Catholics believe in Jesus Christ and His all-sufficient saving work on the cross (ours to receive by Grace Alone), just as Protestants do. We only deny an extreme Faith Alone position (which does not deny Grace Alone, since they are distinct).<\/p>\n St. Paul opposes grace and\/or faith to works in Scripture, only in a particular sense: the \u201cworks\u201d of Jewish ritualism by which the Jews gained their unique identity (e.g., circumcision). This is the crux of the\u00a0new perspective on Paul<\/a>, by Protestant scholars like\u00a0James D. G. Dunn<\/a>,\u00a0E. P. Sanders<\/a>, and\u00a0N. T. Wright<\/a>.\u00a0 The Wikipedia article on the movement gives a description of the central motif:<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s letters contain a substantial amount of criticism of \u201cworks of the law\u201d. The radical difference in these two interpretations of what Paul meant by \u201cworks of the law\u201d is the most consistent distinguishing feature between the two perspectives. The old perspective interprets this phrase as referring to human effort to do good works in order to meet God\u2019s standards (Works Righteousness<\/a>). In this view, Paul is arguing against the idea that humans can merit salvation from God by their good works (note the New Perspective agrees that we cannot merit salvation- the issue is what exactly Paul is addressing).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n By contrast, new perspective scholars see Paul as talking about \u201cbadges of covenant membership\u201d or criticizing Gentile believers who had begun to rely on the Torah to reckon Jewish kinship.<\/p>\n The Apostle Paul doesn\u2019t oppose grace, faith, and works, and in fact, constantly puts them together, in harmony, as I have shown, with 50 of his passages and color-coding, to make it easy to spot each conceptual category. A few examples:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 15:10<\/span>\u00a0But\u00a0by the grace of God<\/span>\u00a0I am what I am, and\u00a0his grace toward me<\/span>\u00a0was not in vain. On the contrary,\u00a0I worked harder than any of them<\/span>, though it was not I, but the\u00a0grace of God<\/span>\u00a0which is\u00a0with<\/span>\u00a0me.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 2 Corinthians 6:1<\/span>\u00a0Working together with him<\/span>, then, we entreat you not to accept the\u00a0grace of God<\/span>\u00a0in vain.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Grace and works are for Paul, quite hand-in-hand, just as faith and works are. The new perspective on Paul \u201cgets\u201d this. I\u2019m glad to see it. We Catholics have maintained something like this for 2000 years, and have refused to dichotomize grace, works, and faith. We only pit grace against works insofar as we deny (with Protestants) Pelagianism: man cannot save himself. Trent is very clear on that. We\u00a0don\u2019t<\/i>\u00a0teach works-salvation (we vigorously deny it), despite what the Lutheran confessions, Calvin, etc. wrongly (and frequently) assert about us.<\/p>\n Scripture\u00a0doesn\u2019t\u00a0<\/i>teach faith alone at all; thus the fathers do not, either. In fact, the only time the phrase appears in the Bible, it is expressly\u00a0denied<\/i>:<\/p>\n James 2:24<\/b>\u00a0You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul states:<\/p>\n Romans 3:28<\/b>\u00a0For we hold that a man is justified by\u00a0<\/b>faith apart from works of law. (cf. 3:20; 3:24: \u201cjustified by his grace as a gift\u201d)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But saying \u201cjustified by faith\u201d is different from saying\u00a0 \u201cjustified by faith\u00a0alone<\/i>\u201c. The \u201cworks of the law\u201d he refers to here are not all works, but things like circumcision. In other words, we are saved apart from Jewish rituals required under Mosaic Law. Paul makes clear that this is what he has in mind, in referencing circumcision in 3:1, asking rhetorically, \u201cAre we Jews any better off? No, not at all\u201d (3:9), multiple references to \u201cthe law\u201d (3:19-21, 28, 31), and the following statement:<\/p>\n Romans 3:29-30<\/b>\u00a0Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [30] since God is one; and he will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul is not against all \u201cworks\u201d\u00a0per se<\/i>; he tied them directly to salvation, after all, in the previous chapter:<\/p>\n Romans 2:6-8\u00a0<\/b>For\u00a0he will render to every man according to his works<\/i>: [7] to those who\u00a0by patience in well-doing<\/i>\u00a0seek for glory and honor and immortality,\u00a0he will give eternal life<\/i>; [8] but for those who are factious and do not\u00a0obey\u00a0<\/i>the truth, but\u00a0obey<\/i>\u00a0wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.(cf. 2:13: \u201cthe\u00a0doers of the law who will be justified\u201d)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Romans 4:5<\/b>\u00a0And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Catholic interpretation is similar in many ways to the Lutheran; different in some other ways. Here is what the\u00a0Navarre Commentary\u00a0<\/i>states about this passage:<\/p>\n The act of faith is the first step towards obtaining justification (= salvation). The Magisterium of the Church teaches that, usually, those who are making their way towards faith predispose themselves in this sense: moved and helped by divine grace they freely direct themselves towards God because they believe in the truth of Revelation and, above all, believe that God, in his grace, justifies the sinner \u201cthrough the redemption which is in Christ Jesus\u201d (Rom 3:24). This first act of faith moves the person to recognize and repent of his sins; to put his trust in God\u2019s mercy and to love him above all things; and to desire the sacraments and resolve to live a holy life (cf. Council of Trent,\u00a0De iustificatione<\/i>, chap. 6). God reckons this faith \u201cas righteousness,\u201d that is to say, as something which deserves to be rewarded.\u00a0It is not, therefore, good works that lead to justification; rather, justification renders works good and meritorious of eternal life<\/b>. Faith opens up for us new perspectives. [bolding my own]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Paul uses the example of Abraham in Romans 4, in emphasizing faith, over against the Jewish works of circumcision as a supposed means of faith and justification (hence, he mentions circumcision in 4:9-12, and salvation to the Gentiles as well as Jews in 4:13-18).<\/p>\n Regular contributor to my blog, \u201cAdomnan\u201d offered some very helpful commentary on Romans 4:5:<\/p>\n . . . \u201cthe one who does not work but believes \u2014 I would translate \u201cbelieves\u201d rather than \u201ctrusts\u201d here \u2014 him who justifies the ungodly\u201d is not a generalization about all who believe, but refers specifically to Abraham. Paul sees Abraham at this point as typical of all Gentiles who believe, or perhaps as their exemplar or \u201cfather.\u201d However, Abraham is the sole person being spoken of.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n [Dave\u2019s note:<\/i>\u00a0\u201ctrusts\u201d in RSV for Romans 4:5 is\u00a0pisteuo<\/i>\u00a0(Strong\u2019s word #4100),\u00a0 which is translated in the KJV \u201cbelieve\u201d or \u201cbeliever\u201d (1) or \u201cbelieving\u201d (1) 238 times out of\u00a0 246 total appearances, or 97% of the time (\u201ctrust\u201d also a few times) ]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n When Paul says that Abraham \u201cdoes not work,\u201d he isn\u2019t saying that Abraham has not done good works. In fact, Abraham had been justified since he responded to God\u2019s self-revelation in Ur and had done many good works worthy of being reckoned as righteous. Romans 4:5 is describing but one instance of a good work (an act of faith) that was reckoned as righteous.<\/p>\n In context, \u201cdoes not work\u201d means \u201cis not doing the works of the Law:\u201d that is, Abraham has not yet been circumcised and is still a Gentile. He does not do works of Jewish Law, works of Torah.<\/p>\n In Greek the phrase \u201cthe one who does not work\u201d could be translated \u2014 clumsily \u2014 as \u201cthe non-working one,\u201d non-working not in the sense of not doing good works but in the sense of not doing works of Torah. Paul\u2019s use of the definite pronoun suggests he has a definite person in mind (Abraham).<\/p>\n In the second part, \u201cbelieves on him who justifies the ungodly,\u201d the word \u201cungodly,\u201d in context, does not mean wicked. Abraham was not wicked at this stage in his life. He was already justified. It means \u201cGentile.\u201d \u201cUngodly\u201d in Greek is\u00a0asebes<\/i>, a word that refers to the sphere of religious observance, and not to evil in a wider moral sense. Essentially, it means \u201cnon-observant\u201d of the Jewish Law, or \u201cimpious\u201d from the point of view of the Jewish Law (which would be the point of view of the Judaizers). We have no adequate word to render this concept in modern English, but \u201cGentile\u201d comes closest.<\/p>\n Paul is saying that someone \u2014 Abraham in this case \u2014 could be \u201cimpious\u201d from the point of view of the Jewish Law (i.e., a Gentile), but righteous from the point of view of God. \u201cJustifies the ungodly\u201d thus amounts to \u201cregards the Gentile Abraham as righteous.\u201d<\/p>\n In sum, Paul is saying that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham (not for the first time!)\u00a0while he was still a Gentile<\/i>. And this is the same point that Paul makes throughout Romans 3 and 4; i.e., Gentiles don\u2019t have to become Jews to be judged righteous by God. They only have to respond to God\u2019s revelation with faith, as Abraham did while still as Gentile.<\/p>\n Or, to paraphrase all of Romans 4:5: \u201cAnd to Abraham before he had done any works of Torah but still believed in Him who regards the Gentile as righteous, his belief was credited as an act of righteousness.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Abraham\u2019s justification is also discussed in James 2, and there it is explicitly tied in with works, thus providing a perfect complementary (very \u201cCatholic\u201d) balance with Romans 4:<\/p>\n James 2:20-26<\/span>\u00a0<\/b>Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that\u00a0faith apart from works is barren<\/b>? [21]\u00a0Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?<\/b>\u00a0[22] You see that\u00a0faith was active along with his works<\/b>, and\u00a0faith was completed by works<\/b>, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, \u201cAbraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness\u201d; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that\u00a0a man is justified by works and not by faith alone<\/b>. [25] And in the same way\u00a0was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works<\/b>\u00a0when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? [26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so\u00a0faith apart from works is dead<\/b>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is a wonderful cross-reference to Romans 4 in another respect: both cite the same Old Testament passage (Gen 15:6: seen in Rom 4:3 and James 2:23; also Gal 3:6). James, however, gives an\u00a0explicit interpretation<\/i>\u00a0of the Old Testament passage, by stating, \u201cand the scripture was\u00a0fulfilled<\/i>\u00a0which says, . . .\u201d (2:23). The previous three verses were all about justification, faith, and works, all tied in together, and\u00a0this<\/i>\u00a0is what James says \u201cfulfilled\u201d Genesis 15:6. The next verse then condemns distinctive Protestant and Lutheran soteriology by disagreeing the notion of \u201cfaith alone\u201d in the clearest way imaginable.<\/p>\n Scripture has to be interpreted as a harmonious whole. We Catholics can easily do that with these two passages: Roman 4 shows that the specific works of the Law that Jews lived by were not absolutely necessary for salvation, and that Abraham\u2019s faith was the key, while James 2 is discussing the organic connection between faith and works (in a general sense, using the willingness to sacrifice Issac as an example), thus showing how \u201cfaith alone\u201d is a meaningless and unscriptural concept: faith can never be totally separated from works, except in initial justification, since (in Catholic teaching as well as Protestant) no work we do can bring us initially to justification: that is all God\u2019s grace.<\/p>\n James 2 is usually applied by Protestants to\u00a0sanctification<\/i>, but that is not what the passage\u00a0says<\/i>. It mentions \u201cjustified\u201d (dikaioo<\/i>: Strong\u2019s word #1344)\u00a0three times<\/i>\u00a0(2:21, 24-25): the same Greek word used in Romans 4:2, as well as 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 5:1, 9; 8:30; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16-17; 3:11, 24; 5:4; and Titus 3:7. If James actually meant sanctification, on the other hand, he could have used one of two Greek words (\u00a0hagiazo\u00a0<\/i>\/\u00a0hagiasmos<\/i>: Strong\u2019s #37-38) that appear (together) 38 times in the New Testament (the majority of times by Paul himself).<\/p>\n Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin offers some great commentary about Abraham, and the multiple instances of his justification, as seen in these passages and others in Genesis:<\/p>\n But however attractive the single, once-for-all view of justification may be to some, there are serious exegetical considerations weighing against it. This may be seen by looking at how the New Testament handles the story of Abraham.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul\u2019s discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham \u201cbelieved God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness\u201d (Rom. 4:3). This passage clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants.<\/p>\n Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either\u00a0before\u00a0<\/i>or\u00a0after<\/i>\u00a0Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both. First, the book of Hebrews tells us that \u201cBy faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going.\u201d (Hebrews 11:8) Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith\u2014the kind that pleases God and wins his approval (Heb. 11:2, 6)\u2014so we know that Abraham had saving faith according to Hebrews 11.<\/p>\n But\u00a0when<\/i>\u00a0did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it \u201cwhen he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive<\/i>.\u201d The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4\u2014three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.<\/p>\n But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us, \u201cWas not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, \u2018Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,\u2019 and he was called the friend of God.\u201d (James 2:21-23)<\/p>\n James thus tells us \u201c[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified \u2026 when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?\u201d In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.<\/p>\n Abraham therefore received justification\u2014that is, a fuller fruition of justification\u2014when he offered Isaac. The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18\u2014seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.<\/p>\n Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.<\/p>\n As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer\u2019s life.<\/p>\n [Footnote: Protestants often object to this understanding of James 2, claiming that in that passage Abraham was said to be justified before men rather than before God. There are abundant exegetical reasons why this is not the case. Abraham was justified before God by offering Isaac, as will be shown in our chapter on progressive justification. But once the Protestant recognizes that the Bible teaches in Hebrews 11:8 that Abraham was already justified before he was justified in Genesis 15:6, there is not nearly so much motive to try to twist James 2:21-23 into meaning something else. Hebrews 11:8 already showed that justification is a process, and James 2:21-23 merely confirms that fact.]<\/p>\n (Salvation Past, Present, and Future<\/a>; a somewhat expanded printed version of this argument occurs in his book,\u00a0The Salvation Controversy<\/i><\/a>\u00a0[San Diego: Catholic Answers, 2001], 19-21)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As for Romans 7 (another common Protestant prooftext for their view of justification): the human difficulties with sin described there find their solution in the redemption through Jesus that Paul describes in Romans 8: one of the most fabulous chapters in the Bible. And at the climax of that chapter Paul makes reference to necessary works:<\/p>\n Romans 8:16-17<\/b>\u00a0it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, [17] and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ,\u00a0provided we suffer with him<\/b>\u00a0in order that<\/b>\u00a0we may also be glorified with him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We have to be willing to undergo voluntary suffering in order to receive this justification and salvation, which is a work. It\u2019s not\u00a0doing nothing whatsoever<\/i>\u00a0besides accepting the free gift; otherwise all the words after \u201cprovided\u201d wouldn\u2019t be there, because they make no sense: talking about doing something when it is a completely free gift. Other passages in the chapter imply works as well: \u201cwalk not<\/i>\u00a0according to the flesh\u201d (8:4), \u201cthose who\u00a0live<\/i>\u00a0according to the Spirit\u201d (8:5), and \u201cif by the Spirit you\u00a0put to death the deeds of the body<\/i>\u00a0you will live\u201d (8:13). Being an heir of Christ and glorification is\u00a0conditional<\/i>\u00a0upon the suffering (\u201cprovided<\/i>\u00a0we suffer . . .\u201d); therefore it is not faith alone; it is tied directly to a work (of sorts) and sanctification.<\/p>\n This is all in accord with judgment passages. I found 50. All of them without exception discuss works as the criterion for eternal life and salvation, while faith alone is never mentioned.\u00a0Faith\u00a0<\/i>occurs a few times, but always in conjunction with works.<\/p>\n Justification is described in the Bible as having a past (Rom 5:1-2, 1 Cor 6:11), present (Rom 5:9; Phil 2:12), and future orientation (Rom 2:13; 3:20; Gal 5:5). Protestants generally contend that it is \u201ca one-time event\u201d. We say it is not a one-time event because it is multiple and perpetual. If Scripture refers to it in three tenses, then multiple occurrence is the most plausible interpretation.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Romans 4,\u00a0James 2, and Abraham\u2019s Multiple Justifications Abraham and the Angels (1680-1685), by Aert de Gelder (1645-1727) [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons] * * * (10-15-11) [the following is a large portion of the longer paper, \u201cDialogue with Lutheran Nathan Rinne, Regarding My Critiques of Lutheran Theologian Martin Chemnitz (1522-1586), Part Three: Soteriology and Miscellany\u201d; […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":5110,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[1121,1658,1123,1120,2344,1657,1118,243],"class_list":["post-5107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-salvation-justification","tag-extrinsic-justification","tag-imparted-justification","tag-imputed-justification","tag-infused-justification","tag-justification","tag-one-time-justification","tag-sanctification","tag-soteriology-2"],"yoast_head":"\n![\"Abraham\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/12\/Abraham.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n