Hilary of Poitiers' commentary on Matthew was recently translated into English by D.H. Williams (Commentary On Matthew [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012]). Williams, a patristic scholar who's a Protestant, thinks Paul's concept of justification through faith alone is found in Hilary's commentary. Hilary uses the term "faith alone" in some places when describing his view of justification, and some of his other remarks suggest the same concept without using that terminology. However, elsewhere Hilary makes comments that are suggestive of baptismal regeneration or some other form of justification through works.
Disputes over justification in the church fathers involve several issues. I want to outline some of those before going on to discuss Hilary's significance.
One of the issues involved in disputes over justification in the fathers is scholarly opinion. It's often suggested that no patristic scholar or other scholar with relevant credentials has believed that any father advocated justification through faith alone. Supposedly, there's a scholarly consensus, perhaps even universal agreement among scholars, that sola fide isn't found in the fathers. In that context, the opinion of a scholar like Williams is relevant, regardless of whether his opinion is considered a correct one.
Another issue is terminology. Is the phrase "faith alone" affirmed in any of the fathers? One reason why terminology is important is illustrated by how Roman Catholics and other critics of Protestantism use James 2:24. It's often suggested that the phrase "not by faith alone" in that passage is sufficient to refute a Protestant understanding of justification. But if that phrase, by itself, is enough to disprove Protestant soteriology, then wouldn't an affirmation of the phrase "faith alone" in Hilary or any other father be sufficient to prove that the father in question believed in justification through faith alone? There's also a translational issue involved here. When somebody like Martin Luther uses the phrase "faith alone" in a Bible translation, it's often suggested that the translation is inappropriate. But if the fathers use that terminology, then the argument that it shouldn't be used is weakened, and any claim that nobody used the terminology before Luther is refuted.
Then there's the issue of whether any of the fathers believed in the concept of sola fide, regardless of what terminology was used. And a father could believe in it consistently or inconsistently. I've argued elsewhere that the concept is found in the fathers and in other sources before the Reformation. The fact that the concept can be found in a source inconsistently is important to keep in mind. People are often inconsistent. And patristic and other relevant scholars will often refer to how a father is inconsistent on an issue. Some issues are complicated, controversial, or difficult in some other way that makes inconsistency more likely. The fathers, like people in our own day, were often inconsistent on free will, eschatology, soteriology, and other matters. The fact that a father contradicts justification through faith alone in one passage doesn't necessarily prove that he didn't affirm it elsewhere. If singling out a passage inconsistent with sola fide is sufficient to prove that a father couldn't have believed in justification through faith alone, then wouldn't the reverse be true as well? Couldn't we just cite a passage that seems to affirm sola fide, then conclude that sola fide couldn't be contradicted by that father anywhere else? If that's a simplistic approach to take, and it is, then so is the reverse. We should try to harmonize a writer's thoughts up to a point, but sometimes the best explanation of the evidence is that the source in question was inconsistent.
I don't know enough about Hilary of Poitiers to make much of a judgment about his views as a whole. I've read the entirety of his commentary on Matthew, but not much else from his writings. Judging by his Matthew commentary, he seems inconsistent about justification. At a minimum, Williams can be included in the list of scholars who see sola fide in the fathers, and the "faith alone" term is found in Hilary, multiple times. So, Hilary is at least relevant in those contexts. I'd argue that he also advocates the concept of sola fide, not just the terminology, in some places. For example:
"It disturbed the scribes [in Matthew 9:3] that sin was forgiven by a man (for they considered that Jesus Christ was only a man) and that he forgave sin, for which the Law was not able to grant absolution, since faith alone justifies….In other words, the younger son [in Matthew 21:30] professed obedience, although he did not then bring it to realization because faith alone justifies. For this reason publicans and prostitutes will be first in the Kingdom of heaven….By doubling of the money [in Matthew 25:22] we find that works were added to faith. What one believes in his mind, he accomplishes through deeds and actions." (Commentary On Matthew, 8:6, 21:15, 27:8)
Not only does the phrase "faith alone" suggest that only faith is involved, but so does the context of Hilary's use of the phrase. The Matthew 9 and 21 passages don't involve works on the part of the person in question. That's one of the reasons why Protestants so often cite the Matthew 9 passage in discussions about justification. Furthermore, Hilary tells us that the son in the Matthew 21 passage hadn't yet practiced obedience. So, it doesn't seem that Hilary is including works resulting from faith in his definition of faith at that point. In the third passage I've quoted above, Hilary refers to works being added to faith and how faith is something that occurs "in his mind". Again, it doesn't seem that works are being included in Hilary's definition of faith. Rather, he's referring to something that occurs inwardly ("in his mind") that later has works added to it. In another passage (20:7), not quoted above, Hilary refers to how the workers in Matthew 20:7 were justified as a "gift", "freely", etc. apart from "work rendered". Again, the best explanation seems to be that Hilary is thinking of faith by itself, not faith accompanied by works of some type.
Elsewhere, however, Hilary seems to make comments that are inconsistent with the ones quoted above. He refers, for example, to how "When we are renewed in the laver of baptism through the power of the Word, we are separated from the sins that come from our origin, and are separated from its authors….Through the gift of baptism, he [Jesus] endows with the grace of salvation those who were his detractors and persecutors." (10:24, 18:10)
Perhaps Hilary held something like a Lutheran view of justification or some variation of some other Protestant view. I suspect he was inconsistent to some extent.
Here's some of what Williams writes about Hilary and justification:
"Throughout the Commentary there is an unambiguous emphasis on the theology that stems from Paul's epistles, especially with regard to the concept of being justified through faith. Here, some sixty years before Augustine and lacking the Origenist contributions, Hilary follows little or no precedent. About twenty occurrences of the phrase fides iustificat (or fidei iustificatio) are to be found expressing an interpretation germane to an understanding of the Gospel. It would seem that Hilary's interest involves much more than mere restatements of Pauline passages. In fact, Hilary is the first Christian theologian explicitly to have formulated what Paul left implicit by referring to God's work of grace in the phrase fides sola iustificat: 'Because faith alone justifies…publicans and prostitutes will be first in the Kingdom of heaven' (Mt 21.15)." (30-1)
"We should try to harmonize a writer's thoughts up to a point, but sometimes the best explanation of the evidence is that the source in question was inconsistent."
ReplyDeleteTrue. So if we can find a way that does harmonize an author's statements - especially ones in the same work - that should be preferred over the conclusion that he is simply inconsistent.
Regarding faith alone, I agree terminology does not suffice - Benedict affirmed "faith alone" ("For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love") but this does not mean he agrees with Protestantism's formulation of faith alone that requires ongoing extra nos imputation nor would it mean that all Protestants now agree with him, obviously. So I agree we should be wary of engaging in word-concept fallacy.
But we also would not then argue Benedict is being inconsistent in affirming his formulation of faith alone, while also affirming all the other RC doctrines related to ongoing justification - they are compatible. Similarly, when examining Hilary's (or other patristic and medieval) statements, we should see if he intended by faith alone a meaning more aligned with Benedict's statement (i.e. an infused faith formed in charity) or one more aligned with the Protestant formulation. The former would not entail a contradiction in his statements which you argue are present, while the latter would by your own argument.
Another nuance to this is one can emphasize different aspects of justification - RCism makes the distinction between initial justification and ongoing justification - merit and works only apply in the sphere of the latter, not the former. So when Hilary speaks of faith alone in ways you view as supporting the Protestant sola fide, those can be interpreted as speaking to the sphere of initial justification. This would be similar to how justification is viewed by RCism in the NT or amongst other patristic writers as well. The thief on the cross or a baby or deathbed conversion is saved in exactly the same way as a long-lived Christian - that is via the infusion of faith, hope, and charity (i.e. the presence of sanctifying grace) - they are not "exceptional" or special cases.
So perhaps Hilary is inconsistent as you posit - and in a single work no less. Or perhaps he meant something different by "faith alone" that actually would harmonize all his statements, both in this work and his wider corpus.
Cletus Van Damme wrote:
Delete"The thief on the cross or a baby or deathbed conversion is saved in exactly the same way as a long-lived Christian - that is via the infusion of faith, hope, and charity (i.e. the presence of sanctifying grace) - they are not 'exceptional' or special cases."
The presence of some continuity doesn't prove that there isn't discontinuity as well. Somebody who attains justification through baptism isn't being justified "in exactly the same way" as somebody who attains justification without baptism.
I explained why I cited the passages I did from Hilary. You haven't interacted with those explanations. Instead, you've suggested, without supporting argument, that he may have been referring to initial justification in a manner consistent with Roman Catholicism. There are a lot of problems with that suggestion.
We don't begin with a default assumption that references to justification are about an initial phase of justification, much less an initial phase as it's defined by Catholicism. If you want that sort of qualifier associated with Hilary's terminology, you have to argue for it.
As Williams notes in my citation of him above, Hilary mentions justification by faith many times in his commentary. Given the insignificance of the concept of initial justification, relative to justification more broadly, it's doubtful upfront (before we examine each context) that Hilary would be referring entirely or primarily to initial justification on those many occasions when he discusses justification by faith. Since, in Catholic soteriology, initial justification is so brief a portion of the Christian life, and justification through works goes into effect just after that moment of initial justification, it's doubtful that Hilary would be giving so much attention to that initial phase.
He refers to people being justified at the time of judgment "through faith…faith that produces good works…the judgment of God's will shall decide between the faith of them both [heretics and orthodox]" (26:5). He seems to see faith as the root and works as the fruit, with the faith being what justifies. He's distinguishing between faith and works here rather than including works in faith. As I documented above, he makes the same sort of distinction, in the context of the day of judgment and not just with regard to some sort of initial justification, in 20:7 and 27:8.
You'll have to explain how the phrases I cited in my initial post, like "faith alone", "did not then bring it [obedience] to realization", and "what one believes in his mind", are most naturally taken as including baptism and all of the characteristics Pope Benedict XVI referred to in your citation of him. And Hilary uses such terminology when addressing passages like Matthew 9:2-8 and 21:28-31, which don't refer to baptism or the characteristics described by Benedict. Including baptism in a passage like Matthew 9 would be especially problematic, since not only is its inclusion not stated or implied, but the nature of the circumstances narrated makes baptism's inclusion highly unlikely.
To sum up, the idea that Hilary is only referring to an initial phase of justification would have to be argued rather than assumed, the evidence suggests that he's addressing more than something like initial justification, his language suggests that he's not including baptism and all of the characteristics Benedict refers to, and the context suggests the same. It's not just that Hilary only refers to faith, though that would be significant if it were all we had to go by. He also tells us that he's excluding other things that Catholicism includes.
Jason,
DeleteIn RCism, there is the same standard for justification for all - the presence of sanctifying grace.
"You haven't interacted with those explanations."
Your explanation is that those passages refer to Protestant sola fide, and hence make his other statements inconsistent. My explanation is that he is referring to initial justification in those statements, not ongoing justification as he does in other statements. Similar to how RCism views statements in the NT as referring to either one sphere or the other, depending on context. Indeed, Trent itself wouldn't make sense if such distinctions were not made or if we equivocated on every instance of the term justification in its decrees.
"We don't begin with a default assumption that references to justification are about an initial phase of justification, much less an initial phase as it's defined by Catholicism. "
I'm simply pointing out that such a distinction would harmonize Hilary's statements, rather than make them inconsistent, as your position self-admittedly does. Hilary uses the term "faith alone" - we agree. Now does he mean by it "ongoing extra nos imputed forensic righteousness" or does he mean "infused faith formed by charity"? The former makes him inconsistent as you agree, the latter does not.
"Given the insignificance of the concept of initial justification, relative to justification more broadly"
This is a mischaracterization. Ongoing justification cannot happen without the root of initial justification. Again, one is given the free gift of sanctifying grace in initial justification. Only then can one grow in that grace and righteousness in ongoing justification. This is why when you say "Hilary refers to how the workers in Matthew 20:7 were justified as a "gift", "freely", etc. apart from "work rendered", an RC agrees just as Trent, CCC, ECT, JDDJ do.
"He seems to see faith as the root and works as the fruit, with the faith being what justifies."
Which Trent says. "For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works", as the CCC and ECT Gift of Salvation document also echo. And again, faith being what justifies is perfectly compatible with Benedict's affirmation of faith alone.
"You'll have to explain how the phrases I cited in my initial post"
None of them are incompatible with a faith formed in charity and an infused righteousness given at initial justification. Do you think RCism denies publicans and prostitutes will be first in heaven? Or that the elect are not justified as a gift, freely, apart from works? Where do you get this notion that RCism is Pelagian or semi-Pelagian?
"And Hilary uses such terminology when addressing passages like Matthew 9:2-8 and 21:28-31, which don't refer to baptism"
Right, and then you say "Elsewhere, however, Hilary seems to make comments that are inconsistent with the ones quoted above. He refers, for example, to how "When we are renewed in the laver of baptism through the power of the Word, we are separated from the sins that come from our origin, and are separated from its authors….Through the gift of baptism, he [Jesus] endows with the grace of salvation those who were his detractors and persecutors."
So then you just conclude he's being inconsistent, and in the same work no less.
"It's not just that Hilary only refers to faith, though that would be significant if it were all we had to go by. He also tells us that he's excluding other things that Catholicism includes."
Catholicism does not include works in initial justification.
(2/2 in reply)
Delete"As Williams notes in my citation of him above, Hilary mentions justification by faith many times in his commentary."
Williams also notes this about Hilary:
"This fact was vividly demonstrated, just as Origen had acknowledged, by the thief on the cross who was saved only by a justification by faith. Salvation lies only in the goodness of God, a goodness that Hilary calls "the perfect gift". We are "made alive through the grace of the Spirit whose gift comes ... through faith". The parable of the workers in the vineyard illustrates for HIlary that salvation is completely God's gift. The workers hired at the eleventh hour of the day received the same wages as those hired in the morning. The remuneration for the former demonstrates that it was not based on the merit of their labor. Rather, "God has freely granted his grace to all through justification by faith". This was the only means, Hilary says, by which the pagans (Gentiles) were saved."
This is all affirmed by RCism - it doesn't get you Protestant sola fide.
"Hilary was the first Christian theologian to formulate explicitly what Paul left implicit by referring to God's work of graces as "fides sola iustificat" ... Yet it was not his intention to elaborate on an overall scheme of salvation but to explain how the pagans came to share legitimately in the covenant originally given to Israel ... [For Hilary] Only by regeneration does the free gift of God avail the human condition. Moreover, the grace by which a believer is transformed is God's spontaneous, unconditional, and free gift."
Which speaks to initial justification. Williams concludes his analysis of Hilary and the early church with
"In general, the fathers maintained the free and unmerited character of God's grace toward us, expressing it sometimes in the terms of justification by faith, although they saw ongoing justification in a different light. Making firm differentiations between justification and sanctification was not the essence of doctrinal discourse for them. More pertinent to the early church's thinking as it concerned faith and justification was how a believer was purified. Ultimately, salvation was a spirituality that stressed the goal of the Christian life as the purification of the soul, in accordance with the principles implied in Titus 2:11-14. As we have seen, a definitive conversion was important, but the majority of early fathers stressed that God’s work in the life of a Christian was more a process than a point. Only through purification could a believer hope to apprehend God in this life and the next. Whereas later theology assigned purification to the sanctification of a believer, patristic theology made no functional difference between the two .... [T]he early fathers believed that God’s salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ meant providing a believer with the means to perceive God and thereby share in his divine life. That is, salvation was supposed to culminate in divine theosis or deification – becoming transformed according to God ... Protestants seeking to learn about the entire heritage of their faith should ponder seriously the way in which the earlier centuries of the Christian story and other parts of the Christain family, such as Eastern Orthodox, have expressed the wonder of God's salvation .... The Protestant principles of sola scriptura and sola fide do not themselves constitute orthodox Christianity, nor do they constitute the very heart of the historic Christian faith."
Now, if we keep the above all in mind when reading Hilary, we see he is not being inconsistent at all.
Cletus Van Damme wrote:
Delete"In RCism, there is the same standard for justification for all - the presence of sanctifying grace."
You're restating your earlier comments without interacting with my response.
You wrote:
"Hilary uses the term 'faith alone' - we agree. Now does he mean by it 'ongoing extra nos imputed forensic righteousness' or does he mean 'infused faith formed by charity'?"
I cited more than the phrase "faith alone", and I wasn't addressing imputed righteousness.
You wrote:
"Ongoing justification cannot happen without the root of initial justification."
Which doesn't address what I said. I explained why later stages of justification, under a Catholic understanding, and justification as a whole would be more significant.
You wrote:
"This is why when you say 'Hilary refers to how the workers in Matthew 20:7 were justified as a 'gift', 'freely', etc. apart from 'work rendered', an RC agrees just as Trent, CCC, ECT, JDDJ do."
You're assuming, without argument, that Hilary is addressing initial justification in that passage, and you're ignoring my arguments to the contrary. Just saying that such a passage could be read in a way consistent with Catholicism doesn't address the evidence as to which reading is more likely.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"'He seems to see faith as the root and works as the fruit, with the faith being what justifies.' Which Trent says. 'For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works', as the CCC and ECT Gift of Salvation document also echo."
Your Trent citation doesn't say that faith justifies while distinguishing between faith and works. Your claim that Trent agrees with Hilary is gratuitous, and the citation you produce fails to substantiate your claim. You then go on to mention the Catechism, with no documentation, and appeal to an Evangelicals And Catholics Together document, once again without documentation and without any explanation of why we should think the document represents Catholic teaching.
You wrote:
"And again, faith being what justifies is perfectly compatible with Benedict's affirmation of faith alone."
Benedict's comments are vague enough to allow works within his definition of faith. I've explained why that can't be done with the comments of Hilary under consideration here. To distinguish faith from the works it produces, and affirm that we're justified through that faith, is a contradiction of Catholic soteriology, not an affirmation of it.
You wrote:
"None of them are incompatible with a faith formed in charity and an infused righteousness given at initial justification."
That's a blanket denial that doesn't interact with my arguments. You keep telling us that Hilary's comments are consistent with Catholicism without demonstrating it and without interacting with the counterarguments.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"So then you just conclude he's being inconsistent, and in the same work no less."
I've explained why, and you aren't interacting with what I've said. Similarly, I consider Lutherans inconsistent when they affirm justification through faith alone and baptismal justification simultaneously. That sort of charge of inconsistency is commonplace. Arminians accuse Calvinists of being inconsistent, and Calvinists make the same charge against Arminians. Political parties accuse each other of being inconsistent in the application of their principles. You keep acting as though it's highly problematic to suggest that Hilary was inconsistent. But charges of inconsistency, in theology and elsewhere, are common. In the Matthew commentary we're discussing, Williams accuses Hilary of inconsistencies on various issues of Christology. I've explained why I think some of Hilary's observations about justification should have led him away from the view of baptism that he advocates in some places. You keep ignoring those explanations I've provided and keep repeating your incredulity at the suggestion that Hilary was inconsistent. Incredulity isn't an argument.
Even if we assumed, for the sake of argument, that Hilary was consistent where I think he was inconsistent, he'd still contradict Catholic soteriology, for reasons I've explained. It's not just that his comments relevant to initial justification are inconsistent with Catholicism. He also contradicts Catholicism in contexts that are clearly about more than initial justification.
You wrote:
"Williams also notes this about Hilary…This is all affirmed by RCism - it doesn't get you Protestant sola fide."
You keep stating conclusions that you haven't argued for. In the portion of your post I've quoted above, you've ignored my arguments, quoted a different passage from Williams, and asserted without argument that "This is all affirmed by RCism".
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"Which speaks to initial justification."
That's another assertion without a supporting argument. I've read multiple books by Williams, including the one you seem to be quoting, and his 2006 article on justification in the fathers. (You need to identify your sources rather than posting quotes without documentation.) Williams addresses far more than what you're calling initial justification. To quote the portions of his comments you've selected, and assert without argument that he's only referring to initial justification, isn't enough.
Williams' position is that there are multiple views of justification in the fathers, and that sola fide is one of them. I've corresponded with him on this subject, and he's confirmed that I'm correct in concluding that he sees sola fide in some of the fathers. He thinks it's found in Hilary, as I've documented. Here are some his comments that you didn't cite, from the same book you've quoted:
"The doctrine of justification by faith did not originate in the period of the Reformation, nor is the teaching a unique emblem of Protestantism. Evangelical scholars Timothy George and Thomas Oden have rightly observed that justification by faith was not a new teaching invented by the Reformers. Apart from New Testament documents, justification by faith finds its roots in the early church. Stated positively, the exegesis of justification by faith is a catholic and pre-Reformation teaching, and the Reformers themselves found precedents for this teaching in the early fathers, even as they went in new directions with these ideas." (Evangelicals And Tradition [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005], 129)
Here's something Timothy George wrote in an article Williams cites approvingly on the same page (n. 39):
"No doubt the confessional battles of the sixteenth century were shaped by the polemical exigencies of that age, but the doctrine of justification by faith alone was not a new teaching invented by the reformers."
Jason,
Delete"You're restating your earlier comments without interacting with my response."
I was interacting with your "Somebody who attains justification through baptism isn't being justified "in exactly the same way" as somebody who attains justification without baptism" statement.
"Which doesn't address what I said. I explained why later stages of justification, under a Catholic understanding, and justification as a whole would be more significant."
No, you just asserted ongoing justification is "more significant" than initial justification. That's like saying sanctification is more significant than regeneration in Calvinism because regeneration only happens in an instant.
"You're assuming, without argument, that Hilary is addressing initial justification in that passage, and you're ignoring my arguments to the contrary."
The issue is your arguments don't actually argue anything that shows any difference with Catholicism. Which is the point. All of Hilary's statements are compatible with RC soteriology. And if we assume RC soteriology, we see he his consistent across all his statements, whereas if we assume your soteriology, he as you admit is inconsistent.
"Your Trent citation doesn't say that faith justifies while distinguishing between faith and works. Your claim that Trent agrees with Hilary is gratuitous, and the citation you produce fails to substantiate your claim."
Your statement was "He seems to see faith as the root and works as the fruit, with the faith being what justifies." Trent's statement asserts faith justifies and is the root of our works which are the fruit. So your apparent contrast of his statement with non-Protestant views fails, as is the case with all your citations of him.
"You then go on to mention the Catechism, with no documentation, and appeal to an Evangelicals And Catholics Together document, once again without documentation and without any explanation of why we should think the document represents Catholic teaching."
The combox is limiting and I don't want to clutter unnecessarily. If you'd like me to produce citations from CCC/ECT saying works are fruit and faith is root, I can do so.
"Benedict's comments are vague enough to allow works within his definition of faith. I've explained why that can't be done with the comments of Hilary under consideration here."
You have not shown that Hilary's comments exclude a faith "not opposed to faith in charity, in love."
"To distinguish faith from the works it produces, and affirm that we're justified through that faith, is a contradiction of Catholic soteriology, not an affirmation of it."
Nope. Faith is given in initial justification which is unmerited - that infusion of faith, hope, and love is the root from which works spring - which is why merit only applies afterwards when one is already in a state of grace.
"You keep telling us that Hilary's comments are consistent with Catholicism without demonstrating it and without interacting with the counterarguments."
Your "counterarguments" haven't shown they are inconsistent with Catholicism. You keep assuming an erroneous view of RC justification, then arguing Hilary opposes that view. That's a strawman.
"I've explained why, and you aren't interacting with what I've said."
You've "explained" why based on assumptions you haven't proven.
(2/2 in reply)
Delete"You keep ignoring those explanations I've provided and keep repeating your incredulity at the suggestion that Hilary was inconsistent. Incredulity isn't an argument."
I'm repeating it because it is lazy to assume someone is inconsistent without strong proof. You haven't yet offered strong proof. Notice you say Williams asserts Hilary was inconsistent with his Christology, but apparently he does not assert he was inconsistent on his view on justification.
"Even if we assumed, for the sake of argument, that Hilary was consistent where I think he was inconsistent, he'd still contradict Catholic soteriology, for reasons I've explained."
Explanations based on strawmen understandings of Catholic theology, which is why I asked Do you think RCism denies publicans and prostitutes will be first in heaven? Or that the elect are not justified as a gift, freely, apart from works? Where do you get this notion that RCism is Pelagian or semi-Pelagian?
"That's another assertion without a supporting argument."
Here's the statement again - "Only by regeneration does the free gift of God avail the human condition. Moreover, the grace by which a believer is transformed is God's spontaneous, unconditional, and free gift." How regeneration and the grace of transformation does not actually mean regeneration or translation from one state to another escapes me.
"To quote the portions of his comments you've selected, and assert without argument that he's only referring to initial justification, isn't enough."
You ignored the most important point of the Williams citation:
"Making firm differentiations between justification and sanctification was not the essence of doctrinal discourse for them. More pertinent to the early church's thinking as it concerned faith and justification was how a believer was purified. Ultimately, salvation was a spirituality that stressed the goal of the Christian life as the purification of the soul, in accordance with the principles implied in Titus 2:11-14. As we have seen, a definitive conversion was important, but the majority of early fathers stressed that God’s work in the life of a Christian was more a process than a point. Only through purification could a believer hope to apprehend God in this life and the next. Whereas later theology assigned purification to the sanctification of a believer, patristic theology made no functional difference between the two .... [T]he early fathers believed that God’s salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ meant providing a believer with the means to perceive God and thereby share in his divine life. That is, salvation was supposed to culminate in divine theosis or deification – becoming transformed according to God ... Protestants seeking to learn about the entire heritage of their faith should ponder seriously the way in which the earlier centuries of the Christian story and other parts of the Christain family, such as Eastern Orthodox, have expressed the wonder of God's salvation .... The Protestant principles of sola scriptura and sola fide do not themselves constitute orthodox Christianity, nor do they constitute the very heart of the historic Christian faith."
No firm differentiation between justification and sanctification. Salvation as purification. More a process than a point. Share in his divine life. Salvation as theosis and deification. Sola fide not in of itself constituting historic heart of historic christian faith. That's why I said these thoughts are important to keep in mind when reading Hilary - in doing so, his statements do not entail inconsistency.
Cletus Van Damme wrote:
Delete"I was interacting with your 'Somebody who attains justification through baptism isn't being justified 'in exactly the same way' as somebody who attains justification without baptism' statement."
I knew what you were responding to. The problem is that you repeated your initial claim without interacting with my response to it. Restating your initial claim isn't equivalent to interacting with my response.
You wrote:
"No, you just asserted ongoing justification is 'more significant' than initial justification. That's like saying sanctification is more significant than regeneration in Calvinism because regeneration only happens in an instant."
Your second sentence contradicts the first one. If I cited the amount of time involved in each alleged phase of justification, then I didn't "just assert" that one phase is more significant than the other. Rather, I provided a reason for thinking so.
Your sanctification/regeneration analogy is faulty. Since sanctification isn't a means of justification in Calvinism, it substantially fails to parallel the second phase of justification in Roman Catholicism. In Catholicism, the second phase of justification not only covers far more time in the individual's life than initial justification does, but also is a means of justification in a manner in which sanctification isn't in Calvinism. Besides, Calvinists do give more attention to sanctification than regeneration. Calvinist books, web sites, radio programs, and such will often discuss regeneration, but much more attention is given to issues of the ongoing life of the regenerate. As I said before, the upfront likelihood is that Hilary of Poitiers would give much more attention to a second phase of justification or justification in general than he'd give to initial justification. The more often you appeal to the concept of initial justification to explain what Hilary said, the less likely your argument is.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"The issue is your arguments don't actually argue anything that shows any difference with Catholicism."
You need to demonstrate that, not just claim it. You keep giving us conclusions without any arguments that warrant those conclusions.
You wrote:
"All of Hilary's statements are compatible with RC soteriology."
Again, the issue is probability, not possibility. An interpretation of Hilary can be compatible with Catholic soteriology, yet be a less likely interpretation than an alternative that's inconsistent with Catholic soteriology. You have to address the probability of your interpretations of Hilary rather than just saying that it's possible to read him in a way that's consistent with Catholicism. And you can't address the probabilities without getting into the details of the text and context, as I've been doing.
You wrote:
"Trent's statement asserts faith justifies and is the root of our works which are the fruit."
Your Trent quotation doesn't even use the term "faith", much less does it distinguish faith from works and say that the faith so distinguished justifies.
You wrote:
"The combox is limiting and I don't want to clutter unnecessarily. If you'd like me to produce citations from CCC/ECT saying works are fruit and faith is root, I can do so."
The sort of documentation I'm asking for isn't so insignificant that it should be considered "cluttering unnecessarily". Much of what you're claiming or quoting is of a controversial nature. You ought to be providing more documentation. You shouldn't do something like quote D.H. Williams without providing page numbers or even mentioning what book or article you're quoting.
And you're moving the goal posts. I didn't just cite Hilary saying "works are fruit and faith is root". That notion would be consistent with being justified through works done in faith. What Hilary did, instead, was distinguish faith from works and say that the faith so distinguished justifies.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"You have not shown that Hilary's comments exclude a faith 'not opposed to faith in charity, in love.'"
Why would I have to?
You wrote:
"I'm repeating it because it is lazy to assume someone is inconsistent without strong proof. You haven't yet offered strong proof."
All it takes is a probability to justify a conclusion. The evidence doesn't have to qualify as "strong proof".
What you need to do is interact with the passages, phrases, contexts, and arguments I cited in my earliest posts in this thread, when I was making my initial case for sola fide in Hilary. You can't just ignore those details and issue unsubstantiated denials of my argument, assuring us all the while that everything Hilary said is compatible with Catholicism. If the term "lazy" should be applied to one of us, it's not me.
You wrote:
"Explanations based on strawmen understandings of Catholic theology, which is why I asked Do you think RCism denies publicans and prostitutes will be first in heaven?"
No, and that's irrelevant, since I didn't cite that phrase as an argument against Catholicism.
You wrote:
"Or that the elect are not justified as a gift, freely, apart from works? Where do you get this notion that RCism is Pelagian or semi-Pelagian?"
That's another straw man. I've explained why I don't accept the claim that Hilary was only addressing initial justification. And even by Catholicism's own choice of words, works are a means of justification after the initial phase of the process.
Who denies that Catholicism uses terms like "gift" and "free"? The issues to be addressed here are, first, how accurately Catholicism defines those terms and, second, how closely Catholic usage aligns with Hilary's. Among Catholics, the term "faith" is often used to refer to a combination of faith and works, the term "justified" is often used to refer to being initially justified, etc. You can't shoehorn Roman Catholicism into a source like Hilary by reading Catholic qualifications into terms that are more naturally taken in a non-Catholic sense.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"Here's the statement again - 'Only by regeneration does the free gift of God avail the human condition. Moreover, the grace by which a believer is transformed is God's spontaneous, unconditional, and free gift.' How regeneration and the grace of transformation does not actually mean regeneration or translation from one state to another escapes me."
You're moving the goal posts again. Your initial quote of Williams that I was responding to included more than the two sentences you've quoted above. I went on to address Williams' view in general, not just the two sentences you're now singling out.
You wrote:
"You ignored the most important point of the Williams citation"
You then repeat a citation of Williams that you posted earlier, once again without page numbers or even naming a book or article. The next time you post in this thread, if you're going to post again, you ought to start out by answering some questions:
1. Have you read Hilary's commentary on Matthew? If you haven't read the whole thing, how much of it have you read?
2. Have you read the book by Williams that you're apparently quoting? If you haven't read all of it, how much have you read?
I disagree with Williams on some points, but I've read a lot of what he's written. I've read all of Hilary's commentary, all of Williams' other book you seem to be quoting, another book he wrote, and his article I linked earlier, along with some of his other material. And I've corresponded with him about his view of justification in the fathers. I've also read other Protestant sources he cites approvingly on the subject, like Timothy George's article I linked earlier and a book by Thomas Oden. So, I have a good idea of what Hilary said, how Williams views Hilary in this context, and how Williams views other fathers. You're not refuting anything I've argued with your quotations of Williams.
You wrote:
"No firm differentiation between justification and sanctification. Salvation as purification. More a process than a point. Share in his divine life. Salvation as theosis and deification. Sola fide not in of itself constituting historic heart of historic christian faith. That's why I said these thoughts are important to keep in mind when reading Hilary - in doing so, his statements do not entail inconsistency."
I've cited some books and an article in which Williams discusses Hilary's views on justification. Instead of interacting with what he's said about Hilary in those places, you're mostly focusing on what Williams said about other subjects. And when you summarize what he said on those other matters, you leave out significant qualifications that he included. You're being evasive.
Jason (1/3),
Delete"The problem is that you repeated your initial claim without interacting with my response to it."
Once again, you said "Somebody who attains justification through baptism isn't being justified 'in exactly the same way' as somebody who attains justification without baptism". I am saying that they are justified in exactly the same way - that is by the presence of sanctifying grace. You then claim this is a "non-interaction".
"Rather, I provided a reason for thinking so."
Your reason is that one spans more time than another. If you want to say "ongoing justification spans more time than initial justification", that's fine, but it's not a very interesting point to make.
"but also is a means of justification in a manner in which sanctification isn't in Calvinism."
Ongoing justification cannot happen without initial justification.
"As I said before, the upfront likelihood is that Hilary of Poitiers would give much more attention to a second phase of justification or justification in general than he'd give to initial justification."
You've given no reason for this "upfront likelihood" except that "one phase lasts longer than the other". If the context calls for a focus on initial justification and entrance into salvation, then it's not suprising the author will be focusing on that - the NT writers didn't write about justification in the same way when addressing pagans/jews as they did when addressing believers. So what do we see in your citation? It talks about "he forgave sin, for which the Law was not able to grant absolution, since faith alone justifies .... For this reason publicans and prostitutes will be first in the Kingdom of heaven". You say "The Matthew 9 and 21 passages don't involve works on the part of the person in question." Which is all correct - these are speaking of entrance into salvation and contrasting it with law-keeping. Combine this with what Williams further says and cites from Hilary on Matthew (Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influence of the Early Church - pp. 135-136) below:
(2/3 in reply)
Delete"By not having faith, those who follow the law lose what they have of the law (XIII.2). Hilary often contrasts the legalism of unbelief and unworthiness with salvific faith. The former is a salvation of works that leads to unbelief and even animosity toward faith, whereas those who have no achievement to their credit are prepared to realize that "salvation is entirely by faith" (XI.10) (footnote: ... The pagans, on the other hand, are justified by the entry of salvation and it is "for their sakes [the Lord] is come" (XXI.2)...) .... Of course, if justice had come from the law, forgiveness through grace would not have been necessary (IX.2)."
"This fact was vividly demonstrated, just as Origen had acknowledged, by the thief on the cross who was saved only by a justification by faith. Salvation lies only in the goodness of God, a goodness that Hilary calls "the perfect gift" (XV.10). We are "made alive through the grace of the Spirit whose gift comes ... through faith" (XV.10). The parable of the workers in the vineyard illustrates for Hilary that salvation is completely God's gift (Matt 20:1-16). The workers hired at the eleventh hour of the day received the same wages as those hired in the morning. The remuneration for the former demonstrates that it was not based on the merit of their labor. Rather, "God has freely granted his grace to all through justification by faith" (XX.7). This was the only means, Hilary says, by which the pagans (Gentiles) were saved." They were the last ones "hired" by the owner of the vineyard yet the first to receive renumeration. 'When it began to get late, the workers of the evening hour were the first to obtain the payment of the resurrection determined for an entire day's work. The resurrection is in no way based on the payment, because it was owed for work rendered, but God has freely granted his grace to everyone by the justification of faith ... God bestows the gift of grace by faith on those who believe, either first or last.' (XX.7 - footnote: In this one section, Hilary emphasizes three times the unmerited gift of grace by the justification of faith)"
Hilary and Williams is saying the grace of justification by faith is given not according to merit or works, but gratuitously. That's the point of the vineyard parable and Hilary's comment on it and the Matt 9 and 21 passages - it is not Jews who worked so hard to keep the law who received the grace of justification by virtue of that but instead gentiles and sinners (publicans and prostitutes) who were given the grace. Hilary's entire focus is about entering salvation and coming to justification, not life after regeneration. His prostitute remark does not entail he thinks those continuing to live as prostitutes are justified. His focus is that justification is not merited by prior law-keeping or works - that's why he uses "alone". That does not entail he means faith alone that is a faith devoid or apart from charity or one that excludes baptism (which you contend makes him inconsistent) - he is excluding works of the law.
(3/4 in reply)
Delete"Your Trent quotation doesn't even use the term "faith", much less does it distinguish faith from works and say that the faith so distinguished justifies."
Trent again: "For, whereas Jesus Christ Himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified,-as the head into the members, and the vine into the branches,-and this virtue always precedes and accompanies and follows their good works"
"Said justified" - are you contending "said justified" in Trent does not entail justified by faith? This is silly to dismiss statements because they don't explicitly spell out terms as you like. But to indulge you, I'll add further context:
"But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace."
Again we see nothing in Hilary that contradicts that, as you contended.
"What Hilary did, instead, was distinguish faith from works and say that the faith so distinguished justifies."
Right. Which doesn't get you Protestant sola fide over RCism.
"Why would I have to?"
Because RCism affirms that. And you are positing Hilary as contradicting RCism.
"No, and that's irrelevant, since I didn't cite that phrase as an argument against Catholicism."
Okay, so your citation of Hilary to demonstrate he contradicts RCism wasn't a citation against Catholicism.
"You can't shoehorn Roman Catholicism into a source like Hilary by reading Catholic qualifications into terms that are more naturally taken in a non-Catholic sense. "
There's no shoehorning going on. Your shoehorning is what leads to your conclusion that he's inconsistent, my position does not.
(4/4 in reply)
Delete"You're moving the goal posts again."
No, here is the exchange again:
"Me citing Williams: 'Hilary was the first Christian theologian to formulate explicitly what Paul left implicit by referring to God's work of graces as "fides sola iustificat" ... Yet it was not his intention to elaborate on an overall scheme of salvation but to explain how the pagans came to share legitimately in the covenant originally given to Israel ... [For Hilary] Only by regeneration does the free gift of God avail the human condition. Moreover, the grace by which a believer is transformed is God's spontaneous, unconditional, and free gift.'
Which speaks to initial justification.
You: That's another assertion without a supporting argument.
Me: Here's the statement again - "Only by regeneration does the free gift of God avail the human condition. Moreover, the grace by which a believer is transformed is God's spontaneous, unconditional, and free gift." How regeneration and the grace of transformation does not actually mean regeneration or translation from one state to another escapes me."
That's the supporting argument - I pulled out what was most germane since apparently it did not register initially.
"Instead of interacting with what he's said about Hilary in those places, you're mostly focusing on what Williams said about other subjects"
That citation directly follows his analysis of Hilary and the early church. You just dismiss it as "well he wrote other things" and then complain about non-interaction. I'll let the irony sink in. Nothing I've argued or cited contradicts what you've presented from him in ostensible support of your view. Your analysis, however, does.
Cletus Van Damme wrote:
Delete"I am saying that they are justified in exactly the same way - that is by the presence of sanctifying grace. You then claim this is a 'non-interaction'."
Because you didn't interact with the point I made in response, namely that two things can be the same in one sense while being different in another. Protestants who say that Roman Catholicism allows for exceptions to its normative means of justification aren't denying that "the presence of sanctifying grace" is involved in both scenarios. Rather, they're saying that there are differences that accompany that similarity. If Protestants are addressing those differences, it makes no sense to respond by saying that the similarity proves that there aren't any differences.
You wrote:
"If you want to say 'ongoing justification spans more time than initial justification', that's fine, but it's not a very interesting point to make."
So, you're now acknowledging that you were wrong when you suggested that I "just asserted" a difference without arguing for it. But you dismiss my argument as "not a very interesting point". You keep giving us your opinions without arguing for them. You haven't explained why the fact that one phase of justification in Catholicism covers a far lengthier portion of life than the other "isn't very interesting".
You wrote:
"Ongoing justification cannot happen without initial justification."
You made the comment above in response to something I said about a contrast between Catholicism and Calvinism. Your response doesn't even address Calvinism. I don't see how your response is relevant to what I said.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"If the context calls for a focus on initial justification and entrance into salvation, then it's not suprising the author will be focusing on that"
You're changing the subject. I repeatedly explained that I was addressing an upfront probability, not one discerned by examining each context.
And it's not as though you've demonstrated that Hilary's context was about initial justification in all of the relevant passages.
You wrote:
"Which is all correct - these are speaking of entrance into salvation and contrasting it with law-keeping."
You haven't demonstrated that only "entrance into salvation" is being addressed, and I gave you examples of passages in Hilary that can't be limited in that manner. You keep ignoring what I documented.
Even where Hilary is addressing somebody who's becoming a Christian, as with the paralytic in Matthew 9, you've provided no argument that Hilary's assessment that "faith alone justifies" should be taken to mean "faith alone initially justifies". You're adding a qualifier where one isn't suggested. Hilary could have the multi-phase justification system of Roman Catholicism in mind, but you'd have to argue for that conclusion rather than just assuming it. It's more natural to take "justifies" as meaning justification in general, not just some initial phase of justification. Whether justification involves such a phase is an issue under dispute, so you can't just assume that an unqualified reference to justification has that concept of initial justification in view.
You've also provided no argument that "faith alone" should be taken as "faith and baptism" in a context like Matthew 9, where the paralytic wasn't justified through baptism or in other contexts in which Hilary can't be including baptism for other reasons (e.g., when he describes the means of justification as something that occurs within the mind). What you're doing is gratuitously asserting that "faith alone justifies" means "faith and baptism initially justify".
Furthermore, I've already documented that Hilary is excluding more than "law-keeping" in the sense in which you're using that term. When he makes unqualified references to "works", "obedience", what occurs outside of a person's mind, etc. when describing what he's excluding as a means of justification, it doesn't make sense to claim that he's only excluding the keeping of the Jewish law.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"Hilary and Williams is saying the grace of justification by faith is given not according to merit or works, but gratuitously. That's the point of the vineyard parable and Hilary's comment on it and the Matt 9 and 21 passages - it is not Jews who worked so hard to keep the law who received the grace of justification by virtue of that but instead gentiles and sinners (publicans and prostitutes) who were given the grace. Hilary's entire focus is about entering salvation and coming to justification, not life after regeneration."
The parable of Matthew 20:1-16 is taken by Hilary to show not just the exclusion of works of the Jewish law, but works in general. He includes the Jewish law in his discussion, but he also refers to works done under pre-Mosaic timeframes (20:6) and work that's done for payment, which can't be about the Jewish law (20:7). When Hilary first refers to "the Law" in 20:5 in Williams' translation, Williams cites a passage from Tertullian in a footnote. He explains that Tertullian is referring to "a universal law that God gave to all nations, starting with Adam, and that later took the form of the Mosaic law" (n. 34 on 210-1). Apparently, he thinks Hilary has a similar concept in mind. So, we can't assume that the Jewish law is in view every time Hilary refers to "the Law". As I noted above, Hilary goes on to repeatedly make references to works that clearly aren't limited to the Jewish law. He's addressing works in general.
Besides, it's not just a matter of what Hilary excludes. It's also a matter of what he includes. If he only mentions faith as justificatory, then he's contradicting Catholicism. The idea that "faith" means "faith and baptism and the works that follow it" is a less natural way of taking the text, to put it mildly.
The parable in Matthew 20 isn't about initial justification. Jewish opponents of the gospel, for example, weren't just arguing that they were initially justified through keeping the Jewish law. Hilary is addressing more than just some initial phase of justification. The parable in Matthew 20 includes the day of judgment, when the landowner summons the workers and pays them. (See the closing phrase "the last shall be first", etc. in verse 16, which is eschatological language in 19:30.) Hilary says that the eleventh hour in the parable (Matthew 20:6) is when pagans accept the gospel and begin living as Christians (see 20:7 in Hilary's commentary), and he views the parable as covering the whole of history leading up to the second coming (20:6). To limit the parable and Hilary's comments on it to initial justification is perverse. Issues like trying to be justified through the Jewish law and other laws, how people live throughout history, and how we'll be evaluated on the day of judgment aren't just about initial justification.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"His prostitute remark does not entail he thinks those continuing to live as prostitutes are justified."
Justification through faith alone doesn't exclude regeneration, repentance, God's sanctifying those he justifies, etc. A small minority of people hold a form of sola fide that includes prostitutes "continuing to live as prostitutes", but that's not mainstream Protestantism, historically or in the modern world.
You wrote:
"'Said justified' - are you contending 'said justified' in Trent does not entail justified by faith? "
I'm saying that your (still undocumented) Trent citation includes more than faith, and it does so in a context in which Hilary included only faith. Hilary distinguished faith from works, in a context about the day of judgment, and said that we're justified through that faith so distinguished. By contrast, your Trent citation didn't even mention the term "faith", and the second Trent citation you just added includes works rather than singling out faith in the relevant context (contrary to what Hilary did). Trent refers to faith as "the root" of justification, and goes on to include works as one of the means of justification, rather than saying that we're justified through a faith that's distinguished from works.
You wrote:
"'What Hilary did, instead, was distinguish faith from works and say that the faith so distinguished justifies.' Right. Which doesn't get you Protestant sola fide over RCism."
You don't explain why we should think so. You keep giving us your conclusions without arguments that warrant the conclusions.
You wrote:
"Because RCism affirms that."
If Catholicism affirms "a faith not opposed to faith in charity, in love", as you put it earlier, then that's something Catholics and Protestants agree about. So, your comment that I haven't shown that Hilary excluded that concept is irrelevant.
You wrote:
"Okay, so your citation of Hilary to demonstrate he contradicts RCism wasn't a citation against Catholicism."
As if every phrase or sentence cited must contradict Catholicism in order for the citation as a whole to do so. I never stated or implied that.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"That's the supporting argument - I pulled out what was most germane since apparently it did not register initially."
Since Williams addresses more than what you call initial justification elsewhere, as I've demonstrated (e.g., his treatment of Hilary's comments on the parable of Matthew 20:1-16), you can't prove that he was only addressing initial justification by pulling out the two sentences you wanted to focus on.
When Williams refers, elsewhere, to how "it was not his [Hilary's] intention to elaborate on an overall scheme of salvation", I hope you're not taking that as evidence that Williams is only addressing initial justification. For one thing, referring to "intentions" and "elaborations" doesn't deny that Hilary addresses the issues in question to some extent. And the next paragraph (on page 136 of the book you cited) goes on to discuss original sin as something Hilary "did not articulate", though he "anticipated" it. That seems to be the sort of thing Williams has in mind when he comments that "it was not his [Hilary's] intention to elaborate on an overall scheme of salvation". Williams doesn't deny that Hilary discussed more than initial justification.
You wrote:
"That citation directly follows his analysis of Hilary and the early church. You just dismiss it as 'well he wrote other things' and then complain about non-interaction."
No, I also said that your summary of the passage you quoted from Williams left out qualifiers that he included. And the "other things" Williams wrote include affirmations of sola fide in Hilary and other fathers. One of the places where he made those affirmations was in his interactions with me through email, when I asked him for clarification about his views. I explained that earlier, and I cited other places where Williams has made similar comments. For you to quote his comments about the fathers in general, single out and misrepresent the portions you like most, and ignore what you don't like in Williams' comments there and elsewhere is ridiculous.
I noticed that you didn't tell us how much of Hilary's work and Williams' book you had read. You also continue to avoid addressing most of my arguments for sola fide in Hilary in my earliest posts in this thread. You continue to be evasive. You're wasting everybody's time.
This "analysis" of Hilary leaves much to be desired. I see a few random verses "quoted" without any context, but as has been pointed out already the mere use of the phrase "faith alone" amounts to nothing significant if the theology/soteriology behind that phrase isn't being tracked as well. The charge of "inconsistency" is somewhat naive, because it's far more likely you're not understanding what the source is saying than the source being blatantly contradictory. There's a big difference between being inconsistent and being blatantly contradictory. To say faith alone justifies one moment and say works also justify the next moment is a contradiction as blatant as simultaneously affirming monotheism and polytheism.
ReplyDeleteOne of my biggest frustrations with Jason is that he routinely fails to go beyond the surface level, which means the discussion turns more into word games than actual constructive dialog. For example, Jason doesn't even stop to consider what "works" mean in the contexts he quotes, and yet there's some pretty clear evidence in his first example that the "works" in question are "works of the Law" (not any and all works under any and all circumstances). His second example from Matthew 21 doesn't even stop to consider the context or meaning of what was being said. Notice that the brief quote Jason gives suggests that the son who said "Yes" but did NOT obey the father was a model of justification by faith alone...seriously? Or was it the son who said "No" to the father who was the model of justification by faith alone? The parable is about the New Covenant at the advent of John the Baptist, not a faith-vs-works parable. In fact, I'll bet Hilary mentions baptism here in connection with "John came in the way of righteousness" (v32). The third (and final) "proof" doesn't really say anything about faith alone justifying.
Nick writes:
Delete"This 'analysis' of Hilary leaves much to be desired. I see a few random verses 'quoted' without any context, but as has been pointed out already the mere use of the phrase 'faith alone' amounts to nothing significant if the theology/soteriology behind that phrase isn't being tracked as well."
Hilary didn't write in verses. What verses are you referring to? And my quotations from him are accurate, so I don't know why you've put quotation marks around "quoted". I also don't know why you think my quotations were random, since they were all about justification, which was the topic of my post. I didn't just cite the phrase "faith alone". I also discussed the significance of the phrase and its context, and I cited other evidence to support my conclusions. You're ignoring the large majority of what I wrote.
If you want more of Hilary's context, you can read his commentary for yourself. That's not my responsibility. If you'd read the commentary yourself, maybe you wouldn't keep making inaccurate comments like:
"Notice that the brief quote Jason gives suggests that the son who said 'Yes' but did NOT obey the father was a model of justification by faith alone...seriously? Or was it the son who said 'No' to the father who was the model of justification by faith alone? The parable is about the New Covenant at the advent of John the Baptist, not a faith-vs-works parable. In fact, I'll bet Hilary mentions baptism here in connection with 'John came in the way of righteousness' (v32)."
Your reasoning is faulty on multiple levels. The issue is what Hilary said about the Biblical passage in question, not what the Biblical passage meant in its original context or whether I agree with how Hilary identifies the two sons in the parable. I've cited Hilary's comments accurately.
You then tell us what you "bet" Hilary goes on to say. You don't look it up. You just tell us what you "bet". And you refer to whether Hilary "mentions baptism", as if that's relevant to my argument.
You engage in all of this misrepresentation, speculation, and raising of irrelevancies, yet you criticize me for supposedly being "surface level" in my analysis. Unlike you, I've read Hilary's entire commentary. Unlike you, I've cited passages from it and have argued for my reading of it in far more depth than you've gone into. Unlike you, the patristic scholar who translated Hilary's work into English and edited it agrees with me that justification through faith alone is found in Hilary.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
DeleteYou wrote:
"For example, Jason doesn't even stop to consider what 'works' mean in the contexts he quotes, and yet there's some pretty clear evidence in his first example that the 'works' in question are 'works of the Law' (not any and all works under any and all circumstances)."
So says Nick, who apparently hasn't read Hilary's commentary and is speculating about what he "bets" is in it and what he can gather from my quotations of it, telling us what he thinks I've failed to "consider".
You refer to what "works" means in Hilary. My first citation of him doesn't use that term. It refers to "the Law", but I wasn't citing the passage with regard to what it says about works or the Law. I explained my purpose in citing the passage, and you're ignoring what I said. And the fact that the Law is referred to in one context doesn't tell us what "works" is referring to in another context that's far removed. The fact that Hilary refers to the Law in 8:6 doesn't suggest that he has the Law in mind when he refers to works in 27:8 and elsewhere. To the contrary, it wouldn't make sense to interpret the works of 27:8 as only the Law or some subset of it, since the passage is about good works in general on the day of judgment.
You complain that "This 'analysis' of Hilary leaves much to be desired.", and you refer to how "frustrating" and "surface level" I am. Would you prefer that I comment on Hilary without having read his work, "bet" on what he says in a work I haven't read, and go on to repeatedly misrepresent his work and what other people have said about it?