Scripture repeatedly refers to people as justified as soon as they come to faith rather than having to wait until baptism or some other work is later added to their faith (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, Acts 10:44-48, 19:2, etc.). These passages are problematic for Roman Catholic soteriology. The following are some comments made about one of these passages, Luke 18:10-14, by some Roman Catholic posters in recent threads (see here and here). I've seen other Catholics make similar comments about Luke 18.
Nick wrote:
"In Lk 18 there is nothing in reference to 'faith', much less 'faith alone', but rather humility (cf James 4:6ff)."
"The moral was about humility versus pride, not faith versus works."
"'He who humbles himself will be exalted'. That is not the language of imputed righteousness. God recognized the virtue of humility in his soul and made his soul righteous again. Combine that with what other Scripture says on humility....Also, I would argue that nothing in that parable indicates this was a conversion experience. Rather the two men already believed in God going to do their daily prayers, justification by imputation occurs once upon conversion to the faith."
"That parable NOWHERE attacks or denigrates or contrasts good works to faith, the parable nowhere mentions faith (both men already believed in God)"
Dmitry Chernikov wrote:
"The Pharisee was not justified not because the works are useless or unnecessary but because he lacked the inner understanding of his sins. Similarly, dead faith fails to justify. We can make the case that both the internal faith and charity and good works are required. In the final analysis, how can God know if you are sincere in your faith? How can even you know? You have to prove your faith through action."
Is this passage in Luke 18 about humility? Yes. It's also relevant to justification. A passage of scripture can address more than one issue. A sinner who's characterized by his sinful profession of tax collecting appeals to God's mercy and leaves the temple justified. Contrary to what Nick suggests, the tax collector doesn't seem to have been converted earlier. If he had been, he probably wouldn't have been portrayed as a tax collector seeking God's mercy, and the reference to his leaving the temple justified would lose its force, since he would have been justified prior to going to the temple, not just afterward. The concept that he repeatedly gained and lost his justification, working as a tax collector even though he had previously been justified, reads unimplied assumptions into the text. The common Evangelical reading of the passage is simpler and preferable.
Does the fact that both men "believed in God" prove that they both had faith? No, not in any relevant sense. Evangelicals don't define faith as belief in God. Justifying faith involves more than that.
How would God know that our faith is sincere? God is omniscient. He doesn't need to wait for outward works in order to know what occurs in the heart (Acts 15:8). In Acts 15, Peter is referring to the events of Acts 10, where believers received the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized. Similarly, it would be implausible to suggest that the tax collector in Luke 18 was baptized in the temple. Faith is assumed in Biblical passages about justification (Hebrews 11:6). Baptism and other works aren't. A passage like Luke 18 implies faith, but doesn't imply baptism or any other such work. The idea that Jesus would commend a tax collector who had no faith is ridiculous, whereas the concept that the tax collector wouldn't have been baptized in a Jewish temple isn't. The passage doesn't have to mention faith in order for faith to be implied. It would have to mention something like baptism in order for us to conclude that such a work was involved. The idea that faith and works are in the same category, as if both could be assumed with equal validity in this context, is ridiculous.
Arguing that something like the tax collector's humility is a work doesn't reconcile the passage with Roman Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholicism doesn't teach that it's normative for people to be justified at the time they attain humility. In Roman Catholic theology, you can have faith, humility, and other good attributes, yet remain unjustified until the time of your baptism. Protestants don't deny that those who are justified have attributes such as faith and humility. Nothing in Luke 18 is inconsistent with a Protestant view of how people are normally justified. But the passage is inconsistent with a Roman Catholic view of normative justification.
It's true that Luke 18 doesn't address imputation. But the passage doesn't need to address imputation in order to be inconsistent with Roman Catholic soteriology.
Luke 18 And Roman Catholic Desperation
ReplyDeleteGood post Steve. And good title. Sums up the situation perfectly.
Jason: Scripture repeatedly refers to people as justified as soon as they come to faith rather than having to wait until baptism or some other work is later added to their faith (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, Acts 10:44-48, 19:2, etc.).
ReplyDeleteNick: I would say this first sentence is an inaccurate claim considering none of those Biblical passages use the term "justified". Secondly, and more importantly the idea that works are not in the equation is flat out wrong. In the Mk 2:5 passage Jesus "saw their faith" and this was "seen" by the men lowering the paralytic through the roof. The Luke 7:50 is even worse considering verses 44-47 the woman showed considerable love to Jesus, in which Jesus said "her many sins have been forgiven, for she loved much" hardly a "faith alone" moment. So far both of these meet the Heb 11:6 and Gal 5:6 definitions of "faith working through love". This is not a mental assent to truth but rather a faith in action. This is not "works added later", this is works at the same time.
As for the Acts 10 passage, the passage nowhere says they were justified at that moment the Holy Spirit came upon them, it was rather a public sign that the Gentiles were officially accepted into the Church, Peter calls for an immediate Baptism harkening back to places like Acts 2:
"40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."
There is no wedge driven here between faith and Baptism here or in Acts 10. It is a false characterization to say it is "either" faith "or" Baptism. Acts 19:2 is even more problematic for you as Paul makes it clear they have not received the fullness of the Gospel, Paul explicitly asks in what Baptism they received and they said John the Baptist but Paul makes it clear that this was no longer enough, and immediately He Baptized them. If your position were true the Paul should not have made a big deal about who's Baptism they received or when, as long as they believed.
Jason: These passages are problematic for Roman Catholic soteriology. The following are some comments made about one of these passages, Luke 18:10-14, by some Roman Catholic posters in recent threads (see here and here). I've seen other Catholics make similar comments about Luke 18.
Nick: That is a pretty bold claim to make considering I clearly show how not only do your passages mention works active right along with faith, there is no wedge between faith and Baptism making one exclusive.
Jason goes onto mention my words. I want people to re-read them along side the parable in Lk 18: 10-14 and see they are fair and true:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=lk%2018;&version=31;
(and lets not forget that same chapter has the parable of the rich young man)
I also would like to point out where I think I was not fully represented in Jason's comments of me when he added a "..." about what Scripture says on humility, my words for those who dont want to have to track them down:
>>Combine that with what other Scripture says on humility. For example James 4 says:
"6But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:"God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."
The concept of being given "more grace" doesnt make sense with imputation since it is a one time, uniform grace.
Ok, now back to Jason's comments.
Jason: Is this passage in Luke 18 about humility? Yes. It's also relevant to justification.
A passage of scripture can address more than one issue.
Nick: Yes, it is about humility and not "faith versus works", I want people to remember that. Also, I think the prhase "more than one issue" can be misunderstood, the issue is humility and that results in justification. These are not "two issues" in the sense there two parallel themes running here. I will assume Jason agrees.
Jason: A sinner who's characterized by his sinful profession of tax collecting appeals to God's mercy and leaves the temple justified. Contrary to what Nick suggests, the tax collector doesn't seem to have been converted earlier. If he had been, he probably wouldn't have been portrayed as a tax collector seeking God's mercy, and the reference to his leaving the temple justified would lose its force, since he would have been justified prior to going to the temple, not just afterward. The concept that he repeatedly gained and lost his justification, working as a tax collector even though he had previously been justified, reads unimplied assumptions into the text. The common Evangelical reading of the passage is simpler and preferable.
Nick: This is a bold assertion to make given the tax collector was obviously going to daily prayers, he already believed in God. It is assumed he is Jewish and thus followed the rituals and such commanded in the Law.
Further, the James 4 quote about humility was given by James to Christians who had turned to lives of sin, so Jason's assertion that if someone shows humility that means their past was bad and thus never saved goes against the clear teaching of James 4 where James is talking to Christians who became puffed up with pride he encouraged to become humble.
There is nothing absurd about the idea of a person being forgiven, falling into sins down the road and returning to God to be forgiven again. To deny this makes the Lord's Prayer (daily petition) "forgive us our trespasses" redundant if it is forgiven once and for all in the past (also note passages like 1 Jn 1:9 saying Christians who fall into sin can be "cleansed from all unrighteousness").
Jason: Does the fact that both men "believed in God" prove that they both had faith? No, not in any relevant sense. Evangelicals don't define faith as belief in God. Justifying faith involves more than that.
Nick: That is purely your assumption that there was zero relevance to having faith in God. Fortunately, the parable nowhere mentions faith, is not focused on faith, and thus the phrase "justifying faith involves more than that" will have to be proven elsewhere rather than this parable. I'm not worried about these other passages Jason might turn to to demonstrate this "justifying faith" (Gen 15:6 comes to mind) because I believe there is strong enough evidence to show such passages dont fit the Protestant understanding of justification (by imputing the Righteousness of Christ).
Jason: How would God know that our faith is sincere? God is omniscient. He doesn't need to wait for outward works in order to know what occurs in the heart (Acts 15:8). In Acts 15, Peter is referring to the events of Acts 10, where believers received the Holy Spirit prior to being baptized.
Nick: Though these comments are addressed to someone else it is worth noting that Jason mentions Acts 15:8 in reference to God knowing the heart, and that their hearts were "purified by faith". This is NOT the language of imputing an alien righteousness to someone, when your heart is pure and righteous that is anything but an alien righteous status imputed.
Next you should be careful for what God "doesnt have to wait for works to know" because the same could be said about an act of faith itself. And lastly the claim "prior to being baptized" implies there is a sharp disconnect between faith and baptism, which there is not (also note gal 3:26-27 and Col 2:12).
Jason: Similarly, it would be implausible to suggest that the tax collector in Luke 18 was baptized in the temple.
Nick: That is a strawman considering Catholics dont teach Baptism was required until Jesus gave the Great Commission (Mat 28:18f).
Jason: Faith is assumed in Biblical passages about justification (Hebrews 11:6). Baptism and other works aren't.
Nick: Amazing that you would cite Heb 11:6 as a "faith apart from works" proof text, here is what it says: "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." Faith here, defined clearly by the Bible, is that you believe God exists and that He REWARDS those who earnestly seek him, that doesnt sound like faith apart from works, nor does Heb 11 as a whole for that matter.
So, thus far I hope I have clearly shown the Catholic view is far far more consistent with Scripture and doesnt put a false wedge between faith and works or faith and Baptism.
Jason: A passage like Luke 18 implies faith, but doesn't imply baptism or any other such work. The idea that Jesus would commend a tax collector who had no faith is ridiculous, whereas the concept that the tax collector wouldn't have been baptized in a Jewish temple isn't. The passage doesn't have to mention faith in order for faith to be implied. It would have to mention something like baptism in order for us to conclude that such a work was involved. The idea that faith and works are in the same category, as if both could be assumed with equal validity in this context, is ridiculous.
Nick: You just destroyed your own argument, leaving aside the strawman that Baptism was required at that point (esp in a parable). Your just admitted faith was implied here, meaning that there is more to this story than justification by faith alone. Faith is almost always implied, otherwise many passages would be absurd.
The parable starts off and ends with the moral of humility versus pride, not faith versus works. It is pure pure eisegesis to turn this into a faith versus works parable when Jesus never ever condemns good works, never contrasts works to faith, etc.
I dont think I would be out of line to say what would be a ridiculous argument is that once a person has humility they never become prideful again, if anything at all it should be clear Christians become prideful all the time and need to turn their lives around with some humility. Becoming prideful does not necessitate you no longer believe in Jesus.
Jason: Arguing that something like the tax collector's humility is a work doesn't reconcile the passage with Roman Catholic doctrine. Roman Catholicism doesn't teach that it's normative for people to be justified at the time they attain humility. In Roman Catholic theology, you can have faith, humility, and other good attributes, yet remain unjustified until the time of your baptism. Protestants don't deny that those who are justified have attributes such as faith and humility. Nothing in Luke 18 is inconsistent with a Protestant view of how people are normally justified. But the passage is inconsistent with a Roman Catholic view of normative justification.
Nick: There is nothing at all irreconcilable with Catholic doctrine. Given Jason's track record with Scripture so far it is only fair that he let the Scripture speak and adequately and fairly represent Catholic theology. First of all, saying this "doesnt reconcile" with RC doctrine is false, first Baptism was not normative at that point, but even so the Catholic Church infallibly teaches you can receive the graces Baptism imparts if you have the proper disposition of heart but cant make the physical Sacrament of Baptism (the same thing goes for Penance).
Next, Catholics believe you can grow in righteousness through good works, thus even after Baptism you can become more holy, Jesus talks to the Apostles about becoming humble and being exalted in other places yet they were already believers.
Your focus on "normative" is totally bogus because even that admits it can and is consistent with Catholic theology (under certain conditions, more than you recognize), it is unfair and and a bogus contrast that to your view.
Jason: It's true that Luke 18 doesn't address imputation. But the passage doesn't need to address imputation in order to be inconsistent with Roman Catholic soteriology.
Nick: False on both accounts. It addresses the issue of imputation in the negative. The tax collectors heart was transformed, humility is an inner change as is "exalted". Neither becoming humbled nor exalted describes imputing an alien status, nothing on the inside changes at that point. Further, given that we know the humble get "gives more grace" (letting Scripture interpret Scripture) again such descriptions do not fit the imputation model at all and rather contradict them.
Hopefully people reading this can see the Catholic position is not only perfectly consistent with this parable Catholic theology actually harmonizes all of Scripture far far better than Protestant theology does. I want to reaffirm that there is no false "either/or" between faith and works, and in that parable there is nothing contrasting faith to works nor in any way attacking good works.
Nick writes:
ReplyDelete"I would say this first sentence is an inaccurate claim considering none of those Biblical passages use the term 'justified'."
The concept can be present without the term.
You write:
"In the Mk 2:5 passage Jesus 'saw their faith' and this was 'seen' by the men lowering the paralytic through the roof."
There are a few problems with your argument:
- Roman Catholicism doesn't teach that a good work of any type is the normative means through which we attain justification. Rather, Catholicism teaches that baptism is involved. In Roman Catholic theology, you can do good works prior to baptism, yet not be justified until the time of your baptism. (On the issue of whether baptism was required at this time in history, the time of Mark 2, see below.)
- The paralytic didn't do any work. You can't transfer the work of those with him to the paralytic.
- Since Jesus is God, He can read the heart. Your assertion that the work of the men who were with the paralytic was the means by which Jesus saw their faith is something you'll need to justify, not just assert. In the verses that immediately follow Mark 2:5, verses 6-8, we read about Jesus' knowledge of the human heart. Jesus had no need to see outward works in order to know what was in the heart, and the verses immediately following Mark 2:5 emphasize that fact.
- If Mark meant to say that Jesus forgave the man on the basis of faith combined with works, then he could have mentioned both in verse 5. Your assumption that works should be read into the passage, by being associated with the word "seeing", is unverifiable and an unnecessarily complicated way of reading the passage.
You write:
"The Luke 7:50 is even worse considering verses 44-47 the woman showed considerable love to Jesus, in which Jesus said 'her many sins have been forgiven, for she loved much' hardly a 'faith alone' moment."
More problems:
- Roman Catholicism doesn't teach that "showing considerable love" is the means of attaining justification. You keep looking for ways to deny that scripture teaches justification through faith alone, but the manner in which you argue for the inclusion of works in these passages still leaves you with something other than what Roman Catholicism teaches as the normative means of receiving justification.
- You stopped your quotation of Luke 7:47 just before Jesus contradicted your reading of the passage. He goes on to say "but he who is forgiven little, loves little". The level of forgiveness is what determines the level of love, not the other way around. We see the same principle in verses 40-43, in which Jesus refers to forgiveness coming before love. You've badly misread this passage.
- Jesus goes on to say "your faith has saved you" (Luke 7:50). Why should we think that He meant "faith combined with works of love"? You're doing the same thing you did with Mark 2. You're reading works into passages that only mention faith.
You write:
"As for the Acts 10 passage, the passage nowhere says they were justified at that moment the Holy Spirit came upon them, it was rather a public sign that the Gentiles were officially accepted into the Church"
No, Peter cites the events of Acts 10 in the context of discussing how people attain justification (Acts 15:1-2, 15:8-11). In that context, Peter mentions faith and the reception of the Spirit, but says nothing of baptism. The people Peter was responding to (Acts 15:1-2) weren't denying that Gentiles can be part of the church. Rather, they were denying that Gentiles can be justified without circumcision. If the reception of the Spirit in Acts 10 didn't indicate justification, then how would that event support Peter's argument? His opponents weren't denying that Gentiles can be saved. The issue was how they're saved. Peter emphasizes the fact that these people's hearts were cleansed by faith, a fact that God knew because of His ability to read the heart, and God testified to that fact by means of giving the Spirit (Acts 15:8-9). How can the giving of the Spirit testify to a cleansing that had occurred, if no such cleansing had yet occurred? If their reception of the Holy Spirit only indicated that Gentiles could be accepted into the church, but those Gentiles weren't yet justified, then why does Peter mention the cleansing of the heart? Peter will refer in one place to how these Gentiles would hear the gospel message from him and be saved (Acts 11:14), and he refers elsewhere to how they'll hear from him and believe (Acts 15:7). Why does he go back and forth between the two concepts? Because they were saved through faith. As Acts 15:9 illustrates, the cleansing of the heart occurs through faith, not faith combined with baptism. Are you going to once again read works into a passage that only mentions faith?
We know, from other passages of scripture, that the reception of the Holy Spirit is normally associated with justification (Romans 8:9-11, Ephesians 1:13-14). And Peter refers to what happened to these Gentiles as normative, not as some sort of unusual sign (Acts 10:47, 11:15-17, 15:8-11).
Furthermore, where do we read that the issue under consideration is "acceptance into the church", without any accompanying justification? You're reading that concept into the text. It's the sort of thing a twenty-first century Roman Catholic would be concerned about, but the Biblical text says nothing about it.
You write:
"If your position were true the Paul should not have made a big deal about who's Baptism they received or when, as long as they believed."
The fact that baptism is a "big deal" hasn't been denied by me or anybody else posting here. The point is that Paul's question in Acts 19:2 assumes that it's normative to receive the Spirit at the time of faith, not at the time of baptism. And Paul associated the reception of the Spirit with justification (Romans 8:9-11, Ephesians 1:13-14). Paul's question in verse 2 reflects what Paul considered normative, and he didn't consider it normative to receive the Holy Spirit after faith is combined with some sort of work, such as baptism. Rather, it's normative to receive the Spirit at the time of faith.
Your attempt to reconcile these passages (Mark 2, Luke 7, Acts 10, Acts 19) with Roman Catholic theology has failed.
You write:
"That is a pretty bold claim to make considering I clearly show how not only do your passages mention works active right along with faith, there is no wedge between faith and Baptism making one exclusive."
Are you saying that baptism is included in passages like Mark 2, Luke 7, Luke 18, Acts 10, and Acts 19? No, what you've argued is that there are sometimes other works mentioned in the surrounding context (the work of the men who carried the paralytic, the love shown by the woman in Luke 7, etc.), or you've argued that justification isn't being discussed (Acts 10). That's not equivalent to showing that baptism is included.
You write:
"The concept of being given 'more grace' [in James 4:6] doesnt make sense with imputation since it is a one time, uniform grace."
What Protestant has ever denied that grace can be received in contexts other than justification? You're burning a straw man.
You write:
"This is a bold assertion to make given the tax collector was obviously going to daily prayers, he already believed in God."
Again, "belief in God" isn't sufficient for justification. And going to the temple doesn't suggest "going to daily prayers" by somebody who is already justified.
You write:
"Jason's assertion that if someone shows humility that means their past was bad and thus never saved"
That's not what I said.
You write:
"There is nothing absurd about the idea of a person being forgiven, falling into sins down the road and returning to God to be forgiven again."
I didn't say that the idea is absurd in itself. But it is absurd to read the concept into Luke 18 when nothing suggests it. As I said before, the common Evangelical reading of the passage is preferable, in part because it doesn't read the unnecessary assumptions you're reading into the text. Nothing in Luke 18 suggests that the tax collector was justified previously.
You write:
"To deny this makes the Lord's Prayer (daily petition) 'forgive us our trespasses' redundant if it is forgiven once and for all in the past (also note passages like 1 Jn 1:9 saying Christians who fall into sin can be 'cleansed from all unrighteousness')."
You don't know much about Evangelical theology, do you? Forgiveness occurs at different levels, depending on the relational context. Just as you, as a Roman Catholic, can ask God to forgive you for venial sins, even though you remain a child of God, so also an Evangelical can seek forgiveness for daily sins without thereby suggesting that he's unforgiven in the sense of being unjustified. The person who prays the Lord's Prayer still addresses God as "Father". He's not seeking to be justified over again. He has an ongoing familial relationship with God.
The readers should note at this point that I gave multiple reasons for concluding that the tax collector in Luke 18 was unjustified prior to the event Jesus describes. Nick has ignored most of what I said.
You write:
"That is purely your assumption that there was zero relevance to having faith in God."
You keep misrepresenting what people have said before responding to them. I didn't say that belief in God has "zero relevance". I said that it's not the same as what Evangelicals define as justifying faith.
You write:
"Fortunately, the parable nowhere mentions faith, is not focused on faith, and thus the phrase 'justifying faith involves more than that' will have to be proven elsewhere rather than this parable."
I explained how Luke 18 implies the presence of faith, whereas it doesn't imply the presence of something like baptism. You've ignored what I said. Simply repeating your earlier comment that faith isn't mentioned in Luke 18 doesn't address the evidence I cited that faith is implied. Faith doesn't have to be mentioned in order to be implied. As I said before, the idea that Jesus was commending a tax collector who had no faith is ridiculous (Hebrews 11:6). How many times in the gospels does Jesus commend people for their faith? And we're supposed to believe that faith isn't implied in Luke 18, as if He's commending a faithless tax collector and referring to this faithless person as justified? Your response above is another illustration of why I refer to "Roman Catholic desperation".
You write:
"Though these comments are addressed to someone else it is worth noting that Jason mentions Acts 15:8 in reference to God knowing the heart, and that their hearts were 'purified by faith'. This is NOT the language of imputing an alien righteousness to someone, when your heart is pure and righteous that is anything but an alien righteous status imputed."
Again, a passage doesn't have to address imputation in order to be inconsistent with Roman Catholic soteriology. And the fact that faith is the human instrument by which the cleansing of Acts 15:9 occurs doesn't prove that imputation isn't involved in justification as well. That issue would have to be settled by other passages of scripture. I haven't argued that Acts 15 addresses imputation.
You write:
"Next you should be careful for what God 'doesnt have to wait for works to know' because the same could be said about an act of faith itself."
I was responding to a person (Dmitry Chernikov) who asked how God would know what was in the heart. I don't deny that God could justify people before they have faith as well. But He chooses to do it through faith. I was explaining why Dmitry's objection doesn't suggest the need for works to be included. I haven't argued for the inclusion of faith on the basis of what God does or doesn't know. Dmitry, on the other hand, did make such an argument with regard to works. Thus, it wouldn't make sense to apply my response to Dmitry to my own position, since I haven't used any argument comparable to Dmitry's.
You write:
"That is a strawman considering Catholics dont teach Baptism was required until Jesus gave the Great Commission (Mat 28:18f)."
I responded to that argument in another thread, and you didn't reply to what I said there:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/04/courage-to-be-protestant-david-f-wells.html
Here's what I wrote, and you never refuted the points I made:
"But scripture refers to a continuity in the means of attaining justification. That's why the apostle Paul repeatedly cites Abraham to illustrate how people are justified. That's why the apostle John includes so many of Jesus' teachings about justification in his gospel, a gospel that was written with salvation in view (John 20:31). If the means of attaining justification changed after the resurrection, then why would the apostles keep citing the pre-resurrection Abraham and what Jesus taught about how to attain justification prior to His resurrection? Is it your position that John 3:5 was only meant to apply to post-resurrection times? Jesus was telling Nicodemus that justification is attained through baptism, even though that means of attaining justification wouldn't go into effect until later?"
You write:
"Amazing that you would cite Heb 11:6 as a 'faith apart from works' proof text"
You keep distorting what I've said. I didn't cite Hebrews 11:6 as "a faith apart from works proof text". I cited it as evidence of the necessity of faith. The necessity of faith and the sufficiency of faith are different issues. In light of Hebrews 11:6, why should we think that Jesus was commending a faithless tax collector as justified in Luke 18? I was citing Hebrews 11 with regard to the issue of whether the presence of faith is implied in Luke 18. I wasn't citing Hebrews 11 as "a faith apart from works proof text". You've missed the point, so your response is irrelevant to what I was addressing.
You write:
"Faith here, defined clearly by the Bible, is that you believe God exists and that He REWARDS those who earnestly seek him, that doesnt sound like faith apart from works, nor does Heb 11 as a whole for that matter."
Again, you don't seem to know much about Evangelical theology. Evangelicals don't reject the concept of rewards. Eternal life itself can be seen as a reward of seeking God, if the concept of reward is understood correctly (a positive consequence of something, not an object merited through works). I don't know of any Evangelical who would object to the concept that God rewards those who seek Him, unless you include other, unimplied concepts along with it.
You write:
"It is pure pure eisegesis to turn this into a faith versus works parable when Jesus never ever condemns good works, never contrasts works to faith, etc."
Again, the passage can convey some information about how Jesus viewed justification, even if the passage is about more than justification. And I haven't said or implied that good works ought to be "condemned". The issue is whether they're a means of attaining justification, not whether they're to be condemned. And the passage doesn't have to contrast faith with something like baptism in order for us to conclude that faith was present without baptism. I've already explained why it makes sense to see faith in Luke 18, whereas it doesn't make sense to see baptism there.
You write:
"the Catholic Church infallibly teaches you can receive the graces Baptism imparts if you have the proper disposition of heart but cant make the physical Sacrament of Baptism (the same thing goes for Penance)."
That's why I keep using the term "normative". I don't deny that Catholicism makes some exceptions. But it would be ridiculous to argue that all of these passages are exceptions to a rule. You've given us no reason to think that even one of them is, much less all of them. If scripture so often refers to individuals as justified prior to baptism, and it never refers to a person with faith as having to wait until baptism to be justified, then why should we assume that the former are exceptions to the rule, while the latter is normative?
You write:
"Next, Catholics believe you can grow in righteousness through good works, thus even after Baptism you can become more holy, Jesus talks to the Apostles about becoming humble and being exalted in other places yet they were already believers."
I've already explained why it makes more sense to conclude that the tax collector in Luke 18 was unjustified before the event Jesus describes. You've ignored much of what I said, and your assumption that the tax collector had already been justified earlier isn't suggested by the text or context. You're reading the concept into the text.
You write:
"Neither becoming humbled nor exalted describes imputing an alien status, nothing on the inside changes at that point."
Once again, you've shown your ignorance of Evangelical theology. Imputation doesn't involve a denial of inner change. If there is no change, then there would be no faith. Faith is, itself, a change. What Evangelicals deny is that the change in question is the ground of our justification and that outward works are part of the means by which justification is received.
You write:
"I want to reaffirm that there is no false "either/or" between faith and works, and in that parable there is nothing contrasting faith to works nor in any way attacking good works."
I haven't "attacked good works", but you've been attacking a lot of straw men.
By the way, when Nick says...
ReplyDelete"That is a strawman considering Catholics dont teach Baptism was required until Jesus gave the Great Commission (Mat 28:18f)."
...he needs to offer a further explanation of how the Great Commission allegedly implies a change in the means by which people attain justification. Or if he doesn't think that the Great Commission passage itself implies such a change, he needs to explain what does. If Catholics are going to dismiss the entire Old Testament era and the New Testament era up until the time of the Great Commission as some sort of era when people were justified differently than they are today, then he'll need more of a justification for that dismissal than just citing Matthew 28. He's dismissing thousands of years of human history and many Biblical passages supporting justification through faith alone. A vague reference to the Great Commission isn't enough to justify that sort of dismissal of such a large amount of potentially relevant evidence.