So the right answer is that salvation is 100% divine and 100% human – the divine grace being prior to human faith and works. That’s the Catholic position and I would challenge you to read the New Testament with this Catholic paradigm in mind. I think that you will find that it sheds light on passages, brings about a cohesive whole, and clarifies those “difficult passages” that Protestants avoid or dismiss (e.g. James 2, Hebrews 6).
Works (including involvement in baptism and other sacraments) are 100% absent in the paradigm case of Abraham (Genesis 15:6) and 100% absent in the historical descriptions of how others were justified (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, Acts 10:44-48, Galatians 3:2-9, etc.). Works were present in Abraham's life, a point made in James 2, and they would have followed faith in cases like those in Mark 2, Luke 7, etc. But justification occurs at the time of faith, not at the time of baptism or any other work. Not only would it be a less natural interpretation to dismiss these passages as exceptions to a rule, but some of these passages are presented in contexts that are about what's normative, not what's exceptional. People like Abraham, the tax collector of Luke 18, Cornelius, and the Galatians are treated as if the means by which they received justification was normative. Every one of them received justification through faith alone, without the presence of baptism or any other work.
Paul often points back to how people were initially justified (Galatians 3:2, Ephesians 1:13-14, etc.). The Judaizers couldn't argue that while justification is initially attained through faith alone, works could be added as means of maintaining or increasing justification later. It seems that Paul viewed the initial means of attaining justification as evidence that works couldn't be added to the process, as a means of justification, afterward.
But let's set that point aside for the moment. Assume, for the sake of argument, that works might become a means of maintaining or increasing justification after justification is received. The fact would remain that scripture contradicts Roman Catholic soteriology on the issue of how justification is initially attained. Passages like Genesis 15 and Acts 10 don't reflect a Catholic view. They reflect an Evangelical view.
Yes, Catholicism teaches that "the divine grace [is] prior to human faith and works", as Taylor Marshall puts it. But scripture teaches that justification occurs, normatively, prior to baptism and other works, which is inconsistent with Catholic teaching. To use Marshall's examples, scripture does suggest that Jesus is both God and man and that Peter was both empowered by God to walk on water and walked by his own power. Thus, we have to account for both. But when baptism and other works are absent from passages of scripture like the ones discussed above, there are no works to account for. You don't need an explanation that includes both faith and works. To the contrary, an explanation that includes works is wrong. It includes too much. It's more reasonable to read passages like Hebrews 6 and James 2 as Evangelicals do than it is to include works in passages like the ones I've discussed above or to dismiss those passages as exceptions to a rule.
"Assume, for the sake of argument, that works might become a means of maintaining or increasing justification after justification is received. The fact would remain that scripture contradicts Roman Catholic soteriology on the issue of how justification is initially attained."
ReplyDeleteWould it? I know of several Roman Catholics who would claim otherwise, so if there is some document or implication I am missing that proves this to be true, please share.
Ryan,
ReplyDelete"If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, session 7, "Decree On The Sacraments", "On Baptism", canon 5)
"The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation....The faithful are born anew by Baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation, and receive in the Eucharist the food of eternal life....Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: 'Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.'...This sacrament is also called 'the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,' for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one 'can enter the kingdom of God.'...Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies....Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ from which the entire Christian life springs forth....The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation....Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are 'reborn of water and the Spirit.' God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments....By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin." (Catechism Of The Catholic Church, 1129, 1212-1213, 1215, 1227, 1254, 1257, 1263)
Even when Catholicism allows for exceptions, the high role of baptism in Catholicism is reflected by how those exceptions are characterized. Martyrs are said to have a baptism of blood. Those who die before baptism are said to have a baptism of desire.
One more question: would they consider partaking of the sacraments to be good works? If so, then I would see your point. Thanks in advance.
ReplyDeleteJason
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with Peter Kreeft's writings?
I came across an excerpt from one of his books (posted as a blog article) that shocked me. He claims to be a former Calvinist, yet seems to misrepresent Evangelicalism in general and Calvinism in particular. Also, his comments in the first two paragraphs are the height of spiritual blindness and arrogance. I wonder if he is familiar with the story of Uzzah??
He is the link, I'd very much appreciate any commentary if you have time. Thanks!
Oops. :)
ReplyDeletehttp://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0030.html
Ryan wrote:
ReplyDelete"One more question: would they consider partaking of the sacraments to be good works? If so, then I would see your point."
You're implying that I would be wrong if Catholicism doesn't consider participation in baptism a work. I'm not aware of any passage in scripture in which the dispute with the Judaizers or the theme of the freeness of justification is approached in the manner you suggest above. The apostle Paul, for example, seems to have been concerned with whether circumcision and other activities are objectively works, not whether they're subjectively perceived as works by the people in question. Discerning between a true and a false gospel would become significantly more difficult if adding to the gospel were considered acceptable as long as the person doing the adding doesn't consider the addition a work. Where does Paul argue for people's subjective perception that something is a work before proceeding to criticize them for a false gospel? Would you take the same approach to a Jehovah's Witness who argued that foot washing is necessary for salvation or a Mormon who argued that giving money to the church is a means of attaining justification?
As reflected in my quotes from Catholic sources above, Catholicism distinguishes between faith and baptism. And it would be irrational to claim that there is no difference between the two. If baptism isn't faith, then what is it? A sacrament that isn't a work? Where's the justification for that category? Catholicism will say that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God" (Catechism Of The Catholic Church, 1128). However, Catholicism distinguishes between faith and baptism, baptism involves the activity of the outer man (contrast Acts 15:8-9), and Catholicism expects adults to arrange for their baptism and holds them responsible for participating in it. It isn't faith, and it has the characteristics that would normally lead us to identify something as a work.
If you want to argue that baptism doesn't involve work, then explain why. If you want to argue that it is objectively a work, but can be added to the gospel as long as the person adding it doesn't perceive it as a work, then explain why. We wouldn't begin with such an understanding as our default position, and Paul doesn't add such a qualifier in Galatians or other relevant contexts. If you want that sort of qualifier added, then you carry the burden of proof.
JIBBS,
ReplyDeleteI haven't read much of Kreeft, but I did read the article you linked. His descriptions of what Protestants think (their "shock", their views on "fairness", etc.) don't match my own thoughts, and he doesn't say much about the more significant objections to the Catholic view of the sacraments. And distinguishing between a sacramental world and the spiritual world doesn't tell us where the boundaries are or how they relate. If we live in a sacramental world, as Kreeft puts it, that fact doesn't tell us whether justification is received through faith or through faith combined with baptism, for example. You can search our archives if you're interested in reading more about our approach to baptism, the eucharist, and other relevant subjects. For instance, he cites John 6 in support of his view of the eucharist, and we've discussed that passage at length.
Thanks again for the response.
ReplyDeleteYou said, “The apostle Paul, for example, seems to have been concerned with whether circumcision and other activities are objectively works, not whether they're subjectively perceived as works by the people in question,” and later, “[Baptism] isn't faith, and it has the characteristics that would normally lead us to identify something as a work.”
ReplyDeleteWould you please define what a “work” is? What is it that makes you say that, objectively speaking, baptism is a work?
unsophisticated wrote:
ReplyDelete"Would you please define what a 'work' is? What is it that makes you say that, objectively speaking, baptism is a work?"
The term, like other language, can be used in different ways in different contexts. Work is generally the activity of a person, whether good or bad (Romans 9:11-12), sometimes specifically the outward activity that reflects the inner man (James 2:14-18). Faith isn't a work (Romans 4:5). Nothing comparable is said about baptism. Scripture holds us accountable even for our thoughts, and works can sometimes be defined so broadly as to include everything the inner or outer man does. Faith might be thought of as a work if it weren't exempted in the relevant contexts (it's exempted in Romans 4:5, in the many other passages that mention faith as the alternative to working, etc.). Again, there is no comparable exemption for baptism.
Justification occurs through a means within the heart, namely faith (Acts 15:7-9), which excludes baptism. If outward activity that evidences the nature of the inner man is to be considered work, as James 2 suggests, then baptism qualifies as a work. We can see baptism being done, and it's a result of what the inner man chooses to do. Anybody who wants to separate it from other such activities scripture identifies as work would need to argue for such an exemption rather than just asserting it.
If baptism isn't faith and isn't a work, then what is it? I know of no third category, and I know of no significant difference between baptism and the other activities scripture identifies as work.
Even without knowing what a work is, baptism would be excluded for other reasons like the ones I've outlined above and elsewhere on this blog. (See, for example, the thread here and the other thread to which it links.) Work wouldn't even have to be defined in order to exclude baptism. It isn't faith, and faith alone justifies. And baptism is absent in Biblical descriptions of how justification is normatively attained.
Thanks for the reply. I'm wondering if Mr. Hays agrees with your categorization of items into only two groups -- faith or works. What category would you put repentance in? Thanks.
ReplyDeleteUnsophisticated,
ReplyDeleteI consider repentance a component of saving faith. It can be distinguished from faith, conceptually or for the sake of emphasis, but faith involves repentance.
Note that, unlike baptism, repentance meets the Biblical standard of residing in the heart rather than being an outward act. And, unlike baptism, the inclusion of repentance is consistent with the Biblical passages I've cited above, in which outward acts like baptism can't be included. Unlike baptism, repentance logically accompanies faith. In contrast, a person can have faith before being baptized, even for a long period of time. Often, baptisms don't take place until a week, a month, or longer after a person comes to faith.
Faith could exist without repentance in some contexts, such as placing faith in another person to handle your finances or repair your car. But saving faith, in the context of Christianity, has salvation from sin in view. It would make no sense to trust in a Savior to deliver you from your sin, yet have no change of mind about sin. On the other hand, there's nothing irrational about trusting in a Savior without yet being baptized. Faith eventually results in works, like baptism, but those works aren't part of faith.
And, to reemphasize a point I made above, even if we were to conclude that repentance isn't part of faith, and that passages mentioning faith are intended to include repentance as an addition to faith, it wouldn't follow that baptism can be included as well. The inclusion of the former doesn't imply the inclusion of the latter. The paralytic in Mark 2:5, the tax collector in Luke 18:10-14, Cornelius prior to baptism in Acts 10:44-48, the Galatians in Galatians 3:2, etc. were in a position to have possessed repentance at the time of their justification. But they weren't in a position to have been baptized. Scripture repeatedly describes the attaining of justification in a way that's consistent with the inclusion of repentance, but inconsistent with the inclusion of baptism.
UNSOPHISTICATED SAID:
ReplyDelete“Thanks for the reply. I'm wondering if Mr. Hays agrees with your categorization of items into only two groups -- faith or works. What category would you put repentance in?”
There are different ways to define a “work”–all of which, it seems to me, are consistent with Jason’s schema. But only he can say.
i) Something may be a work because it’s an external observance. Something we “do” rather than something we think or believe. Something outside of us. Objective to us rather than subjective to us.
ii) Something may also be a “work” in the sense that we are said to be the agent of that effect. We caused it to happen.
iii) Apropos (i-ii), the identification of a “work” is also bound up with the respective theological system which defines the terms of that category.
a) In the faith/works dichotomy, baptism is a work if baptism is a precondition for justification.
If circumcision is a work, and baptism is paralllel to circumcision, then if Abraham was justified apart from the work of circumcision, it also follows that Christians are justified apart from the work of baptism.
b) Faith is a human mental act. Whether faith is a “work” depends on whether the believer is the cause of his own faith, or God is the cause of his faith. If the believer is the ultimate source of that effect, then faith is a work.
c) In Pauline theology, while faith is a human act (whose source is God’s renewing grace), justification is a divine act.
d) Moreover, in Pauline theology, justification is a legal status. And objective state. Not a subjective change. Something done for us rather than something done in us and to us.
You’ve asked for my opinion. That’s my opinion. Keep in mind that Jason isn’t obliged to share my opinion. I’m not his rule of faith.