It should be noted that Catholics like Bryan Cross accept some beliefs that were widely absent or rejected in scripture and/or among the church fathers. Some of those beliefs are more absent or rejected than a non-justificatory view of baptism. There's a lot of evidence for justification apart from baptism in scripture, and there were some people in the patristic era who rejected baptismal justification. The Biblical evidence has been significant enough to motivate many Catholics to argue for widespread exceptions to baptismal justification in the Bible, even among individuals in scripture who could easily have been baptized before being justified. I discussed issues like these with Bryan Cross and some other Catholics in another thread at Called To Communion. It's a lengthy discussion, but I cite a large amount of Biblical and patristic evidence that's often neglected.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Early Christian Opposition To Baptismal Justification
I haven't been posting much lately, since I've been working on some other things, so I've been late in responding to some of the discussions that have been taking place. Since my link below might be helpful to some readers, I want to repost something I said in the comments section of a thread below. This was written in response to Steve Hays' comments on Bryan Cross' view of baptism:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bryan said “A person can be justified even prior to baptism, but the grace by which he is justified nevertheless has come to his through that sacrament.
ReplyDeleteI'm always amazed by the fact that Romanists (as well as Federal Visionists and other sacerdotal Protestants) are willing to postulate a sort of reverse causation in order to justify their position. They will admit that one can be justified before baptism, but somehow baptism still plays an instrumental role in justification. It somehow works *backwards* in time. What sophistry!
Set aside the metaphysical problems this creates, for a moment. Consider that Scripture's reasoning assumes the opposite. Abraham was justified by faith, and the evidence Paul presents for this fact is that Abraham was justified *before* his circumcision. If it was before the circumcision, it could not have been caused by the circumcision.
Early Protestant apologists (who knew well their church fathers) noted the hypocrisy of RCs in matters sacramental.
ReplyDeleteThey pointed out that RCs themselves had by Tridentine times abandoned one practice that early church had pretty unanimously practised, and which EOs still practice.
Namely, the communion of infants:
"Thus, the Council declared:
"If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion, let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Sess. XXI, can. iv)
Formerly, the Eastern Churches in full communion with the Roman Pope were generally required to conform to Western Church practice, in violation of the far more ancient practice of the Eastern Churches."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_communion#Catholicism
RCs scorn Prods like Baptists for not baptizing their children, but themselves do not give (in their own opinion) the all-important Body of Christ to their own children.
ReplyDeleteDavid said:
Abraham was justified by faith, and the evidence Paul presents for this fact is that Abraham was justified *before* his circumcision. If it was before the circumcision, it could not have been caused by the circumcision.
Excellent point David!
The title of this thread is "Early Christian Opposition To Baptismal Justification."
ReplyDeleteIs there any 'early christian opposition' to baptismal justification that runs contrary to the ECF citations that bryan linked up?
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYou did a great job in that thread. A lot of great points and arguments that Bryan never touched, but instead dismissed by affirming Catholic dogma.
Thanks,
Ronnie
"Is there any 'early christian opposition' to baptismal justification that runs contrary to the ECF citations that bryan linked up?"
ReplyDeleteOne way in which RCs have themselves been indirectly forced to reject "baptismal justification" - in its full literal sense - is the way they acknowledge that "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire" can also save.
In other words, they concede that water baptism is not ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation after all - faith is even more important, or what really counts.
This RC source, arguing against fanatical Feeneyites (who are, btw, taking "baptismal justification" to its absurd but logically consistent conclusion) provides some nice citations from church fathers.
For example:
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/desire.html
Cyprian of Carthage, 252 Epistle, 73, 22. Catechumens- asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the church should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name, whether he would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water?...Those catechumens are certainly not deprived of ;the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that he had "another baptism to be baptized with." (Luke 12:50). but the same Lord declares in the Gospel, that those who are baptized in their own blood, and sanctified by suffering, are perfected and obtain the grace of the divine promise, when he speaks to the thief believing and confessing in his very passion, and promises that he should be with himself in paradise.
Cyprian of Carthage, the very one who phrased no Salvation outside the Church wrote of Blood Baptism: For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one; that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that MEN'S OWN BLOOD IS WONT TO CONFER THE SPIRIT, and that the Spirit himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and NONETHELESS IN THEIR OWN BLOOD, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, MEN MAY BE BAPTIZED. (Treatise on ReBaptism, 15)
St. Augustine - Those who, though THEY HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE WASHING OF REGENERATION, DIE FOR THE CONFESSION CHRIST, - IT AVAILS THEM JUST AS MUCH FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF THEIR SINS AS IF THEY HAD BEEN WASHED IN THE SACRED FONT OF BAPTISM. For He that said: 'If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven/" MADE AN EXCEPTION for them in that other statement in WHICH HE SAYS NO LESS GENERALLY: "Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven.'(Matt. 10:32) City of God, 13:7
St. Augustine - "I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44-48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13-19]" ((On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21[28])."
Viisius,
ReplyDeleteDoes not the presence of an exception to the rule in the ECFs prove that the 'rule' existed in the first place?
If the ECFs argued that baptism was regenerational but that there was also a baptism of desire (or blood) where actual baptism was not possible than doesn't it seem that at least on this question the Catholic position is closer to the ECFs which I think was the whole point behind Bryan Cross' post?
Raymond wrote:
ReplyDelete"Is there any 'early christian opposition' to baptismal justification that runs contrary to the ECF citations that bryan linked up?"
You and I had a discussion earlier this year that addressed issues like the early history of baptismal doctrine and the significance of patristic support for a belief. You left that discussion. You've also left other discussions. You don't make much of an effort to defend your own claims, and you ignore a lot of what people write in response to you. Your question quoted above not only ignores much of what I said in the Called To Communion thread I linked above, but also ignores some of my comments in our discussion earlier this year. You should read what I've already posted.
You write:
"If the ECFs argued that baptism was regenerational but that there was also a baptism of desire (or blood) where actual baptism was not possible than doesn't it seem that at least on this question the Catholic position is closer to the ECFs which I think was the whole point behind Bryan Cross' post?"
The post Steve Hays responded to addressed the fathers, but also addressed scripture. And this thread is focused on a different post by Bryan Cross, one he wrote late last year. I cited it because it has some overlap with the other post Steve was addressing and because it addresses a significant topic.
Your references to "the ECFs" are too vague, for reasons I explained in the earlier Called To Communion thread and in our discussion earlier this year. And I note again that you have a tendency to ignore evidence that's contrary to Catholicism while trying to get people to focus on what you think is supportive of Catholicism. That's not how we would expect a Presbyterian to behave, unless he's a Presbyterian who's closer to Catholicism than he is to the communion he currently associates with. Are you still a Presbyterian? Here we have a thread in which I referred to early Christians in general, not just church fathers, and I linked to another thread that was focused on the Biblical evidence. Steve Hays' post was mainly about the Biblical evidence as well. It's true that one of Bryan Cross' posts, not the one I focused on, is primarily about the fathers. But why would you focus on patristic support for the Catholic position while saying so little about the evidence against that position? Why do we see that same sort of pattern emerging over and over again in your posts? Why would a Presbyterian behave that way?
Jason.
ReplyDeleteI am simply asking if any church father taught the Reformed view and opposed the Catholic view of baptism.
I guess by 'early Christian' you don't mean patristic sources but the bible only. OK. Point taken.
But I am asking if any church father taught the reformed interpretation of scripture as respect to baptism.
If you read Bryan Cross' post- which I am sure you have- than that is the majority of his argument. He also gives an argument from scripture which you and Steve addressed.
To the rest:
I don't know why anybody who is not a cheerleader here is looked at with such suspicion and contempt.
The patter with this website, regardless of the post author, is to present an argument while besmirching the opponent and then to sit back and let the cheerleaders start posting about how great of a post it is, until somebody simply asks a basic question and then that somebody's motives are questioned and they are shooed away.
I think you should amend the rules of the sight to make it clear that anything other than cheerleading is not welcomed.
Raymond, certain questions and patterns of questioning are indicative of certain motivations and bias. Being coy about one's own views also doesn't help.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, you said "I am simply asking if any church father taught the Reformed view and opposed the Catholic view of baptism."
That is a prejudicially-framed question. What if the church fathers didn't teach the Reformed nor (modern) Roman Catholic view? And why expect (much less demand) that they actively oppose particular diverging views?
Raymond wrote:
ReplyDelete"I guess by 'early Christian' you don't mean patristic sources but the bible only. OK. Point taken."
You don't seem to be making much effort to be accurate. My first post in this thread refers to both Biblical and extra-Biblical sources. My first response to you in this thread does the same. And I said the same in the Called To Communion thread I linked above and in my discussion with you earlier this year, which I've linked above. You've vindicated what I said about your tendency to ignore what people write in response to you.
You write:
"But I am asking if any church father taught the reformed interpretation of scripture as respect to baptism."
I'm not Reformed. And I cited patristic support for my view of baptism in the Called To Communion thread. I've also addressed the subject on this blog multiple times. Again, you should read what I've already written. I sometimes summarize my views when people ask me to. But since you keep ignoring so much of what I write in response to you, whether it's in a lengthy or summarized form, I'm not going to keep repeating myself every time you ask me to.
You write:
"The patter with this website, regardless of the post author, is to present an argument while besmirching the opponent and then to sit back and let the cheerleaders start posting about how great of a post it is, until somebody simply asks a basic question and then that somebody's motives are questioned and they are shooed away. I think you should amend the rules of the sight to make it clear that anything other than cheerleading is not welcomed."
I'll await your documentation that Patrick Chan, Evan May, and Dustin Segers, for example, behave that way. I do sometimes criticize people, like you, but I also interact with people at length. So do Steve Hays, Peter Pike, Paul Manata, etc. We've written thousands of pages of material in response to atheists, Muslims, Roman Catholics, and other critics of Evangelicalism. The vast majority of it consists of argumentation, not criticism of individuals. Where's your comparable or better apologetic work?
You aren't being criticized for not "cheerleading". You're being criticized for other reasons, which I've explained and which you've largely ignored. Your "basic questions" are ones I've already answered, and you keep refusing to interact with those answers.
Your decision to not tell us whether you're still a Presbyterian, and to continue to ignore most of what I've already said about baptism and other relevant issues, is noted.
Why don't you lead by example? As I explained in our discussion earlier this year, one of the many discussions you've left, you as a Presbyterian presumably have reasons for disagreeing with Catholicism on issues like baptism. What's your historical argument against the Catholic position? Why don't you demonstrate how such apologetic work should be done? If all of my discussions of the Biblical text, citations of Biblical and patristic scholars, etc. aren't enough, then give us something better.
I recently finished a post on justification that I think Jason would be interested in:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/23yy8lu
Nick,
ReplyDeleteYour article doesn't interact much with my argument for justification through faith alone, like what I discussed in the Called To Communion thread linked above. There are a lot of problems with your argument that you don't address. I was more focused on Galatians 3 than Romans 4 in the thread I've linked, but some of the same principles apply. I reject your claim that "this [Genesis 26:4-5] obviously poses a problem for Protestants, who claim God blessed Abraham on the grounds of faith alone". People are "blessed" for more than faith in Protestant theology. When both faith and works are involved in a context like we see in Genesis 26, meaning that some things are attained through faith while others are attained through both, then the blessings can be referred to collectively as attained through both faith and works. The issue with Genesis 15:6 is how Paul used that passage in the context of justification, not whether more than faith was involved in Abraham's attaining of some blessings.
Again, readers who want a fuller treatment of such issues from my perspective can read the Called To Communion thread I've linked above.
My article wasn't meant to address every facet of justification, but only one of the many major parts of it.
ReplyDeleteAs for Gen 26:4f, this wasn't any blessing, it was the very blessing continually restated since Gen 12, and especially Gen 15:6.
I read much of that Called to Communion link a while back, but those discussions can get so long that I'll often have to just stop following.
While some of the principles might apply, I zero in on the critical Rom 4:4-5, which is the 'go to' text for Protestants when claiming "works in general" rather than a specific/narrow "works of the Law".
Nick,
ReplyDeleteI don't accept the assumption that there's one "blessing" in Genesis 26 and every other relevant passage, one that doesn't have any elements that can be distinguished from one another so as to allow justification to be attained through faith alone. When Paul cites Genesis 15:6 to illustrate the means by which people are justified, and you go to Genesis 26 to define what that means is, you're making a series of dubious assumptions. It's not as though Genesis 15 is so unclear as to give us reason to look elsewhere for a clarification, and Paul doesn't suggest that we should go to the passage you've cited in Genesis 26 for such a clarification. You're assuming that what's accomplished in Genesis 26 is the same accomplishment Paul is addressing when he cites Genesis 15, so that we attain Paul's objective (justification) the same way the objective of Genesis 26 is attained. You haven't argued for those conclusions in your article. You've asserted them.
The issue in Romans 4 isn't just what works are excluded, but also what's included. As I argue at length in the Called To Communion thread, the Catholic wants "faith" to be broader than what the term normally means, so as to include work (or outward bodily activity or work empowered by God's grace or whatever we might call it in a given context), and he wants the excluded "work" to be narrower than what the term normally means, so as to exclude only a highly limited type of work (like the Mosaic law or some elements of it) that doesn't overlap Catholicism's system of justificatory works. Narrowing the excluded works in a context like Romans 4 doesn't broaden the faith that's included. You would need to do both in order to justify the Catholic interpretation. That fact is itself a major problem for Catholicism. People sometimes use terminology in unusual ways, but the fact that Catholicism has to assume such unusual meanings for Paul's terminology makes the Catholic interpretation less natural from the start. Other evidence might be able to overcome that disadvantage, but it is a disadvantage.
It's true that more than Abraham's belief is mentioned in Genesis 26, and it's true that Abraham (and Isaac and others) attained some blessings through more than faith. But is more than faith involved in Genesis 15:6, the passage Paul focuses on? I see no reason to think so. We don't normally assume that a term like "believed" carries more than faith with it. The immediate context has Abraham reacting to something God said. When a person is described as believing in response to what somebody else has said, we don't normally assume that the believer in question not only had faith, but also was involved in some sort of outward activity (work) at the same time. To get from Abraham's faith in Genesis 15:6 to a combination between faith and baptism and the rest of Catholicism's system of works, you have to go outside of that passage. That's why you're going to Genesis 26. But why assume that Genesis 26 tells us what Paul meant by his use of Genesis 15:6?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteWhen we're trying to discern what work Paul is excluding in Romans 4, we do take factors like the ones you've discussed into account. But we also take other factors into account, like the ones I've discussed in the Called To Communion thread. Paul is primarily responding to opponents who believed in some form of justification through works of the Jewish law. It doesn't therefore follow that any reference to excluded works must be limited to the works of Paul's opponents, much less only the elements of the Jewish law that Catholicism excludes from the gospel. If Paul uses apparently broader terminology when excluding works from the gospel, we should be open to a broader exclusion. The fact that Paul is primarily addressing a group concerned with the Jewish law doesn't prove that he would only exclude works within that system, including when he uses terminology that suggests something broader. If I'm focused on responding to the Jehovah's Witnesses' false Christology in a particular context, it doesn't follow that I can't also be making comments that condemn other groups' Christology in the process. In the Called To Communion thread, I've cited multiple lines of evidence (not just Romans 4:4-6) that Paul was excluding works in a broader sense than Catholicism does in Romans 4 and elsewhere.
The "ungodly" Paul is addressing in Romans 4 are defined by the earlier chapters, in which he brings the charge of condemnation against all of humanity, both Jew and Gentile (Romans 3:9-23). Jewish advocates of justification through works were prominent in Paul's context in first-century Christianity, but those Jewish opponents were just one element (though a large one) of a broader context Paul was addressing. In previous chapters, he had argued that all, both Jew and Gentile, are condemned under sin. He then argues that all are justified apart from works, and that broad context allows for more than just a Jewish system of works to be excluded. Whether he does exclude more than that Jewish system has to be determined by looking at the details of the relevant passages. But the fact that Jewish works are so prominent in Paul's context doesn't tell us that he had only those works in mind when he used terminology that seems to be broader. As he explains in Romans 5:6-8, the "ungodly" include all of "us".
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteHow is the blessing mentioned in G26 in any significant way different from G12 and G26? The whole package was conditioned on obedience, according to 26:4f.
What are my "dubious assumptions" if I'm building my case from harmonizing Scripture? It's not uncommon for Scripture to add details in later chapters/books to past events. I'm not saying Gen 15 is "so unclear," what the issue is is whether this was a 'faith alone' moment or a 'faith minus works of the law' moment - since the two are not synonymous. Paul doesn't need to suggest G26, and we shouldn't assume Paul was ripping passages out of context or ignoring other texts when making his argument.
I'm assuming 26 is the same accomplishment as 15 because it's a clear restatement of the promise given in 15 and on what conditions it was delivered. This was so clear that folks like Calvin and Gill went out of their way to "correct" any misunderstanding that Abraham received these on obedience (I quote these in my link).
You said: "You haven't argued for those conclusions in your article. You've asserted them."
>>I've backed up all that I've said, and that's precisely why I focused on showing why Rom 4 is speaking narrowly of circumcision and Mosaic Law and not 'works in general'. It all stands or falls together. If Paul was excluding 'works in general', then Protestants are right to read G26 as not conditioning the Blessing on obedience.
You said: "As I argue at length in the Called To Communion thread, the Catholic wants "faith" to be broader than what the term normally means"
>> Who says "faith" isn't broadly taken in Paul's thought? You're assuming it's to be taken narrowly because to you 'works in general' are excluded. The notion of "faith working through love" is what Paul generally means, but the "works in general" crowd exclude this. Further, speaking of what faith "normally means," the classical Protestant position is that in Rom 4 faith is of no inherent value (even passive) and is the "instrument" that receives Christ's Righteousness...where is that the 'normal' use of faith in Scripture?
You said: "and he wants the excluded "work" to be narrower than what the term normally means"
>> That's just it, where does "work" end up "normally meaning" something like "works in general"? You can't inject this into Paul's writing and assume that. The term very clearly "normally means" what I argued, "works of the Law". This is confirmed by the most important exegetical consideration: context.
My article argues precisely that it's the Protestant attaching "unusual meanings" to Paul's terms. The cardinal text for Protestants for proving "works in general" is Rom 4:4-5, and that's precisely why I focused my energy on it.
You said: "It's true that more than Abraham's belief is mentioned in Genesis 26, and it's true that Abraham (and Isaac and others) attained some blessings through more than faith. But is more than faith involved in Genesis 15:6, the passage Paul focuses on? I see no reason to think so."
>> Well, if Gen 26 is speaking of the same promise as G15, and you admit more than faith was involved, then I have clear grounds to make my case. Further, I don't think faith is even singled out in G26, indicating it was assumed but never a sole operator.
The notion of belief can be limited to a moment of faith and not include an immediate accompaniment of other actions. But that's not a problem for the Catholic end, since 'works in general' are not what's the focus. All the Protestant could say is that 'faith justifies', which is fine, but it's unwarranted to say 'faith alone' justifies. The Catholic could argue 'faith' and 'repentance' can be the same or closely related when it comes to 'faith justifying', where as the Protestant does not allow this. This is also confirmed by the fact you (quite logically) put a wedge between faith and baptism (though Lutherans do not).
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Paul is primarily responding to...works of the Jewish law. It doesn't therefore follow that any reference to excluded works must be limited to the works of Paul's opponents"
>> This puts the burden on you though, since the only thing ever clearly established is 'works of the Law' are excluded. To extend that to 'works in general' is going beyond Paul's original efforts - and if 'works in general' are the real issue, Paul wasted his time focusing so much on the narrower category.
You said: "The fact that Paul is primarily addressing a group concerned with the Jewish law doesn't prove that he would only exclude works within that system"
>> Again, that burden is for you to prove. Further, your comments betray the fact Paul is focused on the Old *Covenant* and given there are no Gentile "Covenants" means Paul has nothing to expand onto. The issue was Gentile versus Jew, which is not a 'works in general' problem.
Aside from Romans 4, what are the top 2-3 passages in Scripture you believe condemn (either explicitly or implicitly) a 'works in general' theme, rather than a narrower 'works of the Law'??
You said: "The "ungodly" Paul is addressing in Romans 4 are defined by the earlier chapters"
>> Sure, but I gave two possible interpretations of this and neither of which imply a 'works in general' framework.
You said: "He then argues that all are justified apart from works, and that broad context allows for more than just a Jewish system"
>> Ah, but here is precisely what I take issue with. You said "He *then* argues" works in general. Where? Where does he "then" transition into a 'works in general' outlook? He doesn't. His "then," his conclusion, his 'therefore', is something akin to Rom 3:28, which is explicitly about 'works of the Law'.
You said: "But the fact that Jewish works are so prominent in Paul's context doesn't tell us that he had only those works in mind when he used terminology that seems to be broader."
>> You're arguing from conspicuous/explicit viewpoint *down to* an inconspicuous/implicit one. This puts the burden on you to prove this, as well as essentially betrays the notion of 'perspicuity of scripture'. Either Paul was focusing on the important stuff or he wasn't. I repeatedly stated in my article that the Protestant ultimately must latch onto isolated texts like Rom 4:4f, and from there proceed to force every other text to conform to that.
Nick wrote:
ReplyDelete"How is the blessing mentioned in G26 in any significant way different from G12 and G26? The whole package was conditioned on obedience, according to 26:4f."
I didn't deny that "the whole package" is conditioned on obedience (and faith is a form of obedience). But Paul isn't citing the whole package when he cites Genesis 15:6.
You wrote:
"It's not uncommon for Scripture to add details in later chapters/books to past events. I'm not saying Gen 15 is 'so unclear,' what the issue is is whether this was a 'faith alone' moment or a 'faith minus works of the law' moment - since the two are not synonymous."
Genesis 26:5 refers to Abraham's obedience in general. That would include his circumcision. Do we therefore conclude that Abraham was circumcised in Genesis 15:6? No, we don't. Even though Abraham's circumcision was a good work, an act of faith, Paul distinguishes between that act of faith and faith itself (Romans 4:10-11).
Works of the law aren't the only works that are absent from Genesis 15:6. It's not as though the passage refers to faith combined with baptism, giving to the poor, or some other work. Rather, it only refers to faith (sola fide). I've already explained why the surrounding context also suggests that nothing more than faith is in view.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The notion of 'faith working through love' is what Paul generally means, but the 'works in general' crowd exclude this."
If faith generally means something "working through love" (as you're defining that phrase), then why did Paul add that qualifier ("working through love") in Galatians 5:6? Why didn't he just say "faith"? Because that's not what faith generally means. The reason why you know that something more than faith is involved in Galatians 5:6 is because the passage mentions more than faith. To use a passage that mentions more than faith to define what faith means is irrational. What you're suggesting is that since Galatians 5:6 mentions something in addition to faith, we should assume that passages only mentioning faith are including that addition. That doesn't make sense.
The term faith doesn't carry with it an assumption that outward activity is occurring as well. That's why scripture refers to faith as occurring within the heart, as I've documented in the Called To Communion thread linked above. The Greek language, like English, uses terms like faith and works to distinguish between different things. They aren't identical. The fact that Catholics want us to assume that works are included in passages that only mention faith is a reflection of the weakness of their position.
You wrote:
"Further, speaking of what faith 'normally means,' the classical Protestant position is that in Rom 4 faith is of no inherent value (even passive) and is the 'instrument' that receives Christ's Righteousness...where is that the 'normal' use of faith in Scripture?"
You're confusing categories. The role of faith relative to other entities is a different issue than the definition of faith.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"That's just it, where does 'work' end up 'normally meaning' something like 'works in general'?"
Again, read the Called To Communion thread. If you don't want to read all of it, then read my posts there. If you don't want to read all of my posts, then do a Ctrl F search for the terms you're interested in. You keep asking questions I've already addressed in the material I linked earlier. Given my current time constraints, I don't want to repeat myself as often as you're expecting me to.
You wrote:
"The Catholic could argue 'faith' and 'repentance' can be the same or closely related when it comes to 'faith justifying', where as the Protestant does not allow this."
That's another issue I addressed in the Called To Communion thread. For a summary of some of the points I made there, see here. If you read through that thread I just linked, you'll see that I address issues like how to define work and the role of repentance. I don't address them to the extent I do in the Called To Communion thread, but that other thread will give you some idea of what my position is.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"This puts the burden on you though, since the only thing ever clearly established is 'works of the Law' are excluded. To extend that to 'works in general' is going beyond Paul's original efforts - and if 'works in general' are the real issue, Paul wasted his time focusing so much on the narrower category."
I've given multiple lines of evidence for my interpretation in the Called To Communion thread I keep pointing you to. See my comments on Romans 3:27, Galatians 3:21-25, the significance of Paul's citation of Genesis 15:6, etc. You're only addressing a portion of the relevant evidence.
You wrote:
"Aside from Romans 4, what are the top 2-3 passages in Scripture you believe condemn (either explicitly or implicitly) a 'works in general' theme, rather than a narrower 'works of the Law'??"
I discuss a lot of other passages in the Called To Communion thread (Acts 10, Galatians 3, etc.).
You wrote:
"Sure, but I gave two possible interpretations of this and neither of which imply a 'works in general' framework."
That's not the issue I was addressing. I was addressing your suggestion that the "ungodly" of Romans 4:5 are Gentiles. The context suggests otherwise, as I explained above.
J: I didn't deny that "the whole package" is conditioned on obedience (and faith is a form of obedience). But Paul isn't citing the whole package when he cites Genesis 15:6.
ReplyDeleteN: Two things: (1) You believe faith is a form of obedience? Wow, that's not how you've described 'faith' in the past. (2) The essence of 15:6 and 26:4 are identical.
J: Genesis 26:5 refers to Abraham's obedience in general. That would include his circumcision. Do we therefore conclude that Abraham was circumcised in Genesis 15:6? No, we don't. Even though Abraham's circumcision was a good work, an act of faith, Paul distinguishes between that act of faith and faith itself (Romans 4:10-11).
N: Sure, Paul is not saying all acts of faith are the same. The key is that Abraham was walking in faithfulness independent of circumcision and the Law (Rom 4:12f!!).
J: Works of the law aren't the only works that are absent from Genesis 15:6. It's not as though the passage refers to faith combined with baptism, giving to the poor, or some other work. Rather, it only refers to faith (sola fide). I've already explained why the surrounding context also suggests that nothing more than faith is in view.
N: My argument is that you're reading into it more that what it was intended to covey. The issue was never “works in general,” thus searching for “faith alone” isn't the way you should proceed and was alien to Paul's line of thinking. Paul never was saying “faith without works in general,” but rather “faith apart from works of the Law.” It's a plain logical fallacy, equivocation & bait-and-switch to make the two synonymous. As I said earlier, it's akin to the blatant fallacy of many Protestants who say “Scripture is an inspired authority, and I'll consider it the only inspired authority unless shown otherwise.” That's a fallacious jump to conclusions.
J: If faith generally means something "working through love" (as you're defining that phrase), then why did Paul add that qualifier ("working through love") in Galatians 5:6? Why didn't he just say "faith"? Because that's not what faith generally means. The reason why you know that something more than faith is involved in Galatians 5:6 is because the passage mentions more than faith. To use a passage that mentions more than faith to define what faith means is irrational. What you're suggesting is that since Galatians 5:6 mentions something in addition to faith, we should assume that passages only mentioning faith are including that addition. That doesn't make sense.
N: He added the qualifier for the same reason he adds small details to anything else, because it helps clarify. What would be absurd is that if “faith working through love” were an anomaly in Paul's writing, randomly appearing. The thing is, Paul didn't see faith as a one-dimentional view of passively-believe. Your comments strip the full force of Paul's comments, especially coming off of probably the single biggest summary of the whole Judaizer problem, Galatians 5:1ff. Notice the force of verse 6, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.” This is not the language of an anomaly, but rather of a norm. He begins with the circumcision versus uncicumcision distinction, and says “the only thing that matters” is faith working through love.
(2 of 3)
ReplyDeleteJ: The term faith doesn't carry with it an assumption that outward activity is occurring as well. That's why scripture refers to faith as occurring within the heart, as I've documented in the Called To Communion thread linked above. The Greek language, like English, uses terms like faith and works to distinguish between different things. They aren't identical. The fact that Catholics want us to assume that works are included in passages that only mention faith is a reflection of the weakness of their position.
N: I would say you're oversimplifying the issue, as if “faith” can never include works and must always be in reference to strictly mental assent. But such a narrow look doesn't fit with texts like Hebrews 11 (especially v6) and other such texts (e.g. Rom 1:5; 14:23; Heb 10:36-38). Sure “faith” can at times be in reference to belief only (e.g. “I believe Jesus was raised from the dead”), but that's hardly the only meaning nor the 'maturest' faith one can have (1 Cor 13:2).
J: You're confusing categories. The role of faith relative to other entities is a different issue than the definition of faith.
N: I'm not sure of your point. The definition of faith is never that of an inherently valueless instrument which receives Christ's righteousness.
J: Again, read the Called To Communion thread. If you don't want to read all of it, then read my posts there. If you don't want to read all of my posts, then do a Ctrl F search for the terms you're interested in. You keep asking questions I've already addressed in the material I linked earlier. Given my current time constraints, I don't want to repeat myself as often as you're expecting me to.
N: Doing a word search for various terms, from what I could see, your argument that Paul had “works in general” in mind was on the grounds of two passages, Rom 4:4 and Rom 9:12. Also, you frequently admit Paul was focused on the Mosaic Law because that was the issue at the time, but the problem is you're assuming it's more than that. Worst of all, you're forcing the Jew-Gentile distinction into one of 'faith vs works' when that's not it at all. In the end, is it really valid for you to take two verses and conclude “works in general” when the overwhelming majority of the time it's clearly “works of the Law” in view? Where is going by the “normal” usage of things? That's why I made it clear in my article that the Protestant has basically taken a text like Romans 4:4, read “works in general” into it, and forced the rest of Scripture to conform to that. It's fallacious and improper exegesis.
J: That's another issue I addressed in the Called To Communion thread. For a summary of some of the points I made there, see here. If you read through that thread I just linked, you'll see that I address issues like how to define work and the role of repentance. I don't address them to the extent I do in the Called To Communion thread, but that other thread will give you some idea of what my position is.
N: Towards the very end you mentioned the faith-repentance example, but I think you've poked a hole in your own argument when you said: “I consider repentance a component of saving faith. It can be distinguished from faith, conceptually or for the sake of emphasis, but faith involves repentance.” This is precisely what I was getting at, and you confirmed my point: “faith” can often imply the addition of other 'components' and thus is not simply 'belief in something'. With this we can say “faith apart from works of the Law” is not logically nor exegetically equivalent to “faith apart from repentance.” Thus the main thesis of 'faith alone' is refuted. This is precisely why many Protestants say repentance is to be strictly distinguished from faith, while maintaing that repentance must also be present (even if only incidentally).
(3 of 3)
ReplyDeleteJ: I've given multiple lines of evidence for my interpretation in the Called To Communion thread I keep pointing you to. See my comments on Romans 3:27, Galatians 3:21-25, the significance of Paul's citation of Genesis 15:6, etc. You're only addressing a portion of the relevant evidence.
N: As I noted above, the only texts I saw you appeal to in support of “works in general” was Rom 4:4 & 9:12. I'm not sure how Romans 3:27 or Gal 3:21ff support your claim at all, especially since the contexts of each is clearly about the Mosaic Law. If this is seriously the best evidence available for “works in general,” I think the Catholic can rest assured.
You wrote:
"Aside from Romans 4, what are the top 2-3 passages in Scripture you believe condemn (either explicitly or implicitly) a 'works in general' theme, rather than a narrower 'works of the Law'??"
J: I discuss a lot of other passages in the Called To Communion thread (Acts 10, Galatians 3, etc.).
N: Well, I think what I've suspected all along has finally been confirmed. The evidence for “works in general” is gratuitous at best. The “law” in Gal 3 can be nothing other than the Mosaic Law (see esp 3:15-18), anything else renders the entire chapter incoherent. As for Acts 10, I don't see anything suggesting faith alone, and the only passage mentioning belief is 10:33. In fact, the description of Cornelius and accepting the gospel was anything but faith alone (10:2, 4b, 22, 31, 35, etc).
J: That's not the issue I was addressing. I was addressing your suggestion that the "ungodly" of Romans 4:5 are Gentiles. The context suggests otherwise, as I explained above.
N: My position doesn't hang on whether “ungodly” means sinner in general or sinner in relation to the Mosaic Law. I favor the latter because I believe it fits Paul's message very well in that both Abraham and David were “gentiles” in regards to not having or repudiating circumcision. It doesn't make much sense to say Abraham was “ungodly” in Genesis 15:6, since he had been following God faithfully for years – unless one says Paul wasn't applying “ungodly” to Abraham and speaking in general.
Nick wrote:
ReplyDelete"Two things: (1) You believe faith is a form of obedience? Wow, that's not how you've described 'faith' in the past. (2) The essence of 15:6 and 26:4 are identical."
Why are we supposed to agree with those two claims?
You wrote:
"The key is that Abraham was walking in faithfulness independent of circumcision and the Law (Rom 4:12f!!)."
If the faith in question was "independent of circumcision and the Law", then it wasn't the same as what's described in Genesis 26:4.
Faith, as I'm defining it, always comes before outward works that manifest that faith. We do works of faith because we first have faith. We do things like getting baptized and giving to the poor in the name of Christ because of a faith in Christ we first had in our heart. By believing in Christ in one's heart, a person is obeying God and is being faithful. Just as a person can have faith before being circumcised, he can have faith before being baptized and before doing any other outward work.
You wrote:
"Paul never was saying 'faith without works in general,' but rather 'faith apart from works of the Law.' It's a plain logical fallacy, equivocation & bait-and-switch to make the two synonymous."
I haven't argued that the two are synonymous. Rather, I've argued that Paul refers to works in more than one sense, sometimes focusing on a particular system of works and sometimes referring to works in general. I argued for that conclusion from multiple lines of evidence in the Called To Communion thread, and you haven't interacted with what I said there.
It's not as though Paul's references to works of the Jewish law prove that he must always be referring to those works whenever he mentions work. Paul refers to the Galatian Christians as his spiritual brothers several times (1:11, 3:15, etc.), but we don't therefore conclude that he must be using "brother" in that sense in Galatians 1:19. Terms are often used in more than one sense.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Notice the force of verse 6, 'For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.' This is not the language of an anomaly, but rather of a norm."
I didn't say that Galatians 5:6 is an anomaly. I said that it mentions more than faith.
You're making a series of assumptions about the passage that you haven't argued for. Galatians 5:6 is about life “in Christ”, which isn’t necessarily about how one gets into Christ to begin with. And if you want the reference to “working” in that passage to be taken as a reference to faith manifesting itself in the form of the works you have in mind, then you’ll have to argue for that position, not just assert it. Faith can be said to work in more than one sense. Is it working inwardly or outwardly? Paul and other Biblical authors often refer to the inner man, faith in the heart, etc. (Acts 15:9, Romans 10:10, 12:2, etc.) How, specifically, do you get from Galatians 5:6 to your conclusion that terms like "faith" and "believe" refer to a combination between faith and works in Romans 4?
You wrote:
"I would say you're oversimplifying the issue, as if 'faith' can never include works and must always be in reference to strictly mental assent."
The issue is probability, which doesn't require that a term "always" mean something. Do you deny that the Greek terminology in question doesn't normally carry with it an assumption that your system of works is included?
And I haven't argued for "strictly mental assent".
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"In the end, is it really valid for you to take two verses and conclude 'works in general' when the overwhelming majority of the time it's clearly 'works of the Law' in view?"
I didn't just cite the two passages you've referred to. I also cited Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25. I've mentioned that works are often referred to positively and as part of the Christian life (Ephesians 2:10, Philippians 2:12, James 2:24, etc.), which means that the Jewish works you want to exclude from the gospel aren't being referred to in those passages. A term like "work" can be defined more narrowly to refer to something like the Jewish law, but we don't begin with a default assumption that only such works are in mind when a broad term like "work" is used. I cited many examples of individuals in scripture being justified at the time they came to faith, prior to baptism and other outward activities, including in passages that are addressing what's normative. I've discussed how the context of Genesis 15:6 suggests that faith in the heart is being referred to, not faith in the heart combined with outward activities. Etc. I've done far more than cite the two passages you mentioned.
You wrote:
"This is precisely what I was getting at, and you confirmed my point: 'faith' can often imply the addition of other 'components' and thus is not simply 'belief in something'."
I've argued that faith implies the inclusion of repentance, in the thread I linked earlier. Where's your argument that faith implies the inclusion of outward activities, such as baptism? In the same thread in which I argued for the inclusion of repentance, I also explained why something like baptism shouldn't be included. You aren't interacting with what I said. Rather, you're just suggesting that since repentance can be included, then so can other things. But if repentance is included for a particular reason, and that reason can't be applied to something else, like baptism, then why treat them as if they're in the same category?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"I'm not sure how Romans 3:27 or Gal 3:21ff support your claim at all, especially since the contexts of each is clearly about the Mosaic Law."
It's not my fault if you still haven't read what I wrote about those passages. This thread began as a link to my comments in the Called To Communion discussion, and you've now been posting here for several days without having read much of what I wrote there.
You wrote:
"My position doesn't hang on whether 'ungodly' means sinner in general or sinner in relation to the Mosaic Law. I favor the latter because I believe it fits Paul's message very well in that both Abraham and David were 'gentiles' in regards to not having or repudiating circumcision. It doesn't make much sense to say Abraham was 'ungodly' in Genesis 15:6, since he had been following God faithfully for years – unless one says Paul wasn't applying 'ungodly' to Abraham and speaking in general."
If you're going to take the Gentile reading of "ungodly", then interact with what I wrote against that view earlier in this thread.
Abraham was justified prior to Genesis 15:6. Paul’s point in citing that passage is that it exemplifies the faith through which Abraham was justified. The reason why Paul would focus on that passage is because it comments on Abraham’s justification, not because he was justified at that time. Paul does make the point that Abraham was justified prior to circumcision, but that point can be made regardless of whether Abraham was justified at Genesis 15:6 or earlier.
Abraham would have been ungodly when he was justified, which is true of every justified person. Paul is discussing Abraham in the context just before Romans 4:5 (4:1-3). The "does not work" of verse 5 refers, in part, to the issue of whether Abraham was justified through works, mentioned in verse 2. Abraham is among the ungodly Paul refers to.
In Romans 4:5, Paul isn't saying that God justifies Gentiles through faith and works that aren't part of the Jewish law. Rather, he's saying that God justifies sinners in general (Jew and Gentile) through faith, with works in general excluded. The works of the Jewish law are the primary illustration he uses, since Christianity came out of Judaism and the concept of justification through the Jewish law was prominent in his day. But he also excludes works in general. What you're arguing is that in Romans 4:5-6 "ungodly" means "Gentiles", "faith" means "faith and the works prescribed by Roman Catholicism", and "works" means "the portions of the Jewish law that Roman Catholicism excludes from the gospel". That's far from the most natural reading of the text.
J: Why are we supposed to agree with those two claims [faith is a form of obedience & 15:6 and 26:4 are identical]?
ReplyDeleteN: The first claim is one you made, I was astonished you made it. The second was that both Gen 15:6 and 26:4 are first and foremost concerned about all nations being blessed through Abraham, so it's not as if the two promises were different in substance, only in expression.
J: If the faith in question was "independent of circumcision and the Law", then it wasn't the same as what's described in Genesis 26:4.
N: The commands, decrees, laws, etc of 26:4 is Abraham's faithful obedience, not circumcision in and of itself. Further, the Law Paul is speaking of is the Mosaic Law, not the “laws” Gen 26:4 mentions.
J: Faith, as I'm defining it, always comes before outward works that manifest that faith. We do works of faith because we first have faith. We do things like getting baptized and giving to the poor because of a faith in Christ we first had in our heart. By believing in Christ in one's heart, a person is obeying God and is being faithful. Just as a person can have faith before being circumcised, he can have faith before being baptized and before doing any other outward work.
N: Sure, but this is a truncation of what Paul means by “faith” to simply the intellectual assent aspect. Hebrews 11:6 says about faith includes “believe God exists and He rewards those who obey him”. Faith, Hope, and Love, must be simultaneously present, since faith on it's own is insufficient and “dead” without them. One cannot say they believe in Christ without also having Love for Him, and say that's enough for salvation.
J: I haven't argued that the two are synonymous. Rather, I've argued that Paul refers to works in more than one sense, sometimes focusing on a particular system of works and sometimes referring to works in general. I argued for that conclusion from multiple lines of evidence in the Called To Communion thread, and you haven't interacted with what I said there.
N: The only “works in general” proof-texts I've seen you give (on the CTC thread) were Rom 4:4-5 and 9:12. If “works in general” are not synonymous with “works of the Law,” then you've taken on a significant burden since the principle texts speaking of justification (esp in Rom and Gal) are clearly speaking of the Law, not in general.
J: It's not as though Paul's references to works of the Jewish law prove that he must always be referring to those works whenever he mentions work.
N: Sure, he doesn't have to mean WoL every time he says “works,” but context shows that's what he's speaking about the great majority of the time, especially in Rom 3-4 and Gal 2-3.
(1 of 4)
J: I didn't say that Galatians 5:6 is an anomaly. I said that it mentions more than faith.
ReplyDeleteYou're making a series of assumptions about the passage that you haven't argued for. Galatians 5:6 is about life “in Christ”, which isn’t necessarily about how one gets into Christ to begin with. And if you want the reference to “working” in that passage to be taken as a reference to faith manifesting itself in the form of the works you have in mind, then you’ll have to argue for that position, not just assert it. Faith can be said to work in more than one sense. Is it working inwardly or outwardly? Paul and other Biblical authors often refer to the inner man, faith in the heart, etc. (Acts 15:9, Romans 10:10, 12:2, etc.) How, specifically, do you get from Galatians 5:6 to your conclusion that terms like "faith" and "believe" refer to a combination between faith and works in Romans 4?
N: The comparing of “circumcision and uncircumcision” to “faith” found here in Gal 5:6 is the same as that compare/contrast found in Rom 3-4 and elsewhere. It's not a jump to conclusions. Given that, the detail of “faith working through love” can be easily said to be implied in Rom 3-4 when “faith” is mentioned. As for whether faith is working inwardly or outwardly, I believe that's an unwarranted truncating of faith. Further, it's enough for me to say love is present, giving 'life' to the faith, whether working inwardly or outwardly is a secondary issue. As I said above, would it make sense for one to have inward faith in God and have that be enough without a simultaneous Love for God? One cannot be in a relationship with God by faith only; such is impossible.
J: The issue is probability, which doesn't require that a term "always" mean something. Do you deny that the Greek terminology in question doesn't normally carry with it an assumption that your system of works is included?
And I haven't argued for "strictly mental assent".
N: If you haven't argued for strictly mental assent, I don't see how your claims hold, since anything more would be a multidimensional faith. As for the “Greek terminology in question,” that's under dispute right now, so it's not by default “normally” absent from stuff such as Love.
J: I didn't just cite the two passages you've referred to. I also cited Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25.
N: I saw you mention Rom 3:27 and Gal 3:21-25 earlier, but I've not included them since I've not seen how you could make such an argument hold water. The context of Rom 3:27 is more than clear, with 3:28ff (speaking of the Mosaic Law) being a virtual 'concluding summary' to the question of 3:27. It's interesting you'd cite multiple verses in Gal 3, granting some context, yet isolate Rom 3:27. As for Gal 3:21-25, again you're ignoring the clear context in the chapter, the “law” here is none other than the Mosaic Law (3:15-18). If these are on the top of your list for “works in general,” I'd say your position would lose easily in any unbiased courtroom.
J: I've mentioned that works are often referred to positively and as part of the Christian life (Ephesians 2:10, Philippians 2:12, James 2:24, etc.), which means that the Jewish works you want to exclude from the gospel aren't being referred to in those passages. A term like "work" can be defined more narrowly to refer to something like the Jewish law, but we don't begin with a default assumption that only such works are in mind when a broad term like "work" is used.
N: What good does pointing to “good works” which Christians are called to do you if that's agreed upon and Paul was only denouncing “works of the Law”? I never said “works” only meant WoL, what I said is that in the contexts of justification, WoL is clearly what Paul is referring to. The key is context, something which I don't believe your position is adequately taking into consideration.
(2 of 4)
J: I cited many examples of individuals in scripture being justified at the time they came to faith, prior to baptism and other outward activities, including in passages that are addressing what's normative. I've discussed how the context of Genesis 15:6 suggests that faith in the heart is being referred to, not faith in the heart combined with outward activities. Etc. I've done far more than cite the two passages you mentioned.
ReplyDeleteN: I don't need to have my argument hang on “outward activities,” simply inner ones. I doubt you could show any situation where an individual was saved by simple belief in God without Love for God or Hope, or Repentance, etc. The inner-outer distinction is ultimately a red-herring, since one's relation to God trumps everything, and that begins with the inner relationship you have with God, with Love being the most important of any feature. As for “what's normative,” you haven't established that at all, so that's a 'home-field-advantage' you're unfairly claiming for yourself. And you'd be hard pressed to say Gen 15:6 is a faith devoid of hope and love in light of Paul's Apostolic interpretation of Gen 15:6 in Romans 4:18-22.
J: I've argued that faith implies the inclusion of repentance, in the thread I linked earlier. Where's your argument that faith implies the inclusion of outward activities, such as baptism? ... ...
N: I think you're creating a false dichotomy with the introduction of “outward activities”. Let's start somewhere more logical: if faith can include repentance, as you say, why can it not also include other 'inner' things such as hope and love? If it can, then 'faith alone' is misleading at best, false at worst. As for the link between faith and baptism, my argument is twofold: (1) you've not established “works in general” is what Paul is arguing against, and Baptism is not a WoL, and (2) Paul puts no such wedge between faith and baptism but rather puts them as two sides of the same coin (e.g. Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12). And don't forget the classic Acts 2:38, “repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins,” without a mention of 'faith' (though clearly implied).
J: It's not my fault if you still haven't read what I wrote about those passages. ...
N: At least twice I've done a word search for your comments on those texts at CTC and I don't see you positively demonstrating anything, merely citing them and assuming your assumptions are true and then telling anyone who asks for more meat to go see your previous comments. What I found especially lacking in your analysis is the fact Paul is contrasting covenants, particularly the Christian versus the Mosaic, to which there is no other (gentile) covenant that exists to be compared to and thus a “works in general” doesn't have anything to correspond to.
J: If you're going to take the Gentile reading of "ungodly", then interact with what I wrote against that view earlier in this thread.
N: To help keep things more focused, I'll take the non-Gentile reading of “ungodly” for now.
J: Abraham was justified prior to Genesis 15:6. Paul’s point in citing that passage is that it exemplifies the faith through which Abraham was justified. ... ...
N: Then you're stuck with the assumption Gen 15:6 is a historical recap of the past rather than a specific moment in Abraham's life. In actuality, Genesis 15:6 is a response to God's reassurance from Gen 15:1-5. It is a specific moment in time and a specific moment of faith growing, even if Abraham was a believer long before. You're assuming Abraham was justified prior to Gen 15 rather than at Gen 15. Folks like James White are adamant that Gen 15 is when he was (first) justified. If you want to look back in time to when the Bible first says Abraham had faith, you shoot yourself in the foot (Heb 11:8).
(3 of 4)
(4 of 4)
ReplyDeleteJ: Abraham would have been ungodly when he was justified, which is true of every justified person. Paul is discussing Abraham in the context just before Romans 4:5 (4:1-3). The "does not work" of verse 5 refers, in part, to the issue of whether Abraham was justified through works, mentioned in verse 2. Abraham is among the ungodly Paul refers to.
N: Paul is discussing Abraham in Rom 4:1-3, but the degree he carries that into Rom 4:4-8 is not a given for you. But that's a side issue compared to what “works” Paul was talking about here, to which I firmly maintain “works of the Law” is clearly the point from the context (else 4:9-10 is a non-sequitur and no connection to Rom 3b).
J: In Romans 4:5, Paul isn't saying that God justifies Gentiles through faith and works that aren't part of the Jewish law. Rather, he's saying that God justifies sinners in general (Jew and Gentile) through faith, with works in general excluded.
N: To simplify things, I'd say Paul is not excluding in any way hope and love from faith and “does not work” in Rom 4:5. To say “works in general” here is a leap to conclusions on your part, and the only grounds you can claim that is assumption.
J: The works of the Jewish law are the primary illustration he uses, since Christianity came out of Judaism and the concept of justification through the Jewish law was prominent in his day. But he also excludes works in general.
N: This only makes your job all the more difficult, since you're with the burden of proving “ALSO excludes works in general”. Without proof, you're arguing from an assumption, that Paul is only speaking of circumcision because that's the issue at hand, but in any other hypothetical situation he'd be excluding works in general. Not only context, but his very approach goes against your thesis. For example, it's nonsense to argue narrow/specific when the thesis is broad/general. It would be as absurd as arguing you cant cross the ocean in any red or blue cars when the real issue is you can't cross the ocean in any cars at all, with the color being an added layer or irrelevant confusion. Proving his case with Abraham being justified “before circumcision” is bogus if Abraham was doing good works long before then.
J: What you're arguing is that in Romans 4:5-6 "ungodly" means "Gentiles", "faith" means "faith and the works prescribed by Roman Catholicism", and "works" means "the portions of the Jewish law that Roman Catholicism excludes from the gospel". That's far from the most natural reading of the text.
N: For simplification purposes, I wont say “ungodly” here means “gentiles,” and I will say “faith” here means “faith along with hope and love,” and “works” here means anything the Mosaic Law requires. To insert/append “works of Roman Catholicism” to any of these is simply fallaciously complicating the issue. That you've essentially hung your hat on a few texts like Romans 4:5 is not a good sign of a clear and solid thesis.
Nick wrote:
ReplyDelete"The first claim is one you made, I was astonished you made it."
I asked you to defend the two claims you made. You asked whether I consider faith obedience, then you claimed that I hadn't described faith that way in the past. I want a defense of that claim. See my December 16, 2009 post at 4:04 A.M. in the thread here, for example, in which I comment that "I agree that faith is obedience".
You wrote:
"The second was that both Gen 15:6 and 26:4 are first and foremost concerned about all nations being blessed through Abraham, so it's not as if the two promises were different in substance, only in expression."
A passage can address more than one subject. Paul cites Genesis 15:6 concerning Abraham's justification. Romans 4:3, 4:9, and Galatians 3:6 don't even quote the portion of the passage that you're emphasizing. The fact that the passage also mentions the blessing of nations through Abraham doesn't prove that Abraham's justification was attained through the same means by which the blessing of nations mentioned in Genesis 26:4-5 was attained. The fact that you're trying to get works into Genesis 15 by means of bringing in Genesis 26 reflects poorly on your position. The fact that the two passages are similar in one way doesn't prove that they aren't different in another way, nor does it tell us what context Paul had in mind when he cited one of those passages and not the other.
As I explained earlier, if you're going to allow Abraham's circumcision to be excluded in Genesis 15:6, even though it was part of Abraham's general obedience mentioned in 26:5, then how do you know that more than faith is involved in 15:6? You agree with me that not all of Abraham's obedience is involved in 15:6, and the passage only mentions faith, so why are we supposed to think that your system of works was involved?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The commands, decrees, laws, etc of 26:4 is Abraham's faithful obedience, not circumcision in and of itself."
But circumcision was part of Abraham's faithful obedience, yet you agree that it's excluded in Genesis 15:6 and in Paul's Abrahamic soteriology. Since faith itself is a form of obedience, then all that's needed for Abraham to be obedient in Genesis 15:6 is faith. We don't need to assume the presence of works, much less the particular works Roman Catholicism wants to include, in order to maintain that Abraham obeyed God in Genesis 15:6.
You wrote:
"Sure, but this is a truncation of what Paul means by 'faith' to simply the intellectual assent aspect."
No, it isn't. I've already linked you to another thread in which I argue that faith involves more than intellectual assent. It includes repentance, for example. I don't know why you keep misrepresenting what I've said about how I'm defining the term. Faith can involve more than intellectual assent, yet not include the outward manifestations you want to include. Demons believe that God exists without trusting in Him. Even if you call both demonic belief and my belief "faith", the fact remains that they're conceptually different and that both occur within the heart without including baptism and other outward manifestations. We can define faith as more than intellectual assent without defining it as including the works you want to include. You're ignoring a large gray area between the two alternatives you're suggesting.
To further illustrate my point, let me use an example from your own belief system. You believe that a person who has faith and arranges for a baptism, but dies before the baptism occurs, will go to Heaven (regardless of whether he goes to Purgatory first). Would you say that the person's faith was no different than the intellectual assent of a demon?
You wrote:
"One cannot say they believe in Christ without also having Love for Him, and say that's enough for salvation."
Love doesn't have to manifest itself in the form of baptism or any other outward work in order to exist. We do works of love because we first have love. So, why are we supposed to think that a passage like Romans 4:5-6 implies baptism?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The only 'works in general' proof-texts I've seen you give (on the CTC thread) were Rom 4:4-5 and 9:12."
Apparently, you still haven't read through the discussion. And you're ignoring other passages I cited, which I mentioned again in my last series of responses to you. You yourself acknowledged that I also cited other passages, like Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25. Yet, now you're saying that you only saw my use of the two passages you mention above. What's the significance of what you saw in that one thread? If you know I cited more than what you saw there, and I've given you other examples in this thread, what's the significance of mentioning what you saw in that one thread?
You wrote:
"Sure, he doesn't have to mean WoL every time he says 'works,' but context shows that's what he's speaking about the great majority of the time, especially in Rom 3-4 and Gal 2-3."
Paul frequently uses "work" in a positive sense, such as in describing what Christians ought to do. You don't think he's referring to the Jewish law in those instances. And I've given other examples of passages in which your narrow definition is unlikely to be in view. He does often refer to the Jewish law, but you haven't demonstrated that he uses the terminology that way "the great majority of the time".
Even if he did, how would your conclusion follow? All it would take is one exception to overturn your argument. One exclusion of works in general would be enough. As my Galatians 1:19 example illustrates, concerning the term "brother", we don't assume that every use of such a term in Galatians or in Paul's writings in general must refer to a spiritual brother, just because the terminology is used that way the "great majority" of the time. A term can have a minority definition. We don't assume that a writer always used a term a certain way just because he used it that way "the great majority of the time". Concluding that a minority definition is being used requires an argument to that effect, and I've provided arguments. It's not enough for you to respond by citing "the great majority".
Furthermore, why are we supposed to think that only those aspects of the Jewish law that Catholicism wants to exclude are being excluded? The Jewish law includes commandments to love God, love other people, etc. Paul uses the example of the commandment against coveting in Romans 7:7. Yet, Catholicism believes that there are some commandments of the Jewish law by which we can still be justified. It excludes some of those commandments, such as the commandment to be circumcised, but it doesn't exclude all of them. How do we know where to draw the line? I draw the line at faith, since that's what Paul mentions as the means of justification. How do you conclude that we should include the elements of the Jewish law that Catholicism includes while excluding the others?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"The comparing of 'circumcision and uncircumcision' to 'faith' found here in Gal 5:6 is the same as that compare/contrast found in Rom 3-4 and elsewhere."
You're ignoring a piece of evidence I cited that needs to be explained. Galatians 5:6 refers to life "in Christ", whereas Romans 3-4 is addressing how one gets into Christ to begin with. In Galatians 3:3, Paul contrasted how the Galatians were trying to carry on the Christian life with how they had begun it. You need to argue for the context you're assuming in Galatians 5:6, not just assert it.
You wrote:
"As for whether faith is working inwardly or outwardly, I believe that's an unwarranted truncating of faith. Further, it's enough for me to say love is present, giving 'life' to the faith, whether working inwardly or outwardly is a secondary issue."
The issue in dispute is whether Galatians 5:6 is evidence of the inclusion of works as a means of attaining justification. In this context, works are being defined as outward manifestations. For you to say that whether outward manifestations are involved is "secondary" doesn't make sense. That's the issue at the heart of the dispute. Roman Catholicism allows for exceptional cases in which a person is justified through only an inward means. But justification through outward manifestations, what we commonly refer to as works, is the normative means of justification in Catholicism. A reading of Galatians 5:6 that involves only an inward faith would be consistent with Evangelicalism. If you're going to cite that passage as evidence for the Catholic view, then it doesn't make sense for you to say that whether we read the passage in an Evangelical way is of "secondary" importance.
You wrote:
"As for the 'Greek terminology in question,' that's under dispute right now, so it's not by default 'normally' absent from stuff such as Love."
Something like repentance or love can be implied, depending on the context. If I have faith in a friend to keep a promise he made to me, that has different implications than faith in a chair, that it will support my body if I sit on it. Faith in a friend carries with it some concepts not involved in faith in a chair. In a thread I linked for you earlier, I explained how faith in the context of justification implies repentance, but doesn't imply baptism. The fact that faith sometimes involves something else, like repentance, doesn't mean that it can also be assumed to involve anything else, like baptism or giving money to the poor. Trusting in Jesus to save you does imply that love for Jesus is occurring at the same time. It doesn't follow that baptism is also implied or that anything else we want to include is implied.
Roman Catholicism argues for a specific system of works. Making vague references to "love" doesn't get us to the conclusion that Biblical passages mentioning faith are meant to include the works that Catholicism includes. What you're doing is going from "faith" to "love" to the justificatory works of Roman Catholicism. You assume that any Biblical passages mentioning justification through faith are including those Catholic works. But faith in Christ can involve love without involving the justificatory works of Catholicism.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"I saw you mention Rom 3:27 and Gal 3:21-25 earlier, but I've not included them since I've not seen how you could make such an argument hold water. The context of Rom 3:27 is more than clear, with 3:28ff (speaking of the Mosaic Law) being a virtual 'concluding summary' to the question of 3:27. It's interesting you'd cite multiple verses in Gal 3, granting some context, yet isolate Rom 3:27. As for Gal 3:21-25, again you're ignoring the clear context in the chapter, the “law” here is none other than the Mosaic Law (3:15-18)."
I've argued that works of the Jewish law were prominent in Paul's historical context, but that he also excludes works in general in the process of discussing justification. Your response is to assume that references to excluded works must be addressing the Jewish law, since he specifies the Jewish law elsewhere. But both types of work can be addressed, as I illustrated with Paul's use of the "brother" terminology in Galatians.
You need to address the textual details I cited in Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25. Even if Paul is focused on the Jewish law, he can make the point that there isn't any system of works whereby we can be justified. He can then move from that general point to the specific application to the Jewish law. And that's what he does in the passages I've cited. The fact that he specifies the Jewish law at one point doesn't prove that he couldn't have made a broader reference at another point.
You wrote:
"What good does pointing to 'good works' which Christians are called to do you if that's agreed upon and Paul was only denouncing 'works of the Law'? I never said 'works' only meant WoL, what I said is that in the contexts of justification, WoL is clearly what Paul is referring to."
I was addressing what the term "work" normally means. The Greek terminology doesn't carry with it an assumption of the Jewish law, much less the specific elements of the Jewish law that Roman Catholicism wants to exclude. If the terminology itself doesn't imply your definition, then what does? I've already explained why your appeal to "contexts of justification" fails.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"I don't need to have my argument hang on 'outward activities,' simply inner ones."
The normative means of justification in Roman Catholicism involves outward activities. And it would be absurd to argue that Paul is addressing exceptions to the norm in Romans 4, Galatians 3, etc. Thus, if Paul is addressing the norm, and he doesn't include outward activities, then Roman Catholic soteriology is falsified.
You wrote:
"Let's start somewhere more logical: if faith can include repentance, as you say, why can it not also include other 'inner' things such as hope and love? If it can, then 'faith alone' is misleading at best, false at worst."
See my contrast above between faith in a friend and faith in a chair. The same terminology can be used to refer to two situations that involve different things.
And, again, if everything included in the process of attaining justification is "inner", then Catholicism is wrong to include outward means as part of what's normative.
You wrote:
"As for the link between faith and baptism, my argument is twofold: (1) you've not established 'works in general' is what Paul is arguing against, and Baptism is not a WoL, and (2) Paul puts no such wedge between faith and baptism but rather puts them as two sides of the same coin (e.g. Gal 3:26-27, Col 2:12). And don't forget the classic Acts 2:38, 'repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins,' without a mention of 'faith' (though clearly implied)."
I've addressed such arguments in the Called To Communion thread linked above. You aren't interacting with what I said there.
You wrote:
"To help keep things more focused, I'll take the non-Gentile reading of 'ungodly' for now."
How does it "keep things focused" for you to ignore objections to an interpretation you said you consider likely?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Then you're stuck with the assumption Gen 15:6 is a historical recap of the past rather than a specific moment in Abraham's life. In actuality, Genesis 15:6 is a response to God's reassurance from Gen 15:1-5. It is a specific moment in time and a specific moment of faith growing, even if Abraham was a believer long before."
Nothing in your last two sentences above refutes my reading of the passage. And since Paul's context in Romans 3-4 is how the ungodly attain justification, not how the justified increase in justification, Paul would be citing Genesis 15:6 concerning the former, not the latter.
You wrote:
"If you want to look back in time to when the Bible first says Abraham had faith, you shoot yourself in the foot (Heb 11:8)."
I don't assume that the Bible must tell us when Abraham first had faith. There are many Biblical figures whose first moment of faith isn't described for us. The fact that a passage is the first Biblical mention of a person's faith doesn't tell us that he first had faith at the time described by that passage.
You wrote:
"Paul is discussing Abraham in Rom 4:1-3, but the degree he carries that into Rom 4:4-8 is not a given for you."
Explain why we should think Abraham wasn't in mind in verses 4-8 or was included in some "degree" that overturns my argument.
You wrote:
"But that's a side issue compared to what 'works' Paul was talking about here, to which I firmly maintain 'works of the Law' is clearly the point from the context (else 4:9-10 is a non-sequitur and no connection to Rom 3b)."
I don't know what you mean by "Rom 3b". And you'll have to explain how Romans 4:9-10 allegedly is inconsistent with my view. I've said that justification through the Jewish law was a prominent issue in Paul's context, but that he also excludes works in general. It's not as though his emphasis on the Jewish law is inconsistent with my position. It's only inconsistent under your dubious assumption that Paul wasn't excluding works in general while criticizing belief in justification through works of the Jewish law. I've explained how Paul could address both categories, and I've cited evidence that he was addressing both.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"Proving his case with Abraham being justified 'before circumcision' is bogus if Abraham was doing good works long before then."
Why is it "bogus" if the argument for justification through circumcision was prominent in Paul's day (Acts 15:1)? If his opponents single out such a work, then Paul can reply to them by discussing that specific work, even if their singling it out doesn't make sense. People often meet their opponent on his own terms, to argue against him there, even if he has no good reason to be there to begin with.
Under your view, Paul is excluding more than circumcision. Just as I don't take his singling out of circumcision in some passages as an exhaustive description of what he's excluding, neither do you.
You wrote:
"For simplification purposes, I wont say 'ungodly' here means 'gentiles,' and I will say 'faith' here means 'faith along with hope and love,' and 'works' here means anything the Mosaic Law requires."
Then you have a series of problems:
1. You're not defending the view of the term "ungodly" that you said you consider likely.
2. "Faith along with hope and love" can occur within the heart, without the outward manifestation Catholicism includes. The issue is what's normative in Catholicism, not what's exceptional. And the normative means of justification in Catholicism involves outward manifestation.
3. The Mosaic law requires things like loving God and obeying the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments. If you exclude "anything the Mosaic law requires", then you're excluding some things that Catholicism includes.
You wrote:
"That you've essentially hung your hat on a few texts like Romans 4:5 is not a good sign of a clear and solid thesis."
If you had read the Called To Communion thread I've been referring you to, you'd know that I cite a broad range of passages there, not just "a few texts like Romans 4:5". For example, I discuss the many Biblical examples of individuals being justified prior to or without baptism. Those examples include contexts that are addressing what's normative and contexts in which the individual had easy access to baptism. You're still ignoring the large majority of what I've argued in that thread.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteAt this point the discussion is about at 7 pages in Word. I will attempt to trim off anything not essential as well as only partially quote (so as to save space).
J: A passage can address more than one subject. Paul cites Genesis 15:6 concerning Abraham's justification. The fact that the passage also mentions the blessing of nations through Abraham doesn't prove that Abraham's justification was attained through the same means by which the blessing of nations mentioned in Genesis 26:4-5 was attained. The fact that the two passages are similar in one way doesn't prove that they aren't different in another way, nor does it tell us what context Paul had in mind when he cited one of those passages and not the other.
N: Gen 26:4f is the only text that puts all the pieces of the Promise together, if you're looking at 15:6 alone, then that's an incomplete picture of the Promise. Gen 15:6 only mentions how numerous his descendants would be (not the “Seed”), you could say the rest is implied, but that only helps my case.
J: As I explained earlier, if you're going to allow Abraham's circumcision to be excluded in Genesis 15:6, even though it was part of Abraham's general obedience mentioned in 26:5, then how do you know that more than faith is involved in 15:6? You agree with me that not all of Abraham's obedience is involved in 15:6, and the passage only mentions faith, so why are we supposed to think that your system of works was involved?
N: Because there is a track record, starting in Genesis 12 of Abraham walking faithfully and 26:4-5 sums up his whole life as obedient to God's laws, decrees, and commandments. Circumcision was only excluded in so far as it didn't exist yet, and Paul's point is that salvation came independent of circumcision (such that both the circumcised and uncircumcised are saved on the same basis).
J: But circumcision was part of Abraham's faithful obedience, yet you agree that it's excluded in Genesis 15:6 and in Paul's Abrahamic soteriology. Since faith itself is a form of obedience, then all that's needed for Abraham to be obedient in Genesis 15:6 is faith.
N: You're using “excluded” in a way different than I am. Paul's sole point was that the Promise was given independently of circumcision, not that “faith alone” was the grounds Abe was blessed. It would be akin to a Jew following the law without first believing God exists, that amounts to nothing. Yet a Jew who believes in the Promise will also follow the Law as part of obedience in general and not as if the Law itself secured or granted that Promise. And as I've said, if you say faith is a form of obedience, that's contrary to the historic Protestant concept of faith. At that point it is obedience that saves, with faith being one manifestation of obedience.
J: No, it isn't. I've already linked you to another thread in which I argue that faith involves more than intellectual assent. It includes repentance, for example. … We can define faith as more than intellectual assent without defining it as including the works you want to include.
N: I've constantly maintained that for you to say faith “includes repentance” is actually closer to the Catholic position and leaves you no grounds to exclude Hope and Love. You're creating a false dilemma by opposing this to “outward works” when that isn't essential.
J: To further illustrate my point, let me use an example from your own belief system. You believe that a person who has faith and arranges for a baptism, but dies before the baptism occurs, will go to Heaven. Would you say that the person's faith was no different than the intellectual assent of a demon?
N: No, that person's faith would have an extraordinary gracious infusion of Hope and Love and Repentance included, such that they receive the graces of baptism without having to actually partake in the sacrament itself.
J: Love doesn't have to manifest itself in the form of baptism or any other outward work in order to exist. We do works of love because we first have love. So, why are we supposed to think that a passage like Romans 4:5-6 implies baptism?
ReplyDeleteN: Agreed, Love doesn't need to manifest itself in outward works to exist; but that's a false dilemma. Paul's point of Rom 4 wasn't about “faith versus outward works” or “works in general” but rather faith versus works of the Law. Given that, it need not imply Baptism, since that's not the focus. A faith that includes Hope, Love, Repentance, etc, is what Paul is speaking of, and this is what Catholics are speaking of. This is not the “faith alone” which Protestantism is speaking of.
J: Apparently, you still haven't read through the discussion. … You yourself acknowledged that I also cited other passages, like Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25.
N: I was speaking honestly, even if I made a mistake by not noticing other texts. I have addressed your use of Rom 3:27 and Gal 3:21-25 above, which I don't think come anywhere close to “works in general”.
J: Paul frequently uses "work" in a positive sense, such as in describing what Christians ought to do. … He does often refer to the Jewish law, but you haven't demonstrated that he uses the terminology that way "the great majority of the time".
N: My reference to the “great majority of the time” is secondary to *fact* the contexts in which he is opposing “works” is more accurately “works of the Law” (cf Rom 3:28). I've already said Rom 3-4 and Gal 2-3 is solidly in the context of “works of the Law,” and the phrase itself appears there as do clear refrences to the Mosaic Law. I'm simply asking to be shown a clear and unequivocal case where Paul is opposing “works in general”, to which I've seen no evidence that can be considered anywhere near convincing rather than question-begging.
J: Furthermore, why are we supposed to think that only those aspects of the Jewish law that Catholicism wants to exclude are being excluded? The Jewish law includes commandments to love God, love other people, etc.
N: Catholicism is not picking and choosing what teachings of the Mosaic Law to keep and what to toss, that's an incorrect approach to the issue. Good works were good works before the Law was issued, and any good works we do are not on the *basis* of following the Mosaic Law as a *legal code*. The Christian is guided by the principles laid down in the Sermon on the Mount (for example) and from there we can identify what good works the Mosaic Law also happened to teach. We use the Ten Commandments as a *guideline* for morality but *not* as a *legal code* we are bound to. The Jew is bound by oath to follow the Mosaic Law Covenant as his *legal code* of daily living.
J: You're ignoring a piece of evidence I cited that needs to be explained. Galatians 5:6 refers to life "in Christ", whereas Romans 3-4 is addressing how one gets into Christ to begin with. In Galatians 3:3, Paul contrasted how the Galatians were trying to carry on the Christian life with how they had begun it. You need to argue for the context you're assuming in Galatians 5:6, not just assert it.
N: Then Paul has no business speaking of “circumcision nor uncircumcised” if your notion is correct, since that should already be taken care of. Paul is saying what gets you in *and* keeps you in is “faith working through love”.
J: Love doesn't have to manifest itself in the form of baptism or any other outward work in order to exist. We do works of love because we first have love. So, why are we supposed to think that a passage like Romans 4:5-6 implies baptism?
ReplyDeleteN: Agreed, Love doesn't need to manifest itself in outward works to exist; but that's a false dilemma. Paul's point of Rom 4 wasn't about “faith versus outward works” or “works in general” but rather faith versus works of the Law. Given that, it need not imply Baptism, since that's not the focus. A faith that includes Hope, Love, Repentance, etc, is what Paul is speaking of, and this is what Catholics are speaking of. This is not the “faith alone” which Protestantism is speaking of.
J: Apparently, you still haven't read through the discussion. … You yourself acknowledged that I also cited other passages, like Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25.
N: I was speaking honestly, even if I made a mistake by not noticing other texts. I have addressed your use of Rom 3:27 and Gal 3:21-25 above, which I don't think come anywhere close to “works in general”.
J: Paul frequently uses "work" in a positive sense, such as in describing what Christians ought to do. … He does often refer to the Jewish law, but you haven't demonstrated that he uses the terminology that way "the great majority of the time".
N: My reference to the “great majority of the time” is secondary to *fact* the contexts in which he is opposing “works” is more accurately “works of the Law” (cf Rom 3:28). I've already said Rom 3-4 and Gal 2-3 is solidly in the context of “works of the Law,” and the phrase itself appears there as do clear refrences to the Mosaic Law. I'm simply asking to be shown a clear and unequivocal case where Paul is opposing “works in general”, to which I've seen no evidence that can be considered anywhere near convincing rather than question-begging.
J: Furthermore, why are we supposed to think that only those aspects of the Jewish law that Catholicism wants to exclude are being excluded? The Jewish law includes commandments to love God, love other people, etc.
N: Catholicism is not picking and choosing what teachings of the Mosaic Law to keep and what to toss, that's an incorrect approach to the issue. Good works were good works before the Law was issued, and any good works we do are not on the *basis* of following the Mosaic Law as a *legal code*. The Christian is guided by the principles laid down in the Sermon on the Mount (for example) and from there we can identify what good works the Mosaic Law also happened to teach. We use the Ten Commandments as a *guideline* for morality but *not* as a *legal code* we are bound to. The Jew is bound by oath to follow the Mosaic Law Covenant as his *legal code* of daily living.
J: You're ignoring a piece of evidence I cited that needs to be explained. Galatians 5:6 refers to life "in Christ", whereas Romans 3-4 is addressing how one gets into Christ to begin with. In Galatians 3:3, Paul contrasted how the Galatians were trying to carry on the Christian life with how they had begun it. You need to argue for the context you're assuming in Galatians 5:6, not just assert it.
N: Then Paul has no business speaking of “circumcision nor uncircumcised” if your notion is correct, since that should already be taken care of. Paul is saying what gets you in *and* keeps you in is “faith working through love”.
J: The issue in dispute is whether Galatians 5:6 is evidence of the inclusion of works as a means of attaining justification. In this context, works are being defined as outward manifestations. For you to say that whether outward manifestations are involved is "secondary" doesn't make sense.
ReplyDeleteN: The only “works” being excluded in Gal 5:6 is the Mosaic Law via “neither circumcision nor uncercumcision” as well as the immediate context (5:1-5). The problem is you're reading on these texts with “works in general” glasses on and thus resulting in false dilemmas and misreading Paul's point. The notion of “outward manifestation” is misleading, since the issue was whether someone was trusting *in* the Mosaic Covenant and not simply going through the motions (“outward manifestations”).
J: Something like repentance or love can be implied, depending on the context. If I have faith in a friend to keep a promise he made to me, that has different implications than faith in a chair, that it will support my body if I sit on it. … In a thread I linked for you earlier, I explained how faith in the context of justification implies repentance, but doesn't imply baptism.
N: I understand what you're saying, but my point throughout has been you're not carrying your claims to their full conclusions. There is a reason why classical Protestantism has maintained that faith is an “empty hand” and that it is not including repentance and that love is only incidentally present. It is because anything else would make faith in itself a cause and grounds for justification. You stopping with “baptism” is simply a salvage attempt for “faith alone”, not realizing “faith alone” has been refuted the moment Hope, Repentance and Love become essential to Faith being salvific. The wedge you create between faith and baptism is not something derived from Paul, but rather ad hoc, and directly in the face of Paul's mentioning of Baptism in justification contexts.
J: I've argued that works of the Jewish law were prominent in Paul's historical context, but that he also excludes works in general in the process of discussing justification.
N: It's yet to be shown “he *also* excludes works in general.” My point is that you've granted “works” Paul opposed were “prominent,” so any additions or exceptions to that must be demonstrated, not assumed. You've not given any examples that demand “works in general,” much less that Paul would be flip flopping between contexts of Judaism and “works in general”. And simply logically speaking, excluding works in general necessarily excludes works in particular, so it's ridiculous for Paul to focus on a particular so often if he's really trying to sweep away all types of works.
J: Even if Paul is focused on the Jewish law, he can make the point that there isn't any system of works whereby we can be justified.
N: He logically could, but that he *did* go that far is simply begging the question.
J: I was addressing what the term "work" normally means. The Greek terminology doesn't carry with it an assumption of the Jewish law, much less the specific elements of the Jewish law that Roman Catholicism wants to exclude. If the terminology itself doesn't imply your definition, then what does? I've already explained why your appeal to "contexts of justification" fails.
N: You're claim of what work “normally means” is rigging the deck. Context ultimately decides what “work” is being discussed.
J: The normative means of justification in Roman Catholicism involves outward activities. And it would be absurd to argue that Paul is addressing exceptions to the norm in Romans 4, Galatians 3, etc. Thus, if Paul is addressing the norm, and he doesn't include outward activities, then Roman Catholic soteriology is falsified.
ReplyDeleteN: To focus on “outward activities” is setting up a false dilemma: “outward activities” was not the issue. The issue between Catholics and Protestants is whether Paul is speaking of an infused righteousness or an (imputed) alien righteousness. If alien, then logically faith must be an “empty hand” to receive it, and not include repentance or Love. If the righteousness is infused, then whatever 'acts' need to be done to receive it is perfectly fine and orthodox. The fact that it's clear “faith” isn't an “empty hand” shows the Protestant alien righteousness approach cannot be right.
J: See my contrast above between faith in a friend and faith in a chair. The same terminology can be used to refer to two situations that involve different things.
N: Then, clearly, faith in God to save includes Love of God and Hope in Him, else the faith would be of no avail and akin to faith in a stranger or even a chair. Thus, you seem to admit, “faith alone” is misleading at best, false at worst.
J: And, again, if everything included in the process of attaining justification is "inner", then Catholicism is wrong to include outward means as part of what's normative.
N: My approach is simply to rule out your notion of “faith alone,” because then you no longer have grounds to set up the false dilemma of “outward works”.
J: I've addressed such arguments in the Called To Communion thread linked above. You aren't interacting with what I said there.
N: You're addressing them with the same unsubstantiated framework you're uperating within. That's not 'addressing them'. Proving “works in general” should have been a cinch, if that's what Paul had in mind. Instead you've begged the question throughout – and such an approach could never warrant a schism in the Church.
J: Nothing in your last two sentences above refutes my reading of the passage. And since Paul's context in Romans 3-4 is how the ungodly attain justification, not how the justified increase in justification, Paul would be citing Genesis 15:6 concerning the former, not the latter.
N: My “last two sentences” build upon the first sentence, which is where your difficulty sits. Either Gen 15:6 was a historical recap of the past, or it was it's own unique moment in history. The latter option is the only one that makes grammatical sense. But since Abraham wasn't converting in Gen 15:6, any reading that would require that (i.e. your reading) must be rejected.
J: I don't assume that the Bible must tell us when Abraham first had faith.
N: Then you're arguing from silence/assumption, and the more problematic point of speaking of Abraham's conversion yet not having any details of the conversion.
J: Explain why we should think Abraham wasn't in mind in verses 4-8 or was included in some "degree" that overturns my argument.
N: Abraham wasn't converting in Genesis 15:6, nor was he repenting of his sins at that point. That's a pretty solid case. If Romans 4 is strictly about converting for the first time, then both Abraham and David fail as “solid examples” for Paul's thesis since neither were converting for the first time in those OT quotes. Folks like James White see this and insist that Abraham's pre-Gen15 life was of one not yet saved.
J: I don't know what you mean by "Rom 3b". And you'll have to explain how Romans 4:9-10 allegedly is inconsistent with my view. I've said that justification through the Jewish law was a prominent issue in Paul's context, but that he also excludes works in general.
ReplyDeleteN: What I mean by Romans 3b is the part of the chapter where Paul begins focusing on works of the Law, specifically circumcision and the Gentile-Jew distinction both being saved by faith “apart from works of the Law” - which is the immediate preceding context before Abraham is introduced. Rom 4:9f is inconsistent in that it shows “circumcision” and not “works in general” is the theme from Rom 4:1ff. You keep saying “but he also excludes works in general,” though that's more of a bias than a proven fact.
J: Why is it "bogus" if the argument for justification through circumcision was prominent in Paul's day (Acts 15:1)? If his opponents single out such a work, then Paul can reply to them by discussing that specific work, even if their singling it out doesn't make sense. People often meet their opponent on his own terms, to argue against him there, even if he has no good reason to be there to begin with.
N: Because Paul would be “refuting” a bogus thesis without delving into the real problem, works in general. It would be equivalent to someone saying they are the best basketball player in the world but only taking on younger and weaker opponents rather than take on the big dogs to prove it. Further, you're operating on the assumption the Judaizers had no good reason to make their claim, and it was more of an idiotic objection than anything of substance.
J: Then you have a series of problems:
1. You're not defending the view of the term "ungodly" that you said you consider likely.
2. "Faith along with hope and love" can occur within the heart, without the outward manifestation Catholicism includes. The issue is what's normative in Catholicism, not what's exceptional.
3. The Mosaic law requires things like loving God and obeying the moral precepts of the Ten Commandments.
N: (1) I've learned that it's counter productive to complicate matters so I'm dropping the issue regardless of it's “likelihood”. (2) The issue of “outward manifestation” isn't the primary issue and rather a false dilemma you erected. (3) You're confusing obeying the Mosaic Law as a legally binding code with good works in general. Your argument is as fallacious as if someone said since England made murder illegal then America cannot do as well, as if murder were confined to English law alone.
J: If you had read the Called To Communion thread I've been referring you to, you'd know that I cite a broad range of passages there, not just "a few texts like Romans 4:5". For example, I discuss the many Biblical examples of individuals being justified prior to or without baptism. Those examples include contexts that are addressing what's normative and contexts in which the individual had easy access to baptism. You're still ignoring the large majority of what I've argued in that thread.
N: An individual justified prior to or without baptism is a far, far cry from proving “works in general.” I'm just astonished you keep crying out “normative, normative” when the Jewish Law is the “normative work” objected to.
I'm not here to waste people's time, and I think we've said all we can. You can have the last word.
Nick wrote:
ReplyDelete"Gen 26:4f is the only text that puts all the pieces of the Promise together, if you're looking at 15:6 alone, then that's an incomplete picture of the Promise. Gen 15:6 only mentions how numerous his descendants would be (not the 'Seed'), you could say the rest is implied, but that only helps my case."
You keep assuming what you need to prove. Again, how do you know that only one promise is involved? How do you know that Paul cited Genesis 15:6 to address how Abraham attained everything mentioned in Genesis 26:4-5 rather than to address how he attained justification? Since Genesis 26 involves Abraham's circumcision and other later works Paul isn't including, then including "all the pieces" found in Genesis 26 is incorrect. You're trying to use Genesis 26 as an argument to include works, yet you don't want to include all of the works that passage refers to. If you agree that the faith mentioned in Genesis 15 didn't include everything Abraham did in Genesis 26, and you think that Genesis 15 has "an incomplete picture of the Promise", then why should we keep trying to interpret chapter 15 in accordance with chapter 26? You want something that will give you more than the faith mentioned in chapter 15, but not as much as what's mentioned in chapter 26. What you need to do, then, is get it somewhere else. You can't get it from those two passages.
You write:
"Circumcision was only excluded in so far as it didn't exist yet, and Paul's point is that salvation came independent of circumcision (such that both the circumcised and uncircumcised are saved on the same basis)."
If he meant to include faith and works other than circumcision, then he could have cited those other works. Instead, he only mentions faith. Not only does he only mention faith, but the context of Genesis 15:6 suggests that only faith, as I'm defining that term, is involved. You still haven't interacted with what I've said about that context.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"And as I've said, if you say faith is a form of obedience, that's contrary to the historic Protestant concept of faith. At that point it is obedience that saves, with faith being one manifestation of obedience."
You haven't documented your claim about "the historic Protestant concept of faith". And I'm not obligated to agree with a "historic Protestant concept" anyway, much as you and other Roman Catholics often reject what previous generations of your alleged predecessors believed.
Your comment that "it is obedience that saves" is misleading, since considering faith a form of obedience isn't equivalent to considering every form of obedience a means of justification. If my doctor is a man, and he saved my life, it doesn't follow that other men can also be said to have saved my life. The fact that those other men share in my doctor's manhood doesn't prove that they shared in saving my life.
You write:
"I've constantly maintained that for you to say faith 'includes repentance' is actually closer to the Catholic position and leaves you no grounds to exclude Hope and Love. You're creating a false dilemma by opposing this to 'outward works' when that isn't essential."
Something inward doesn't have to be "opposed" to something outward in order to be distinct from it. I've argued for the inner nature of justifying faith, and in your last series of responses to me you commented, "I don't need to have my argument hang on 'outward activities,' simply inner ones." I've explained why you were wrong about that, since Catholicism does include outward activity. And now you're trying to turn our attention to whether "opposition" between the entities you mentioned and outward activity is "essential". Instead of trying to divert our attention to that other issue, you need to explain how attaching repentance, hope, and love to justifying faith gives us outward activity, like baptism, as a means of justification.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Given that, it need not imply Baptism, since that's not the focus. A faith that includes Hope, Love, Repentance, etc, is what Paul is speaking of, and this is what Catholics are speaking of."
No, Catholicism includes baptism. If Paul is discussing a faith that doesn't imply baptism, then he's discussing a means of justification different from what's found in Catholicism.
You write:
"I have addressed your use of Rom 3:27 and Gal 3:21-25 above"
You didn't address what I said about those passages in the Called To Communion thread in which I discussed them. I've been citing that discussion since the beginning of this thread.
You write:
"I'm simply asking to be shown a clear and unequivocal case where Paul is opposing 'works in general', to which I've seen no evidence that can be considered anywhere near convincing rather than question-begging."
You say that while continuing to ignore the large majority of what I've said on the subject. You've been spending weeks arguing with me about justification without making much of an effort to interact with what I said in the discussion on the subject that I've been highlighting since the beginning of this thread (the Called To Communion discussion).
And a conclusion doesn't have to be "clear and unequivocal" in order to be probable. It's not as though all of your conclusions about justification (or the papacy, Purgatory, Marian doctrine, etc.) are "clear and unequivocal".
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Catholicism is not picking and choosing what teachings of the Mosaic Law to keep and what to toss, that's an incorrect approach to the issue. Good works were good works before the Law was issued, and any good works we do are not on the *basis* of following the Mosaic Law as a *legal code*. The Christian is guided by the principles laid down in the Sermon on the Mount (for example) and from there we can identify what good works the Mosaic Law also happened to teach. We use the Ten Commandments as a *guideline* for morality but *not* as a *legal code* we are bound to."
You're confirming my point rather than refuting it. If the Mosaic law "happened to teach" some works that you consider justificatory, then you're only excluding some works of the Mosaic law. That's a further distinction you have to read into the text in order to try to reconcile a passage like Romans 4 with Catholicism. What you're telling us, then, is:
- Faith includes works.
- Thus, when works are excluded as a means of justification, only some works are in view.
- Not only was Paul only excluding works of the Mosaic law, but he also was only excluding a portion of the works of the Mosaic law, not all of them.
- Though faith doesn't imply baptism, and baptism isn't mentioned in a passage like Romans 4, baptism is included.
You're not following the text to its most likely conclusion, Nick. Rather, you're trying to read Roman Catholic soteriology into the text.
You write:
"Then Paul has no business speaking of 'circumcision nor uncircumcised' if your notion is correct, since that should already be taken care of."
How does that follow?
You write:
"The only 'works' being excluded in Gal 5:6 is the Mosaic Law via 'neither circumcision nor uncercumcision' as well as the immediate context (5:1-5). The problem is you're reading on these texts with 'works in general' glasses on and thus resulting in false dilemmas and misreading Paul's point."
You're confusing contexts. I didn't cite Galatians 5 to address which works are excluded. You're the one who cited the passage. I responded to what you had claimed about it. You still haven't demonstrated that Galatians 5:6 is inconsistent with my view of justification. Changing the subject to whether Galatians 5 excludes all works is diversionary.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"The wedge you create between faith and baptism is not something derived from Paul, but rather ad hoc, and directly in the face of Paul's mentioning of Baptism in justification contexts."
You keep ignoring the large amount of argumentation I produced for my view of baptism in the Called To Communion thread. As I documented there, the gospels, Paul's writings, and other relevant sources frequently refer to individuals as being justified prior to or without baptism, including in passages addressing what's normative and in cases in which the person had easy access to baptism.
And if faith doesn't imply baptism, then I don't need to "drive a wedge". The two don't belong together to begin with. I'm not driving a wedge. Rather, you're trying to join two things that aren't joined in the context we're discussing.
You write:
"And simply logically speaking, excluding works in general necessarily excludes works in particular, so it's ridiculous for Paul to focus on a particular so often if he's really trying to sweep away all types of works."
Paul was opposing all false gospels (2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:8), but he would focus on a particular false gospel that was troubling one of his communities, such as the Galatians. If that community is interacting with false teachers who have been arguing for a particular false gospel, then it makes sense to provide a response that addresses that particular view. That way, his view of the group in question is clearer and more easily applicable. Similarly, those who believe in the deity of Christ will often respond to a group like the Arians or the Jehovah's Witnesses by addressing their arguments specifically, not just by addressing the deity of Christ in general. Since you agree that there are multiple false gospels, not just one, then you also have to explain why Paul gives so much attention to a particular false gospel. It's not as though my view is the only one that needs to explain that fact.
You write:
"You're claim of what work 'normally means' is rigging the deck. Context ultimately decides what 'work' is being discussed."
No, the Greek term has a general meaning. Context is a factor, but it's not as though "work" could just as likely mean "boat" or "eat" before we examine the context.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"To focus on 'outward activities' is setting up a false dilemma: 'outward activities' was not the issue. The issue between Catholics and Protestants is whether Paul is speaking of an infused righteousness or an (imputed) alien righteousness."
There are multiple issues in dispute between Catholics and Protestants. It's not as though only one dispute could exist.
Since you include outward activity, and I don't, it's an issue in dispute between us. Trying to change the subject to imputation is diversionary. In our previous discussion at David Waltz's blog, I explained why I distinguish between the two issues the way I do.
You write:
"Then, clearly, faith in God to save includes Love of God and Hope in Him, else the faith would be of no avail and akin to faith in a stranger or even a chair. Thus, you seem to admit, 'faith alone' is misleading at best, false at worst."
Only if you begin with a false notion of faith alone, irrationally distanced from its context. I've explained how my concept of faith alone is rational and Biblical.
You write:
"You're addressing them with the same unsubstantiated framework you're uperating within. That's not 'addressing them'. Proving 'works in general' should have been a cinch, if that's what Paul had in mind. Instead you've begged the question throughout – and such an approach could never warrant a schism in the Church."
You accuse me of "begging the question" without even interacting with what I said on the subject in the Called To Communion thread. Earlier, you indicated that you had only read some of my comments there, not all of them. Are you now claiming to have read all of them? Even if you have read them all, you haven't demonstrated that the portions of the discussion in question constitute "begging the question" on my part.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"My 'last two sentences' build upon the first sentence, which is where your difficulty sits. Either Gen 15:6 was a historical recap of the past, or it was it's own unique moment in history. The latter option is the only one that makes grammatical sense. But since Abraham wasn't converting in Gen 15:6, any reading that would require that (i.e. your reading) must be rejected."
I haven't argued that Abraham converted in Genesis 15:6. That's not my position. As I explained earlier, Paul is addressing the justification of the ungodly. The condemned sinner he describes in Romans 1-3 isn't somebody already justified who's seeking some sort of further justification. Rather, he's addressing the attaining of justification by the ungodly sinner who's justly under God's condemnation. He's citing Genesis 15:6 in the context of discussing the attaining of justification by the ungodly. Yet, the evidence indicates that Abraham converted prior to Genesis 15:6. I'm arguing that Abraham did believe at the time of Genesis 15:6, but that Moses' comment about Abraham's justification is a comment about Abraham's having faith, not the timing of the justification.
What's your alternative? To argue that Paul is addressing some sort of increase in a justification already possessed? That would be highly problematic in a context like Romans 4, for reasons I've explained.
You write:
"Then you're arguing from silence/assumption, and the more problematic point of speaking of Abraham's conversion yet not having any details of the conversion."
Since Genesis tells us Abraham had justifying faith, and Paul tells us the same, then we know that he had that faith. And his faith had to begin at some point. We don't need a description of Abraham's conversion in order to conclude that he converted. That's not a conclusion from "silence/assumption". It's a logical implication that can't rationally be avoided.
As I said, we can't assume that the earliest Biblical passage to mention Abraham's faith must represent the time when he came to faith. You're the one making a dubious assumption. Do you make similar assumptions about other Biblical figures? The first mention of their faith, a good work, etc. must be the first instance in which they ever did such a thing? Jesus' first recorded words are from the incident when He was twelve years old (Luke 2:49). Do you assume He never spoke before then?
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"If Romans 4 is strictly about converting for the first time, then both Abraham and David fail as 'solid examples' for Paul's thesis since neither were converting for the first time in those OT quotes. Folks like James White see this and insist that Abraham's pre-Gen15 life was of one not yet saved."
I've seen far more Protestants take my position than James White's position on this issue. And does White assume that David wasn't justified until the time of Psalm 32? Obviously not. A passage doesn't have to represent the time at which somebody was justified in order to be relevant to how that person attained justification or to be relevant to a discussion of justification in some other way.
You write:
"Rom 4:9f is inconsistent in that it shows 'circumcision' and not 'works in general' is the theme from Rom 4:1ff."
Since Abraham's circumcision was a good work, there's no inconsistency between using that good work as an illustration and excluding good works in general.
And your view of Romans 4 involves more than the exclusion of circumcision, so your reading of Romans 4:9 is inconsistent with your own position.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou write:
"Because Paul would be 'refuting' a bogus thesis without delving into the real problem, works in general. It would be equivalent to someone saying they are the best basketball player in the world but only taking on younger and weaker opponents rather than take on the big dogs to prove it."
That's a false analogy. I haven't argued that Paul only addresses the exclusion of works of the Jewish law. I've argued that he addresses both the Jewish law in particular and works in general.
And, as I keep pointing out, the Jewish law was much broader than the narrower spectrum of works you want to exclude. There are moral precepts, for example, that Catholicism considers justificatory that were part of the Jewish law. Even if we limited Paul's comments to the Jewish law, Catholicism would be condemned.
You write:
"The issue of 'outward manifestation' isn't the primary issue and rather a false dilemma you erected."
I'm the one who started this thread. I know what it's about. I've explained why the issue of whether we're justified through outward activities is important. You haven't even addressed most of what I've said on the subject, much less refuted it.
You write:
"An individual justified prior to or without baptism is a far, far cry from proving 'works in general.'"
Then tell us which other works are present in the passages I cited, and demonstrate that those other works were justificatory.
And though excluding baptism wouldn't exclude all other works, it does demonstrate a contradiction between the Biblical gospel and the Roman Catholic gospel.
I have not read the entire discussion as of yet. But man, Nick has gotten creamed...I mean, badly creamed. He is over his head.
ReplyDelete