Pages

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The Perils of Pauline

Predictably enough, Francis Beckwith tries to roll out the Jacobean artillery against the Protestant doctrine of sola fide. Cf. Return to Rome, 104f.

We’re treated to an extremely cursory discussion of the Protestant position. But that’s not the only problem. He doesn’t bother to interact with Catholic scholarship. However, Catholic exegesis has come a long ways since the Counter-Reformation. I’ll quote from the standard Catholic commentary on Romans, followed by the standard Catholic commentary on James:

“Consequently, this uprightness does not belong to human beings (10:3), and it is not something that they have produced or merited; it is an alien uprightness, one belonging rightly to another (to Christ), and attributed to them because of what that other has done for them. So Paul understands God ‘justifying the godless’ (4:5) or ‘crediting uprightness’ to human beings quite ‘apart from deeds’ (4:6; see Käsemann, Kertele, Lyonnet, Reumann, Schlatter, Schultz),” J. Fitzmyer, Romans (Doubleday 1993), 117-18.

“[3:28] But his [Paul’s] emphasis falls on pistei, ‘by faith,’ as Kuss, Bardenhewer, and Sickenberger recognize. That emphasis and the qualification ‘apart from deeds of (the) law’ show that in this context Paul means ‘by faith alone.’ Only faith appropriates God’s effective declaration of uprightness for human beings,” ibid. 363.

“How should the critical passage in James 2:18-26 be read in comparison to the Pauline discussion? The first thing to note is that James’ understanding of nomos, as I have already twice stated, has nothing whatever to do with the issues Paul is combating. James does not connect nomos to any sort of ‘works,’ much less those concerning circumcision or the ritual laws. Second, James is entirely in agreement with Paul on placing pistis, epangelia, and kleronomia in the same column (James 2:5). Third, James places in opposition an empty pistis theou (‘faith in God’) or pistis Christou (‘the faith of Christ’), which consists in profession or claim to membership (2:1,19), and the living ergo pisteos (‘works of faith’), which make such profession real. Forth, Abraham is an example precisely of this ‘active faith’ by his sacrifice of his son Isaac (2:21). Fifth, this ergon pisteos is itself ‘co-worked by faith’ (synergei) and perfects faith,’ that is, brings faith to its full realization in deed (2:22). Sixth, the action of Abraham in Gen 22:2-9 is read by James as the textual ‘fulfillment’ of the declaration by God in Gen 15:6 that Abraham’s faith made him to be reckoned as righteous (2:23). Finally, James’ climactic statement, ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon (‘a person is shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds and not on the basis of faith only,’ 2:24), which superficially appears to contradict Gal 2:16, does nothing of the sort, for the terms in the respective sentences have quite different referents,” L. Johnson, The Letter of James (Yale 2005), 63.

“[2:20] There is no reason to read this statement as a response to such Pauline passages as Rom 3:28: ‘We maintain that a human beings is made righteous by faith apart from (choris) the works of the law (erga tou nomou),’ because that contrast is simply not at issue here. Rather, James’ contrast is between mere faith as belief and faith as a full response to God,” ibid. 242.

“[2:21] The hardest term to translate here is dikaioun, primarily because of its frequent use by Paul in contexts opposing righteousness by faith and ‘works of the law’ (Rom 2:13; 3:4,20,24,26,28,30; 4:2,5; 5:1,9; 8:30,33; Gal 2:16-17; 3:8,11,24) and the complex use of the verb and its cognates in the OT (e.g., LXX Gen 38:26; Exod 23:7; Deut 25:1; Pss 50:6; 81:3; 142:2; Sir 1:22). The precise meaning in each case must be determined by context, not some general theological concept. Given the previous statement demanding the demonstration of faith, the translation here as ‘shown to be righteous’ seems appropriate (see Hort, 63, ‘appear righteous in God’s sight,’ and Marty, 104, ‘God sanctions his righteousness’). The meaning would be similar to such NT passages as Mt 11:19; 12:37; and 1 Cor 4:4. The phrase ex ergon (literally, ‘out of works’) has the sense of ‘on the basis of deeds,’ meaning that the deeds make his righteousness manifest. At first glance, the sentence appears flatly to contradict Paul’s argument concerning the righteousness of Abraham on the basis of faith rather than works (Gal 2:16; 3:5-6; 3:24; Rom 4:2), until we remember that in Paul’s case, the contrast is with ‘works of the law’ (including circumcision), whereas in James it is with a pistis arge (ineffectual faith),” ibid. 242.

Therefore, even based on modern Catholic exegesis, the Protestant doctrine of justification is entirely consistent with Paul and James alike.

12 comments:

  1. Catholics teach that...
    SCRIPTURE ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT

    Arguments between Catholics and Protestants on this matter even resemble the ones between freethinkers and conservative Protestants over the question of inerrancy, and may help some Protestants grow a bit more moderate, even a bit more agnostic. See these articles for instance:

    Ecclesiastical Authority in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition
    by James Roger Black, Ph.D. in "Ancient Religions of the Eastern Mediterranean"

    The headings in Dr. Black's paper include:

    "Scripture alone is not a sufficient guide to faith and practice...

    "Scripture is not self-defining...

    "Scripture is not self-authenticating...

    "Scripture is not self-interpreting...

    "The Reformation principle of 'sola scriptura' -- i.e., reliance on 'Scripture alone' -- is not taught in Scripture itself, was not held by the early Church...

    "The commonly cited biblical proofs of sola scriptura do not actually teach what they are alleged to teach...

    "Both Jesus and the Apostles made use of -- and even appealed to the authority of -- the oral traditions, deuterocanonical and extracanonical writings, and varying textual recensions of their day."

    See Black's article for the examples he cites beneath each heading. And see Dave Armstrong's articles as well:

    Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

    The Perspicuity ("Clearness") of Scripture

    The Old Testament, the Ancient Jews, and Sola Scriptura

    Are All the Biblical Books "Self-Attesting" and Self-Evidently Inspired?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Booklist:

    Inerrancy-Xn vs. Xn

    And you as a Protestant think the Catholics have problems!

    Ed deistic/agnostic Babinski

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ed Babinski,

    1. How do you think your posts are relevant to the subject Steve was addressing?

    2. If the posts only have a distant relevance, how often do you interact with responses to your posts that have so little relevance to what you were discussing?

    3. Since you usually don't interact with people's responses to your posts here, why should anybody interact with your responses to Steve?

    4. Should we interpret your changing of the subject as an admission that Steve is correct about the subject he was addressing?

    5. Given how often the material you post or link here is erroneous, why should anybody take the time to read the articles you've linked based on the credibility of your recommendation?

    6. If you expect us to interact with so many articles, here's an archive of many of our articles related to Roman Catholicism. Here and here are some archives of many of our articles related to the evidence for Christianity. As you would put it, "And you as a deist/agnostic think the Protestants have problems!"

    ReplyDelete
  4. EDWARD T. BABINSKI SAID:

    "And you as a Protestant think the Catholics have problems!"

    Since I deal with challenges to inerrancy on a regular basis, this is burnt over ground.

    As a matter of fact, I've read a number of the books on your wish list, and have also commented on not a few of them. Try again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Edward T. Babinski said...

    "And see Dave Armstrong's articles as well."

    One of Armstrong's problems is that he's poor. As a result, he's too cash-strapped to buy books. In particular, he doesn't read standard Catholic and Evangelical literature. He's dependent on whatever he can glean from the internet.

    He doesn't keep up with the best of evangelical scholarship, and, what is almost worse, he doesn't keep up with the best of Catholic scholarship.

    The internet has some good material, but you also have to invest in good books. Dave relies on a whole lot of dated, second-rate material.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You quote Fitzmyer: "That emphasis and the qualification 'apart from deeds of (the) law' show that in this context Paul means 'by faith alone.' Only faith appropriates God's effective declaration of uprightness for human beings."

    This sounds like a clear admission that Scripture teaches that justification is by faith alone. How has Fitzmyer's commentary (or at least this portion of it) been received by Roman Catholics in general?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve and Jason can answer for themselves, but my experience has been:

    1. Catholics will write this off as "private interpretation." (Of course, then they have to contend with the problem that Rome hasn't infallibly exegeted these texts anyway.).

    2. Catholics often write him off as a "liberal" without offering a counterargument.


    Both are easy ways, in their minds, of sidestepping exegeting these texts themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In reference to Carl Trueman helping him become RC and even broaching the subject of Fitzmyer, Beckwith states this and more:

    I am all too familiar with enthusiastic Christians, both Protestants and Catholics, who read not to learn, but rather to find talking points to provide ammo for their heresy hunting.

    Interesting?

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  9. D. A. Carson once wrote an article in which he footnoted a conversation he had with Fitzmyer on the disconnect between Fitzmyer's commentary and official RC dogma. Fitzmyer mentioned something about church politics.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve,

    Is this it?

    34When pressed on this point, Fitzmyer offered some helpful remarks on the workings that develop such documents in the Catholic Church (and that should probably not be repeated here). All of us appreciated his acute analysis. But although this explains in part the political machinery of Catholicism, it does not address the point I am raising. 35 S. Keenan, Doctrinal Catechism (Boston: Patrick Donahoe, 1852) 138-139. source

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, Mark, you've got it!

    ReplyDelete
  12. In the same article, Carson says: "First, although all confessional Catholics are conscience-bound to adhere to the Catechism, some write in terms that seem (to this outsider) to adopt a stance that does not easily cohere with the Catechism. Earlier I cited extensively from Fitzmyer's commentary on Romans. He attended the discussion. Few informed Protestants would want to disagree with his exegesis of those passages that were discussed. What is harder for an evangelical to fathom is precisely how the same mind can produce such exegesis and adhere to the new Catechism."

    ReplyDelete