses he says argue against it.

Note Galatians 5:6. I saw you did quote Galatians 5:2-4, and that's good, however Galatians 5:6 is important and should be read with it.

[i]"For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love."[/i]

-Galatians 5:6

Paul is emphasizing that we need faith working through love (works). Paul is not advocating faith alone here but rather that we need to believe in Jesus, and we need to demonstrate it as well. If Paul was advocating "faith alone," he would have left out the "working through love" and definitively said "faith alone."


In Galatians 3:11 it says that

[i]"And no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for ''the one who is righteous by faith will live.''"[/i]

Paul is not saying "faith alone" here. We says we need faith, but not solely faith. In Galatians 3:9, he cites how Abraham had faith. In theses chapters, Paul is combating the idea of "works alone" and is pointing out that we need faith. In comparison to James 2:20-24 where it comes from the opposite viewpoint and says that

[i]20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?[/i]

So Both James and Paul use Abraham as an example to combat the ideas of "faith alone" and "works alone" respectively. Both by themselves are insufficient but only as Paul puts it "faith working through love" and then James says in 2:17 [i]"So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself."[/i]

Hope this helps to start off with.
[/quote]


You didn't answer my question in the OP; namely that Paul quoted from the OT (Deuteronomy 27, Habakkuk 2:7) to demonstrate that circumcision is not a means to justification.

Now, in the Old Covenant, was circumcision a means of justification? If the answer is "no", then Jews were not required to follow the ceremonial law for their salvation...but this contradicts Catholic teaching which states that the Jews were required to follow the entirety of the Law for justification.

That is the dividing line for me. I would also appreciate it if you dealt with Galatians, instead of quoting James. I understand that James might be in contradiction with my interpretation, but it isn't going magically reconcile itself with Paul.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='reccanboy' date='26 August 2009 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1251328496' post='1956652']
You didn't answer my question in the OP; namely that Paul quoted from the OT (Deuteronomy 27, Habakkuk 2:7) to demonstrate that circumcision is not a means to justification.

Now, in the Old Covenant, was circumcision a means of justification? If the answer is "no", then Jews were not required to follow the ceremonial law for their salvation...but this contradicts Catholic teaching which states that the Jews were required to follow the entirety of the Law for justification.[/quote]

Do you know what document that is in? I apologize but really do not know Catholic teaching on this matter. I am learning about more of my faith these days, but there's still more to learn. Let me check that argument out again. Hang on a bit if you can.

[quote]That is the dividing line for me. I would also appreciate it if you dealt with Galatians, instead of quoting James. I understand that James might be in contradiction with my interpretation, but it isn't going magically reconcile itself with Paul.
[/quote]

If James is not going to reconcile itself with Paul, then we have a problem with the Bible and it is not the Word of God, and we can stop putting any stock in this Jesus guy. Sorry, but it either all works or it all doesn't.

[dairygirl4u2c]

isn't it christian teaching altogether that doing the law was required in the old covenant? that's what the old covenant is all about, following hte law.
but jesus came to fulfill the law, and set a new covenant.
so i don't see why it'd be limited to only catholic teaching that says justification was required.

paul doesn't condone thinking new christians must be justified by the old law. they're using the old covenant when they should be entering into the new one. that's all paul is saying.
if you follow the old, you gotta do the old completely. if you claim to be christian, you enter into the new and stop with the old.
that's what paul's point is.

i dont see what the issue is

Edited August 27, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='reccanboy' date='26 August 2009 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1251328496' post='1956652']
You didn't answer my question in the OP; namely that Paul quoted from the OT (Deuteronomy 27, Habakkuk 2:7) to demonstrate that circumcision is not a means to justification.[/quote]

Can you cite all three passages and show this to be true?

[quote]Now, in the Old Covenant, was circumcision a means of justification? If the answer is "no", then Jews were not required to follow the ceremonial law for their salvation...but this contradicts Catholic teaching which states that the Jews were required to follow the entirety of the Law for justification.[/quote]

I'm guessing you'll need some time to track that document down or paragraph number from the Catechism, however in the mean time, I'll just point out that it's likely that all Paul was showing that neither now nor before you did you yourself earn salvation. While there where requirements for the Jews, I doubt blindly following them was the path to take. I'm sure some faith was involved as well.

[cmotherofpirl]

This should probably go to the trans board, its not really a debate, and you will probably get a more detailed answer there.

[Apotheoun]

Yeah, it should probably be transferred to Transmundane Lane.

[thessalonian]

I do not know where you get that circumcision was a sacrament. It was a precurser to baptism, a foreshadowing but not a sacrement. It was and external sign but conferred no grace. Baptism and the other sacraments (sacred moments) confer the grace of God. They are not the work of man, cutting off foreskin but the work of God through his Church. There were not available before the resurrection. Even the baptism of John was not a baptism which conferred the Holy Spirit as we see in Acts 19.

[thessalonian]

Another thing that seems to be lacking in your understanding is that the CC does not deny that we are justified by faith. Faith was present at the time of circumcision for the Jews. So yes they were justified, as in the part where their sins are forgiven. The problem is there is that part of the justification that is called sanctification. That requires the power of the Holy Spirit, which circumcision did not convey. Again the Holy Spirit was not available to all until Pentecost.

[Sojourner]

A great book on this topic is [url="http://www.amazon.com/Not-Faith-Alone-Biblical-Justification/dp/1579180086"]Not By Faith Alone [/url]by Robert Sungenis. He does a really in-depth, biblical analysis of sola fide, going through several passages including this one in Galatians. There is a whole chapter titled, "Did Paul Teach Justification By Faith Alone?" that goes through this and other Pauline passages. It is a deeply nuanced and detailed argument, relying heavily on Scripture. You should read it.

[CatherineM]

For Paul, accepting the Mosaic Law as a requirement for salvation was to reject Christ as our sole redeemer. In the early church, Jewish converts were allowed to retain some of their ancestral practices, but as the church spread, this was no longer the case. The Council of Florence in 1442 declared that observing the ceremonies of Mosaic Law as necessary for salvation was a grave sin. In a parallel passage in 1 Corinthians 7-17-24 it more clearly shows Pauline theology that he associates faith working through love.