{"id":65104,"date":"2022-07-18T19:37:37","date_gmt":"2022-07-18T23:37:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=65104"},"modified":"2022-09-21T13:05:20","modified_gmt":"2022-09-21T17:05:20","slug":"reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

[see book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/p>\n

See: Part 1<\/a> \/ Part 3<\/a><\/p>\n

Francisco Tourinho<\/span><\/span><\/a>\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials\u00a0on my Facebook page<\/a>:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I have the respect of the academic community for my articles published in peer review magazines, translation of unpublished classical works into Portuguese and also the production of a book in the year 2019 with more than 2000 copies sold (with no marketing). In addition I have higher education in physical education from Piau\u00ed State University and theology from the Assemblies of God<\/a> Biblical Institute, am currently working towards a Masters from Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, and did post-graduate work at Dom Bosco Catholic University. Also, I am a professor in the Reformed Scholasticism discipline at the Jonathan Edwards Seminary in the postgraduate course in Philosophical Theology. [edited slightly for more flowing English]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\n
*****<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
This is my part 2 of my second reply to Francisco on this topic (see part 1<\/a>), in what is to be a series of theological debates on this controversial issue and likely others as well. I first responded to his article, A Justifica\u00e7\u00e3o pela F\u00e9 na Perspectiva Protestante<\/a>\u00a0[Justification by Faith from a Protestant Perspective<\/em>] [6-21-22], with\u00a0Justification: A Catholic Perspective (vs. Francisco Tourinho)<\/a>\u00a0[6-22-22]. He counter-replied and began a second round, with his article,\u00a0Justifica\u00e7\u00e3o pela f\u00e9: perspectiva protestante (contra Armstrong)<\/a>\u00a0[Justification by Faith: Protestant Perspective (against Armstrong)<\/em>] [6-27-22].<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I use Google Translate to render his Portugese text into English. Francisco\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. My words from my previous installment will be in\u00a0green<\/span>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Now, if the works of the law do not justify and that is what St. Paul refers to in quoting Abraham, then St. James should not understand that such works justify.<\/span><\/span> Faced with the patent contradiction, the Protestant interpretation remains, being much more coherent.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
This doesn\u2019t fly, per my above counter-explanation.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
In the Protestant interpretation, St. James and St. Paul interpret Abraham\u2019s justification in the same way, but from different angles.<\/span><\/span> St. Paul treats the text theologically while St. James treats the text pastorally.<\/span><\/span> St. Paul is explaining why works do not justify before God.<\/span><\/span> St. James is explaining why faith alone does not justify us before men.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I don\u2019t think that the Bible ever asserts<\/em> such a dichotomy. But give it your best shot.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
It is proved in the following way:<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\u2013 St. James is also speaking of works of the law: \u201cFor whoever shall keep the whole law<\/strong>, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all<\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/span> James 2:10.<\/span><\/span> This fact confirms our opinion, for we are already in agreement that the works of the law do not justify (Rom 3.8; 4.5 etc.), but here St. James says that they do justify (James 2.21-24);<\/span><\/span> therefore, assuming that the two apostles are not contradicting each other, and that even Scripture cannot contradict itself because it is the Word of God, the justifications must have different meanings, therefore being analyzed from different angles.<\/span><\/span> St. Paul is dealing with theological themes: original sin, natural law, election and reprobation, etc.<\/span><\/span> Saint James, dealing with community life.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I think this slant was refuted by my lengthy analysis of James 2:10 in my previous installment<\/a>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
In the first verse of chapter 2 St. James says: My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons<\/em> James 2:1. He begins by saying that our faith must not manifest itself<\/strong> in respect of persons,\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
James 2:1 is not about proving our faith to other persons by works, but about treating people equally, as classic Protestant commentaries<\/a> agree:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
\n
Bengel\u2019s Gnomen<\/em><\/a>: The equality of Christians, as indicated by the name of\u00a0brethren<\/span>, is the basis of this admonition.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Ellicott\u2019s Commentary for English Readers<\/a><\/em>: \u201cYe know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,\u201d wrote St. Paul to the proud and wealthy men of Corinth (2Corinthians 8:9<\/a>), \u201cthat, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be rich;\u201d and, with more cogent an appeal, to the Philippians (James 2:4-7<\/a>), \u201cIn lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves: look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:\u00a0Who, being in the form of God\u201d<\/span>\u2014i.e.,\u00a0<\/span>Very God, and not appearance merely\u2014nevertheless \u201cthought not His equality with God a thing to be always grasped at,\u201d<\/span>\u00a0as it were some booty or prize, \u201cbut emptied Himself<\/span>\u201d of His glory, \u201cand took upon Him the shape of a slave.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Were these central, nay initial, facts of the faith believed then; or are they now? If they were in truth, how could there be such folly and shame as \u201cacceptance of persons\u201d according to the dictates of fashionable society and the world? \u201cHonour,\u201d indeed, \u201cto whom honour\u201d is due (Romans 13:7<\/a>).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Meyer\u2019s NT Commentary<\/em><\/a>: In close connection with the thought contained in chap.\u00a0Jam 1:27<\/a>, that true worship consists in the exhibition of compassionate love, James proceeds to reprove a practice of his readers, consisting in a partial respect to the rich and a depreciation of the poor, which formed the most glaring contrast to that love. . . . their faith should not be combined with a partial respect of persons.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Calvin\u2019s Commentaries<\/em><\/a>: [H]e does not simply disapprove of honor being paid to the rich, but that this should not be done in a way so as to despise or reproach the poor; and this will appear more clearly, when he proceeds to speak of the rule of love. Let us therefore remember that the respect of persons here condemned is that by which the rich is so extolled, wrong is done to the poor, which also he shews clearly by the context . . .<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
*<\/div>\n
and then he describes what must not be done, and concludes: Do they not blaspheme the good name that has been invoked over you?<\/em> James 2:7.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
This extends the same thought expressed in James 2:1-6: preferential treatment of the rich over the poor. Hence, James 1:6 (RSV, as throughout) states: \u201cBut you have dishonored the poor man. Is it not the rich who oppress you, is it not they who drag you into court?\u201d The point is about Christian ethical hypocrisy and double standards, not about proving the validity of one\u2019s faith to men, as if James supposedly isn\u2019t talking about faith like Paul and Jesus do.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The text echoes other texts of Scripture dealing with how the Christian is looked upon by ungodly men: All servants who are slaves should consider their masters worthy of all honor, lest the name of God and our teaching be blasphemed<\/em>. 1 Timothy 6:1. to be balanced, pure, devoted to their homes, to cultivate a good heart, submissive to their husbands, lest the Word of God be maligned<\/em> Titus 2:5,8. Worthy of special attention is the fact that Saint Paul himself in the letter to the Romans, before saying that the works of the law do not justify, says exactly the same to the Roman Christians: You who pride yourself on the Law dishonor God by disobeying your own law. Law? For, as it is written: \u201cFor your sake the name of God is blasphemed among all peoples!\u201d For circumcision is of value if you obey the law, but if you do not keep the law, your circumcision has already become uncircumcision<\/em>. (Rom 2:23-25). Note that Saint Paul teaches the same as Saint James, saying that the name of God is blasphemed because people disobey the law, and, in a continual act, says that circumcision is worth nothing without good works, being like faith, i.e., dead without the works. Making a parallel between the two teachings, we see that both teach the same things: that there is a justification by faith alone (before God) and there is a justification by works (before men, lest the name of God be blasphemed).\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The Bible is always very condemning of two-faced hypocrisy. I don\u2019t see how this proves that James is operating with an entirely different conception of works (\u201cbefore men only, and not before God\u201d). It doesn\u2019t logically follow. To the contrary, James, just like Paul, ties both faith and works into salvation, not just flattering and God-honoring appearances before men. They are connected to salvation itself (1:12, 21-22; 2:14) as well as to justification (2:21, 24-25); both things directed \u201cGodward\u201d and not merely towards other persons.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
St. James continues: But, O vain man, do you want to know that faith without works is dead? Was not our father Abraham justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?<\/em> James 2:20,21. Now the Scripture itself says that Abraham was tested on this occasion: By faith Abraham offered up Isaac when he was tried; yea, he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten.<\/em> Hebrews 11:17. Tell me, tested against whom? Was God ever ignorant of future acts? Would not God, being aware of everything that will happen and everything that could happen, not know infallibly what Abraham would do if he received this command? Did God wait around to see if Abraham would pass the test? The answer is no! Every godly man will agree that the test was not in relation to God, but in relation to men.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Just because God knew what would happen (being omniscient and timeless), it doesn\u2019t follow that Abraham didn\u2019t prove himself. To say that the \u201cthe test was not in relation to God, but in relation to men\u201d makes little sense, seeing that no one was else was around<\/em> at the time, and likely would not have even been told by Abraham what happened. Moreover, it\u2019s very likely very few if any knew about it until Moses recorded the incident several hundred years later. Thirdly, does the immediate text<\/em> indicate what Francisco claims? No. It indicates a relationship of his action to God<\/em>, not other men:<\/div>\n
\n
Genesis 22:15-18<\/strong> And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, [16] and said, \u201cBy myself I have sworn, says the LORD<\/span>, because<\/strong> you have done this<\/span>, and have not withheld your son, your only son, [17] I will indeed bless<\/strong> you, and I will multiply your descendants<\/span> as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, [18] and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because<\/strong> you have obeyed my voice<\/span>.\u201d [my bolded and red emphases]<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
This action of Abraham \u2014 far from being simply a witness before men \u2014 is made the very basis upon which God makes a covenant with Abraham, and makes him the father of three major world religions, and the exemplar ever-after of faith itself<\/em>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Men who were ignorant of Abraham\u2019s faith were given proof that he was a righteous man. <\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Then why is it that the text that James refers to, doesn\u2019t express that<\/em> thought. Rather, it states that \u201cbecause<\/strong> you have done this<\/strong>, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you<\/strong>, . . . And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice<\/strong>\u201d (Gen 22:16-18) [my bolded and red emphases]. As so often, the Catholic interpretation is far more grounded in the Bible.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Thus, Saint James is speaking of what is seen, while faith is the evidence of what is not seen, works are the evidence of faith, he adds: And the scripture was fulfilled, which says, And Abraham believed in God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God<\/em>. James 2:23, that is, Abraham\u2019s work was the fulfillment of his faith, St. James says that Abraham was called a friend of God the moment he believed, that is, he was made righteous in relation to God, but in relation to other men this faith needed to be tried.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
James doesn\u2019t teach<\/em> that. He actually teaches that faith and works are intrinsically connected:<\/div>\n
\n

James 2:14<\/strong>\u00a0What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works?\u00a0Can his faith save him?<\/em><\/p>\n

James 2:17<\/strong>\u00a0So faith\u00a0by itself<\/em>, if it has no works, is\u00a0dead<\/em>.<\/p>\n

James 2:20<\/strong>\u00a0Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith\u00a0apart from works<\/em>\u00a0is\u00a0barren<\/em>?<\/p>\n

James 2:24<\/strong>\u00a0You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.<\/p>\n

James 2:26<\/strong>\u00a0For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith\u00a0apart from works<\/em>\u00a0is\u00a0dead<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Protestantism attempts (in a certain sense: extrinsic justification and the separation of sanctification from justification) to separate two things (faith and works) that the Bible expressly states ought not<\/em> be separated.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Hence St. James concludes: For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead. James 2:26. Does anyone happen to see the spirits? We do not see spirits (God sees; men do not), but we know that someone is alive by his body through his movements, and the same happens with faith: we only know that it is there through works of piety. The truth of the above statements can be seen when we see that Saint James begins his approach with an event that is later (Gen 22, that is, the sacrifice of Isaac) to the call of Abraham (Gen 15.6). In Genesis 15:6 it is shown that Abraham was justified independently of any work, but in Genesis 22 it is shown to men through an anthropopathy \u201cNow I know that you fear God\u201d (Genesis 22:12),<\/span><\/p>\n

There is indeed a sense in which we prove the genuineness of our faith in the world and the Church, and provide a good witness. But this sense doesn\u2019t exclude<\/em> the organic connection between faith and works \/ justification and sanctification: directly tied to salvation:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Ezekiel 36:26-27<\/strong>\u00a0A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. [27] And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.<\/p>\n

Acts 15:8-9<\/strong>\u00a0And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith.<\/p>\n

Acts 26:18\u00a0<\/strong>to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are\u00a0sanctified by faith in me. [Phillips: \u201cmade holy by their faith in me\u201d]<\/p>\n

Romans 3:22<\/strong>\u00a0the\u00a0righteousness\u00a0of God\u00a0through faith\u00a0in Jesus Christ for all who\u00a0believe.<\/p>\n

Romans 6:22<\/strong>\u00a0But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 1:2<\/strong>\u00a0To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, . . .<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 1:30<\/strong>\u00a0. . . our righteousness and sanctification and redemption;<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 6:11\u00a0<\/strong>And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.<\/p>\n

Ephesians 4:24\u00a0<\/b>and\u00a0put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true\u00a0righteousness\u00a0and\u00a0holiness.<\/p>\n

Philippians 3:9-10\u00a0<\/strong>and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; [10] that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,<\/p>\n

Colossians 3:9-10<\/strong>\u00a0Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old nature with its practices [10] and have put on the new nature, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.<\/p>\n

2 Thessalonians 2:13<\/strong>\u00a0. . . God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This is perhaps the clearest verse in the New Testament that directly connects sanctification to salvation itself (contrary to Protestant teaching).<\/p>\n

Hebrews 10:10<\/strong>\u00a0And by that will\u00a0we have been sanctified\u00a0through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.<\/p>\n

Hebrews 10:14<\/strong>\u00a0For by a single offering he has perfected for all time\u00a0those who are sanctified.<\/p>\n

Hebrews 13:12<\/strong>\u00a0So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to\u00a0sanctify the people through his own blood.<\/p>\n

2 Peter 1:9<\/strong>\u00a0For whoever lacks these things [see 1:5-8] is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.<\/p>\n

1 John 1:7\u00a0<\/b>The blood of Jesus, his son, cleanses us from all sin.<\/p>\n

1 John 1:9\u00a0<\/b>He is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The word for \u201ccleanse\u201d in 1 John 1:7, 9 is\u00a0katharizo,\u00a0<\/i>which is used to describe the cleansing of lepers throughout the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 8:3, 11:5; Mark 1:42; Luke 7:22). This is indisputably an \u201cinfused\u201d cleansing, rather than an \u201cimputed\u201d one. Why should God settle for anything less when it comes to our sin and justification?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

for we know that God was never ignorant of future events. The idea that God did not know and came to know is false, but its anthropopathic manifestation shows that the fulcrum was the proof that Abraham had a true faith.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
My argument and the Catholic argument here do not in any way<\/em> require the false notion that God is ignorant and not omniscient. That\u2019s a red herring.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
St. Paul points out that if \u201cAbraham was justified by works, then he has something to boast about;<\/em><\/span><\/span> but not before God<\/em>\u201d (Rom. 4:2), that is, he had no reason to boast (kauchem<\/em>a) (which must be taken from the preceding verse).
\n<\/span><\/span>*<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
Of course he doesn\u2019t; nobody does, because we\u2019re fallen creatures, and only God\u2019s mercy rescues us.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The argument proceeds from the destruction of the consequent to the destruction of the antecedent.<\/span><\/span> If Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to boast of in himself, as if he had contributed something of his own, for which a reward was due at the judgment seat of God.<\/span><\/span> And yet he has nothing in himself to boast of in the presence of God.<\/span><\/span> Therefore he was not justified by works before God, though he may have been justified before men, as St James asserts.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Our good works enabled by God\u2019s grace are equated with God\u2019s own works. It\u2019s for this reason that they are meritorious and put us in good stead with God:<\/div>\n
\n

Mark 16:20<\/strong>\u00a0. . . \u00a0the Lord worked with them . . .<\/p>\n

Romans 8:28\u00a0<\/strong>We know that in everything\u00a0God works for good\u00a0with those\u00a0who\u00a0love\u00a0him,\u00a0who are called according to his purpose.<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 15:10\u00a0<\/strong>But\u00a0by the grace of God\u00a0I am what I am, and\u00a0his grace toward me\u00a0was not in vain. On the contrary,\u00a0I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the\u00a0grace of God\u00a0which is\u00a0with\u00a0me.<\/p>\n

2 Corinthians 6:1<\/strong>\u00a0Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the\u00a0grace of God\u00a0in vain.<\/p>\n

Galatians 2:20<\/strong>\u00a0I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and\u00a0the life I now live in the flesh I live\u00a0by faith\u00a0in the Son of God, who\u00a0loved\u00a0me and gave himself for me.<\/p>\n

Ephesians 2:10<\/strong>\u00a0For we are\u00a0his workmanship,\u00a0created in Christ Jesus\u00a0for good works,\u00a0which God prepared beforehand,\u00a0that we should walk in them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n

But I continue with more evidence: the Greek word \u201cdikaioo\u201d can mean \u201cto ascribe righteousness\u201d as in Romans 4:5, or \u201cto show himself righteous\u201d as in Luke 7:35.<\/span><\/span> In Luke 7:35 the Lord Jesus says that \u201cWisdom is JUSTIFIED (dikaioo) by her children\u201d, in a parallel passage the Lord Jesus says: However wisdom is justified (dikaioo) by her works<\/em>.<\/span><\/span> Matthew 11:19.<\/span><\/span> The word used here is the same word used in James when he says: You see then that a man is justified (dikaioo) by works, and not by faith alone<\/em>.<\/span><\/span> James 2:24.<\/span><\/span> That is, just as wisdom is demonstrated by its fruits, Abraham\u2019s claim to faith was justified (demonstrated) by his obedience.<\/em><\/span><\/span> St Luke narrates that, after hearing Christ, the<\/em> people justified God (Luke 7:29).<\/span><\/span> St. Luke never meant that people imputed or infused justice into God, which would be an absurdity, since God is justice itself, but they gave God and his doctrine the praise they deserve.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Kittel\u2019s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/em> (one-volume edition, pp. 172-173) disagrees as to the meaning of James 2:24:<\/p>\n

How we can be righteous before God is dealt with in 2:23-24. The concern here is to combat a dead orthodoxy that divides faith and works. The works that justify are not legalistic observances but the works of loving obedience that Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. Abraham was justified by a faith which found fulfillment in works. . . . the practical concern, namely, that the only valid faith is one that produces works, is very much in line with the total proclamation of the NT, including that of Paul himself.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Further proofs: justification before men was not unknown on the part of the Jews, nor on the part of the Lord Jesus when he says: But Jesus said to them: \u2014 You are those who justify yourself before men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is exalted among men is an abomination before God<\/em>. Luke 16:15<\/span><\/p>\n

This is an entirely negative slant on \u201cjustification before men\u201d<\/span> because Jesus condemns<\/em> it. This hardly supports Francisco\u2019s view of James on faith and works, where he asserts that it is the same<\/em> as what Paul<\/em> teaches, but is from a pastoral \/ \u201cbefore men\u201d perspective. So he contradicts himself. Is such \u201cjustification\u201d entirely bad<\/em> (Jesus) or good<\/em> (as supposedly in James)? Catholics say that Paul and James are talking about exactly the same thing, and that \u201cjustification before men\u201d<\/span> is a bad<\/em> thing (pride \/ inflated self-importance \/ spiritual arrogance): as authoritatively explained by Jesus.<\/p>\n

The Pharisees were aware that a justification before God, which they believed to be by the covenant inherited from birth by ethnicity, was not enough, and therefore they had to justify themselves before men. But the Lord Jesus rebukes them by saying that justification before men is only valid if you have faith, the same teaching of Saint James. While St. James teaches that faith alone does not justify before men, Christ teaches that works alone do not justify before men either. The concept of a double justification: before God and before men (Coram hominibus vs Coram Deo<\/em><\/strong>) is clearly present in the Scriptures.<\/span><\/p>\n

I disagree, and have repeatedly (and I think, sufficiently) shown why<\/em>, from Scripture.<\/p>\n

More evidence, this in particular definitive: the author of Hebrews in chapter 11, when speaking of the heroes of faith, says that all those actions cited are a public testimony of faith, not a justifying action before God.<\/span><\/p>\n

I agree with the first clause, but not the second. It\u2019s not an either\/or<\/em> proposition (as is typical of Protestant thinking). The ancient Hebrews and biblical writers thought in both\/and<\/em> terms and, often, paradoxical terms. God saves us, but we save ourselves and others<\/a> (many passages). We work together with God and His work is ours in a sense<\/a>. He blesses us with His grace to do good works, and then gives us credit for it<\/a>. God even shares His glory<\/a> with us, and the Bible makes the extraordinary statement that we \u201csuffer with\u201d Christ (Rom 8:17) and \u201cbecome partakers of the divine nature\u201d (2 Pet 1:4).<\/p>\n

See: By faith Abel offered to God a greater sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God bearing witness to his gifts, and by it, after he died, still speaks<\/em>. Hebrews 11:4. Again: By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had translated him; inasmuch as before his translation he had obtained witness that he had pleased God<\/em>. Hebrews 11:5. So he also cites the case of Abraham offering up Isaac: By faith he offered Abraham to Isaac, when he was tried; yea, he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten<\/em>. Hebrews 11:17, right after citing several testimonies, says, And all these, having had testimony by faith<\/em> Hebrews 11:39. \u201cAll\u201d includes Abraham, of course, attained testimony, not justification before God. Justification before men is precisely the good witness we give through faith. This text fully proves that St. James teaches justification before men.<\/span><\/p>\n

All well and good (public testimony is fine and important, and recommended to us as indispensable), but Hebrews 11 doesn\u2019t exclude God<\/em>, as even some of Francisco\u2019s words above attest. In the second verse of the chapter, we already see a statement that faith was the way that \u201cthe men of old received divine approval.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In 11:4 Abel \u201creceived approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts.\u201d No one else even saw what he did. It was all about divine approval.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In 11:5 Enoch \u201cpleased God.\u201d Indeed, 1:6 is all<\/em> about God: \u201cAnd without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.\u201d <\/span>Four of the first six verses are clearly<\/em> mainly about God, not other men. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

11:16 summarizes the faithful servants and their exploits described in the chapter: \u201cTherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

11:17 describes Abraham as \u201che who had received the promises\u201d.\u00a011:19 relates his obedience in the Isaac incident on Mt. Moriah (where the holy of holies in the temple was later located): \u201cHe considered that God was able to raise men even from the dead\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

11:26 states that the \u201cabuse\u201d suffered by Moses was \u201csuffered for the Christ\u201d and that he \u201clooked to the reward.\u201d\u00a011:27 notes that \u201che endured as seeing him who is invisible.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

11:35 honors obedience to God through suffering and tortures \u201cthat they might rise again to a better life.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

All of this and yet Francisco inexplicably claims that these wonderful testimonies of faith are<\/span> \u201cnot a justifying action before God.\u201d Let the reader judge whether he is right about this or I am. He claims it is all<\/strong><\/em> strictly about \u201cpublic testimony of faith\u201d<\/span>; I say it is about both things: public testimony and<\/strong><\/em> divine approval and blessing. Both\/and<\/em> . . . Protestants habitually incorrectly think and analyze in terms of an either\/or<\/em> mindset or presupposition.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The author of Hebrews is not a whit different from Paul or James when discussing faith. They all teach the same thing. And of course we would fully expect<\/em> this of an inspired revelation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Then Galatians 2:21 was discussed: \u201cI do not frustrate the grace of God;<\/span><\/span> for if righteousness comes from the law, then Christ died in vain.\u201d<\/span><\/span> With this text I wanted to prove two things:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

1 \u2013 That righteousness comes from Christ;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

2 \u2013 That righteousness does not come from the works of the law.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Catholics fully agree, so this is not a matter to debate.<\/p>\n

Mr. Armstrong replied that:<\/span><\/p>\n

No one disagrees with this. It\u2019s merely a variation of the notion of depending on \u201cthe works of the [Mosaic] law\u201d for righteousness or salvation, that was discussed above. Paul expressed this more succinctly later in the same epistle:<\/span><\/p>\n

Galatians 5:6<\/strong>\u00a0For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Notice how he didn\u2019t address my reasoning directly. <\/span><\/p>\n

I did by saying we agree<\/em>!<\/p>\n

He only said that Paul is dealing with the works of the Mosaic law, but not with other good works, <\/span><\/p>\n

Paul deals with both<\/em>, as I have shown in dozens of verses.<\/p>\n

as if to say that other good works can merit Christ, <\/span><\/p>\n

They can merit reward<\/em>. St. Augustine said that merit was God \u201ccrowning His own gifts.\u201d<\/p>\n

or as if he had to say that the righteousness of Christ is imperfect in needing a complement on our part when it is imputed to us. <\/span><\/p>\n

We don\u2019t believe that, either. More straw men . . .<\/p>\n

The issue here is not whether the work is of the law or not, but whether righteousness comes from Christ alone or whether it also comes from us.<\/span><\/p>\n

It ultimately and always comes from Christ alone and then we also make it our own as well (both\/and<\/em>):<\/p>\n

Mark 16:20<\/strong> And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them . . .<\/p>\n

Romans 15:17-19<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0In Christ Jesus, then, I have reason to be proud of my work for God. [18] For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience from the Gentiles, by word and deed,<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 1:21<\/strong> . . . it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 3:5<\/strong>\u00a0What then is Apol\u2019los? What is Paul?\u00a0Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 3:9<\/strong>\u00a0. . . we are God\u2019s fellow workers . . . (KJV: \u201clabourers together with God\u201d)<\/p>\n

1 Corinthians 15:10 <\/strong>\u00a0But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me.<\/p>\n

2 Corinthians 6:1<\/strong>\u00a0Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain.<\/p>\n

2 Corinthians 13:3<\/strong>\u00a0. . .\u00a0Christ is speaking in me\u00a0. . .<\/p>\n

Philippians 2:13<\/strong>\u00a0for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.<\/p>\n

1 Timothy 4:16<\/b>\u00a0Take heed to yourself and to your teaching: hold to that, for by so doing\u00a0you will save both yourself and your hearers.<\/p>\n

James 5:20 <\/strong>. . .\u00a0 whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I maintain that it is of Christ alone, and as faith alone receives Christ, so it is impossible for us to be justified by works. This was the argument, and Mr. Armstrong did not address it.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

I\u2019ve addressed it over and over, especially with this paper. We\u2019re initially justified by faith and God\u2019s grace; then we are responsible to cooperate with God and do good works, without which faith is dead and barren. Thus, works in conjunction<\/em> with our faith and God\u2019s grace (not works alone<\/em>!), play a part in salvation, as my 50 passages in Part 1 of this article<\/a> about the reasons God lets us into heaven prove.<\/p>\n

I repeat: if Christ has perfect righteousness, then in receiving Christ I must also have perfect righteousness.<\/span><\/span> The negative of this fact is to make the righteousness of Christ imperfect, if I say that I am not justified before God even after receiving Christ in my heart, and that I need to go through a process of justification by my good works, then the righteousness of<\/span><\/span> Christ is not perfect and needs to be perfected by my good works.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s a process<\/a>, and this justification and state of good graces with God can be lost<\/a> if we\u2019re not vigilant. I have already shown that through many Bible passages.<\/p>\n

Philippians 3:11-14\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong>that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own . . . I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.<\/p>\n

Colossians 1:21-23<\/strong>\u00a0And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, . . .<\/p>\n

1 Timothy 4:1<\/strong> Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons.<\/p>\n

1 Timothy 5:15<\/strong> For some have already strayed after Satan.<\/p>\n

2 Timothy 2:12<\/strong> if we endure, we shall also reign with him;\u00a0if we deny him, he also will deny us;<\/p>\n

Hebrews 3:14<\/strong> For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end.<\/p>\n

Hebrews 6:15<\/strong>\u00a0 . . . Abraham, having patiently endured, obtained the promise.<\/p>\n

Hebrews 10:39<\/strong> But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and keep their souls.<\/p>\n

Revelation 3:11<\/strong> I am coming soon; hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nor does the text of Galatians 5:6 prove a justification by works and faith. Faith in Christ already in its beginning is justifying. The growth or formation of faith through love is about sanctification, not justification.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve already provided many Bible passages showing the organic connection between justification and sanctification. Here is but one of many:<\/p>\n

\n

2 Corinthians 5:17<\/strong> Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The curious thing here (for the Protestant), is the seemingly instantaneous change of sanctification, which would accompany justification. If \u201call things are new\u201d (as in the King James Version<\/em>), how does this square with mere declaratory, forensic, extrinsic justification? The whole drift of the passage seems to be actual transformation<\/em> in the person now in Christ, whereas in Protestant justification only the individual\u2019s \u201clegal\u201d standing with God is changed. In fact, justification and sanctification are intimately related aspects of our ultimate salvation.<\/p>\n

As for the Galatians passage, it is not dealing with justification before God.<\/span><\/p>\n

It starts out referring to \u201cin Christ Jesus.\u201d If that\u2019s not related to God, I don\u2019t know what is.<\/p>\n

St. James in chapter 2 and St. Paul in the epistle to the Galatians 5:6 deal with a faith as something that can be perfected.<\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, because justification\/sanctification\/salvation is an ongoing process, as many Bible passages prove. As St. Paul said: \u201cNot that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own.\u201d<\/p>\n

This echoes the teaching of Jesus who several times called his disciples \u201cmen of little faith\u201d (Mt 16:8; Lk 12:28; Mt 6:30; Mt 8:26; Mt 14:31). The disciples asked Jesus to increase their faith (\u201cThen the apostles said to the Lord, \u2018Add to us faith\u2019\u201d Luke 17:5). Jesus taught about the power of great faith (\u201cAnd the Lord said, If you had faith as a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, \u2018Be uprooted and planted in the sea\u2019; and it would obey you\u201d Luke 17:6 ). St. Paul said that the faith of the Thessalonians grew (\u201cyour faith grows exceedingly, and the love of each one of you increases for one another\u201d 2 Thes 1:3). All of these verses focus on the nature of faith, not its object. The object of faith is Christ.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mostly good; I would note, however, that the disciples before Jesus\u2019 Resurrection and Ascension had not yet received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that all Christians now possess by virtue of baptismal regeneration (Acts 2:38; 9:17-18; 1 Cor 12:13; Titus 3:5).<\/p>\n

Justification centers on Christ\u2019s substitutionary death and resurrection, and this cannot be increased or diminished, for it is a perfect work. Justification before God clings to this meritorious work of Christ, which will never change and cannot be increased or diminished. <\/span><\/p>\n

Initial justification . . .<\/p>\n

This is why the Reformed, based on scriptural teaching, distinguish between justification and sanctification. Justification does not repeat itself, and does not depend on the quality (or quantity) of faith. A spark of faith already justifies. Justification does not come about because someone has a loving faith or a lot of faith, but because the work Christ was imputed through the instrumentality of faith, whether great or small. In sanctification, on the other hand, faith is best seen in its quality and quantity, that is, in faith as loving faith and as little or great. Sanctification is a process and therefore grows and perfects. Justification is a single act of imputation. Hence, when Paul says that faith works by love (Gal 5:6) he is properly speaking of sanctification. Love and good works follow justification by faith. The one justified by faith will love God, will do good works, and will seek to be sanctified throughout his remaining life. However, these things will come because he is justified and not for him to be justified.<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s the Protestant claim. But it doesn\u2019t square<\/em> with the biblical passages I have been producing. The heart of my overall argument lies in the multitudinous passages (200 in all: related to soteriology<\/a>) I have produced.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
I close this part with a quote from Dr Branco:<\/span><\/span> To look at the crucified and risen Christ is to believe that His merits are sufficient.<\/span><\/span> Nothing more needs to be done.<\/span><\/span> He did everything for us.<\/span><\/span> The Covenant is nothing more than being in Christ.<\/span><\/span> As the Jewish Pharisees did not understand this, they saw the Covenant as a contract in which they were required to please God by obeying the Law.<\/span><\/span> In Christianity, fulfilling the Law is acting in conformity with the Christ whose merits have already fulfilled the Law for us.<\/span><\/span> This is the point, the doctrine of justification by faith reveals the need for Christ alone.<\/span><\/span> Even sanctification is walking in Christ, and a fulfillment of the Law in Christ, not a coercive obedience to the Law.<\/span><\/span> (BRANCO, D. Justification: Nucleus of the Christian Faith<\/em>. The\u00f3philus. S\u00e3o Lu\u00eds-MA. 2021. p 351)<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
We largely agree. But we see it in a both\/and<\/em> way, not either\/or<\/em>, because that is how Holy Scripture presents it.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Armstrong also cites the case of the rich young ruler to say that Christ taught a justification by good works:<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
More specifically, that when Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was asked how one is saved and how one gets to heaven, He never mentioned \u201cfaith alone\u201d like Protestants always do. How odd<\/em>!<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
If we want to discuss biblical indications for or against the Protestant belief in \u201cfaith alone\u201d I have several to bring forth in favor of the Catholic point of view. Let the reader judge which position is more biblical and plausible!<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
Matthew 19:16-22<\/strong>\u00a0(RSV) And behold, one came up to him, saying, \u201cTeacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?\u201d [17] And he said to him, \u201cWhy do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.\u201d [18] He said to him, \u201cWhich?\u201d And Jesus said, \u201cYou shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, [19] Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.\u201d [20] The young man said to him, \u201cAll these I have observed; what do I still lack?\u201d [21] Jesus said to him, \u201cIf you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.\u201d [22] When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
This is probably the most compelling, unarguable sustained refutation of \u201cfaith alone\u201d in the New Testament (though the James 2 passages come very close), because the rich young ruler\u00a0asks<\/em>\u00a0Jesus the very question that is at the heart of the Catholic-Protestant dispute on faith and works: \u201cwhat good deed must I do, to have eternal life?\u201d If \u201cfaith alone\u201d were a true biblical doctrine, and good deeds have nothing directly to do with salvation, then this was the golden opportunity for Jesus to clear that up, knowing it would be in the Bible for hundreds of millions to read and learn from (and knowing in His omniscience the sustained disputes Christians would have about these issues).<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
There is much to note here.<\/span><\/span> First, the fact that Jesus is facing a man who thinks he might be good enough to have eternal life, that is, that good works deserve eternal life.<\/span><\/span> Jesus rejects this thought right at the beginning: \u201cThere is only one good\u201d (Mt 19.17), but in the parallel texts of Saint Luke and Saint Mark, the Lord Jesus is more forceful: \u201cWhy do you call me good?<\/span><\/span> There is none good but one, which is God.\u201d<\/span><\/span> Mark 10:18 And in Luke: \u201cJesus answered: \u2014 Why do you call me good?<\/span><\/span> No one is good but one, which is God.\u201d<\/span><\/span> Luke 18:19<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Jesus was being rhetorical and alluding to His divinity. But it\u2019s typical Hebrew hyperbole: exaggerated statements, not to be taken literally. Protestants would have it that no person can be called \u201cgood.\u201d But this isn\u2019t biblical.\u00a0 The phrase \u201cgood man\u201d appears seven times<\/a> in the Protestant Old Testament, and four times in this sense in the New Testament<\/a>: two of them from the lips of Jesus, one from Luke, and one from Paul. Therefore, there is such a thing in the Bible as a \u201cgood man\u201d besides Jesus.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Jesus also said, \u201che makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust\u201d (Mt 5:45), and \u201cthose servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good\u201d (Mt 22:10). In each instance in Matthew above (and in Luke 18:19) of the English \u201cgood\u201d the Greek word is the same: agatho<\/em>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
So either Jesus contradicted Himself or He was speaking non-literally to the rich young ruler. Jesus was drawing a contrast between our righteousness and God\u2019s, but He doesn\u2019t deny that we can be \u201cgood\u201d in a lesser sense. We observe the same dynamic in the Psalms:<\/div>\n
\n

Psalm 14:2-3<\/strong> The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. [3] They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, [Hebrew,\u00a0tob<\/em>] no not one. (cf. 53:1-3; Paul cites this in Rom 3:10-12)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yet in the immediately preceding Psalm, David proclaims,\u00a0\u201cI have trusted in thy steadfast love\u201d (13:5), which certainly\u00a0is\u00a0<\/em>\u201cseeking\u201d after God! And in the very next he refers to \u201cHe who walk blamelessly, and does what is right\u201d (15:2). Even two verses later (14:5) he writes that \u201cGod is with the generation of the righteous.\u201d So obviously his lament in 14:2-3 is an indignant hyperbole and not intended as a literal utterance.<\/p>\n

Such remarks are common to Hebrew poetic idiom. The anonymous psalmist in 112:5-6 refers to the \u201crighteous\u201d (Heb.\u00a0tob<\/em>), as does the book of Proverbs repeatedly: using the words \u201crighteous\u201d or \u201cgood\u201d (11:23; 12:2; 13:22; 14:14, 19), using the same word,\u00a0tob<\/em>, which appears in Psalm 14:2-3. References to righteous men are innumerable (e.g., Job 17:9; 22:19; Ps 5:12; 32:11; 34:15; 37:16, 32; Mt 9:13; 13:17; 25:37, 46; Rom 5:19; Heb 11:4; Jas 5:16; 1 Pet 3:12; 4:18, etc.). The key in all this is to understand biblical language properly in context. It\u2019s not always literal.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Now, any godly man knows that the Lord Jesus has not sinned, that he has fulfilled all the law, so how does he himself say that he is not good?<\/span><\/span> The message that Jesus teaches to this young man is: you will never be good before God by works, for the young man asks \u201cwhat to do to inherit eternal life?\u201d<\/span><\/span> \u2013 in other words, \u201cwhat good work shall I do?\u201d.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I would contend \u2014 with all due respect \u2014 that that is read into the passage (eisegesis). Jesus does not have an \u201canti-works\u201d mentality, as precisely proven by the answer he gives the man, concerning how one is saved. And what was Jesus\u2019 answer to this crucial question? Francisco himself provides it:<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Jesus then quotes several good works of the law and then quotes a work of charity to show the young man that he was not as good as he thought he was.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/span><\/div>\n
Perhaps Francisco\u2019s last editorial take is also true, but it doesn\u2019t nullify the fact that when a person asked Jesus how to be saved, He never mentioned faith<\/strong><\/em>, let alone faith alone. He mentioned two sorts of works<\/strong><\/em>: keeping the commandments, and giving all he had to the poor. That was how he would be saved. Can anyone imagine Francisco answering in this way if someone asked him<\/em> how one could be saved? No . . . Do we want Jesus<\/strong><\/em>\u2018 answer to the question of how one is saved? It\u2019s works (without denying<\/em> faith and grace; but without mentioning<\/em> either; i.e., he highlights works as centrally important in the whole equation).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Francisco then claims that Jesus was only<\/em> saying that the young ruler wasn\u2019t as good as he thought he was. Again, that could be part<\/em> of it (more than one thing can be going on; both\/and<\/em>), but it\u2019s undeniable that the primary meaning<\/em> of the text is that two works \u2014 not faith alone in Jesus \u2014 are what will bring about this man\u2019s salvation. The supreme importance of this to our debate cannot be underestimated. But it\u2019s not just this one passage. There are at least 50 Bible passages that teach the same thing and deny faith alone.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
It is as if Jesus said: \u201cI fulfill all the law and I am not good\u201d, teaching that this should be the course of every man, for we are never good before God.<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Francisco is looking at it in a one-dimensional \/ tunnel vision way, and \u201cmissing the forest for the trees.\u201d Jesus was not totally hostile to the Mosaic Law in the first place. He observed it Himself, and said:<\/div>\n
\n
Matthew 5:17-20<\/strong> Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. [18] For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. [19] Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n

Then the apostles ask the Lord, \u201cWho then can be saved?\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This perplexity is from those who understood that it is impossible to achieve salvation by works, but Jesus looked at them and replied: \u201cWith man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.\u201d Mt 19.25,26.<\/span><\/span> The text intends to show the human inability to obtain salvation by works, exactly the opposite of what Mr. Armstrong tries to prove.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Jesus said that after saying,\u00a0\u201cTruly, I say to you, it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God\u201d (Mt 19:23-24). Francisco skipped that part, which is crucial to understand the disciples\u2019 perplexed question. His answer to that had to do with grace alone, not with some supposed hostility to works as part of the overall equation of salvation and attainment of heaven.<\/p>\n

If Jesus was a good Protestant and supposedly so hostile to meritorious works (in accordance with that viewpoint), then He wouldn\u2019t have mentioned only<\/em> two works<\/em> and not<\/em> faith in His original answer. This isn\u2019t rocket science. The fact remains that Jesus gave a \u201cCatholic\u201d answer, not a Protestant<\/em> one. He would have failed any course in soteriology at a Protestant seminary. The basic, undeniable fact is that Jesus said the ruler would or could be saved by these two works (without denying grace or faith; such a denial doesn\u2019t follow inexorably). But Francisco looks at that fact and asserts that Our Lord supposedly was saying that no<\/em> works are good enough to attain heaven (!!!).<\/p>\n

Mr. Armstrong\u2019s second mistake is to claim that Protestants teach that good works have nothing to do with salvation when he says,<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cwhat good deed must I do, to have eternal life?\u201d If \u201cfaith alone\u201d were a true biblical doctrine, and good deeds have nothing directly to do with salvation, then this was the golden opportunity for Jesus to clear that up . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Protestants deny (here is the key) that works are directly<\/em><\/strong> involved in justification (after initial) or salvation. I used the term \u201cdirectly\u201d. They place them under the category of sanctification, which they unbiblically separate from justification.<\/p>\n

I know that Mr. Armstrong knows that we do not advocate antinomianism, which is why the objection is ineffective in its intent.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, I do know that, and have stated it in this debate.<\/p>\n

Now justification is reconciliation with God, the declaration that we are righteous through the merits of Christ.<\/span><\/span> It is in justification that we deny the need for good works.<\/span><\/span> Salvation involves good works, and not only good works, but sacraments as well;<\/span><\/span> what it does not involve is justification.<\/span><\/span> Salvation involves election, regeneration\/calling, justification by faith alone, adoption, sanctification, and glorification.<\/span><\/span> There are several steps, but Mr. Armstrong disregarded all of them.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I understand that this is Protestant teaching. I have explained the many reasons for why I reject most of it (save for our \u201cinitial justification\u201d being essentially the same as their justification). The above is not argumentation, but mere assertion, so I need not interact further with it.<\/p>\n

Mr Armstrong continues:<\/span><\/p>\n

But\u00a0He never mentions belief in him or faith<\/em>\u00a0(even in a sense that isn\u2019t \u201calone\u201d). All He does is talk about\u00a0works<\/em>: asking if he kept the Ten Commandments, and then telling him to sell all he had and to give it to the poor.<\/span><\/p>\n

This argument also fails.<\/span><\/span> The Lord Jesus does not mention faith at any time!<\/span><\/span> But we know that faith is necessary for salvation, which proves that Jesus really wanted to show this man the ineffectiveness of good works.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s as if Jesus said, \u201cwater is wet\u201d and Francisco interpreted that as Jesus asserting that water is not<\/em> wet.<\/p>\n

This is proved by the theology of the Church of Rome which teaches that good works without faith do not justify.<\/span><\/span> Now, for this text to agree with the thesis of the Church of Rome, the Lord Jesus should speak of faith and works, not only of works, for the Church of Rome likewise does not accept them as sufficient for salvation apart from faith.<\/span><\/span> We see that the text proves the opposite of what Mr. Armstrong wanted to teach.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

There is no necessity to teach everything<\/em> in one given passage. It\u2019s not a denial of one or more things if something else<\/em> is asserted. If I state that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person (and that only), I am not denying<\/em> in so doing that the Father and the Son, Jesus, are also Divine Persons. To do that would require saying that \u201conly\u201d the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person. Likewise, when Catholics assert that works are central in the overall mix of salvation, it\u2019s not a denial<\/em> of grace and faith. We obtain biblical theology by considering all the relevant passages (read any book of Protestant systematic theology \u2014 such as Hodge or Strong \u2014 to see that).<\/span><\/p>\n

Francisco himself<\/em> asserted above, that in the Protestant view,<\/span> \u201cSalvation involves good works.\u201d So why does he turn around and deny<\/em> this when Jesus asserts precisely<\/em> the same thing? Well, in my opinion, it\u2019s because he must think that the rich young ruler incident is somehow related to faith alone<\/em>, where works can play no<\/em> part or role. If that\u2019s wrong, then I look forward to how Francisco explains this seeming discrepancy in his responses.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

He then quotes several verses:<\/span><\/p>\n

Romans 2:6-8\u00a0<\/b>For\u00a0he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who\u00a0by patience in well-doing\u00a0seek for glory and honor and immortality,\u00a0he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not\u00a0obey\u00a0the truth, but\u00a0obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. (cf. 2:13: \u201cthe\u00a0doers of the law who will be justified\u201d)<\/span><\/p>\n

As I said earlier, salvation involves election, regeneration\/calling, justification through faith alone, adoption, sanctification, and glorification.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Catholics and Protestants are in complete agreement on this.<\/p>\n

When St. Paul talks about retribution according to works, he is referring to the final judgment (\u201creward\u201d), not the justification that takes place on the day of conversion in time.<\/span><\/p>\n

The problem for Calvinist soteriology (but not Arminian soteriology) is that the Calvinist thinks such justification can never be lost<\/em>, because it\u2019s tied up in unconditional election, irresistible grace, and perseverance: all of which are predestined and guided by God. So if a person is justified in Calvinism, they are also saved (and also shown to be of the elect), and cannot lose either the justification obtained or salvation itself (let alone their elect status). Thus, in a very real sense, justification and salvation are intrinsically wrapped up together in this outlook.<\/span><\/p>\n

As for Romans 2:13, the passage only proves that when Paul speaks of works of the law he is referring to all works, which he could not otherwise justify, in contrast to Mr. Armstrong\u2019s interpretation of Romans 3:28 according to which the works of the law<\/span><\/span> law do not justify.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

No, because \u201cworks\u201d and \u201cworks of the law\u201d have two different meanings. The first is broad, meaning all \u201cgood works\u201d whatever. Paul ties this directly to salvation. The second refers to certain works within the Mosaic law that certain Jews thought were particularly proofs of their own salvation and unique status under God. But we\u2019ve been through all this already. <\/span><\/p>\n

In Romans, Paul asserts in 2:7, 10, 13, that good works can justify, but in his one mention of \u201cworks of the law\u201d (Rom 3:20) he asserts the opposite: \u201cFor no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law,\u00a0 . . .). Again, this is either self-contradiction in the space of two chapters in one epistle, or Paul means different things, as we assert. Take your pick (logic being what it is).<\/span><\/p>\n

The real kicker for Francisco and Calvinists to explain is how it is that it\u2019s \u201cthe doers<\/em><\/strong> of the law who will be justified<\/em><\/strong>\u201d (Rom 2:13)? If no work whatever has anything<\/em> to do with any<\/em> kind of justification, how in the world can Paul write this? It\u2019s devastating to the Protestant soteriological position. According to Francisco and Calvinist theology, Paul should have written \u201csaved\u201d in Romans 2:13 instead of \u201cjustified.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, the text implies that a man would be justified if he could practice the law, but since no one can keep it perfectly, justification by this means is not possible (Jas 1:22-25),\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s not primarily about the law, but about good works, generally speaking. This is shown in two ways: the reference to \u201cevery man\u201d (2:6); not just Jews, and the parameters of the \u201cwide\u201d or universal scope of the discussion by Paul\u2019s mentioning of Jews and Greeks (2:9-10), those under and not under the law (2:12), and the Gentiles (2:14-16). \u201cFaith\u201d is never mentioned at all in Romans 2, but is several times in chapter 3, so that we know he isn\u2019t excluding it in chapter 2. But he is focusing on good works, which will play a key role in the final judgment (2:5-7, 10, 13-14). Lack of same will bring damnation (2:8-9, 12).<\/span><\/p>\n

for God knows the secrets of all men (James 1:22-25).<\/span><\/span> v 16),<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, He certainly does. And that should give all of us serious pause.<\/span><\/p>\n

and St. Paul himself states that by this criterion: \u201cThere is none just, not even one\u201d Rom 3:10.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

I\u2019ve already disposed (from the Bible) of the Protestant erroneous literal interpretation of \u201cnot one righteous.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Further on, Mr. Armstrong quotes:<\/span><\/p>\n

Galatians 6:7-9\u00a0<\/strong>Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for\u00a0whatever a man sows,\u00a0that he will also reap. For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And\u00a0let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season\u00a0we shall reap,\u00a0if we do not lose heart.<\/span><\/p>\n

This passage has nothing to do with justification, but with sanctification.<\/span><\/span> An admonition against sin and by doing good is never intended to say that justification before God has good works as its cause, nor that salvation has good works as its formal cause, <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

As I just argued, for Calvinists, to be justified (a one-time event) is also to be saved, since neither thing can be lost in their theology. Francisco tries to put this in the box of sanctification, but that won\u2019t fly, because it directly ties works (rather than faith-based justification) to \u201ceternal life\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

for Saint Paul himself says:<\/span><\/span> grace are you saved through faith;<\/span><\/span> and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.<\/span><\/span> It does not come from works, lest anyone should boast;<\/span><\/span> For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.<\/span><\/span> Ephesians 2:8-10<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Here Paul asserts the necessity of faith in salvation (we agree), and the inadequacy of works salvation (again we agree). He then proceeds to present the Catholic both\/and<\/em> view. God preordains works, and we walk in them. Works are necessary (and in many other Pauline passages, central in the equation of salvation). Thus, faith and works, just as we have maintained all along . . .<\/span><\/p>\n

We are justified for good works, not because of them.<\/span><\/span> Furthermore, this letter is addressed to believers, people already justified by faith, who already believe.<\/span><\/span> St. Paul also says: But if it is by grace, it is no longer by works;<\/span><\/span> otherwise, grace is no longer grace.<\/span><\/span> But if it is by works, it is no longer grace;<\/span><\/span> otherwise the work is no longer work.<\/span><\/span> Romans 11:6<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Francisco says these things over and over. I want to see how he variously explains all the verses I have produced that appear to me to be directly contrary to Protestant (and especially Calvinist) soteriology. Romans 11:6 asserts grace alone and denies works-salvation. We have no disagreement whatsoever with that, so it\u2019s not a debating-point for Protestantism.<\/span><\/p>\n

After that:<\/span><\/p>\n

1 Timothy 6:18-19<\/strong>\u00a0They are to\u00a0do good, to be\u00a0rich in good deeds,\u00a0liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a\u00a0good foundation for the future, so that\u00a0they may take hold of the life which is life indeed.<\/span><\/p>\n

As before, an admonition to good works reflects only a human perspective. <\/span><\/p>\n

That makes no sense, since \u201cdo[ing] good\u201d and \u201cgood deeds\u201d are shown to be a direct cause of attaining eternal life. That\u2019s not just a<\/span> \u201chuman perspective\u201d<\/span>. It\u2019s an eternal, divine, eschatological perspective.<\/span><\/p>\n

We are reminded that we must do good works if the purpose of election is to stand firm. <\/span><\/p>\n

Yes, with the possibility of salvation \/ justification being lost<\/em> (which would mean that maybe<\/em> the person is not of the elect, either).<\/span><\/p>\n

Many authors make the mistake of confusing the transcendental order with the predicamental order in the interpretation not only of biblical texts but also of the Church fathers. For example, when the Lord Jesus says that \u201che who endures to the end shall be saved\u201d we must assume that God already knows who will and who will not. <\/span><\/p>\n

Of course He does, but that\u2019s neither here nor there as regards the dispute at hand, because both sides agree that God is omniscient and outside of time.<\/span><\/p>\n

But the text is indeterminate, as if the one who admonishes did not know the information, and, in fact, the apostles were not omniscient, any more than the preachers of the Word are. So, on the assumption that no one fully knows anyone else\u2019s heart, everyone should be admonished as if everyone could lose their salvation, but this does not mean that from God\u2019s point of view it is the same, since He already knows who is going to stand firm until the end. Thus, there is the perspective of God, who already knows who the justified are and those who will persevere to the end, and there is the human perspective, who must admonish, care and use all means to keep all people firm, because we do not know who are the elect.<\/span><\/p>\n

God\u2019s knowing what will happen to every person does not disprove the biblical view that some can and will fall away. In other words, His omniscience does not prove eternal security or perseverance of the saints. Bible passages determine that, and there are many compelling ones that teach the possibility of apostasy and falling away from the faith and salvation and God\u2019s grace.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Lord Jesus and the apostles in admonishing people are based either on the ignorance of the people or on the ignorance of the preacher and the people.<\/span><\/span> The message is for men, because we don\u2019t know about our future.<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

No quibble with that<\/em>. But it doesn\u2019t prove that no one can ever fall away. Francisco will have the burden of grappling with those verses that I have produced.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr Armstrong quotes more verses:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Hebrews 5:9<\/b>\u00a0and being made perfect he became the\u00a0source of eternal salvation\u00a0to all who obey him,<\/span><\/p>\n

Hebrews 12:14<\/strong>\u00a0. . .\u00a0<\/b>Strive . . . for the\u00a0<\/b>holiness without which no one will see the Lord.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now, the texts themselves make it clear that it is a question of sanctification, not justification.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t see how. These two passages make obedience and holiness requirements for eschatological salvation. That can\u2019t be in Protestant soteriology, which places them in the \u201cbox\u201d of sanctification, which in turn is not directly tied to salvation. But they\u2019re perfectly harmonious with Catholic soteriology.<\/span><\/p>\n

Neither does the quoted text of:<\/span> 1 Peter 4:17 For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God;<\/span><\/span><\/span> and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?<\/span>, proves anything, for it falls into the same category as the previous texts.<\/span><\/span><\/span> Without sanctification no one will see God.<\/span><\/span> Nobody denies it.<\/span><\/span> The fulcrum of the question is not this, but whether reconciliation with God, which is justification, takes place by faith alone or by faith and works.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Initial justification is by God\u2019s grace and our faith. Subsequent justification (if one falls away) comes jointly by faith which, lacking works, is dead. So it\u2019s by grace + faith + works which are inherently a part of genuine faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

In all six of these passages we are informed that \u201cwell-doing\u201d and \u201cworks\u201d and \u201cdo[ing] good\u201d \/ \u201cgood deeds\u201d and \u201cobey[ing]\u201d and \u201choliness\u201d are what will \u201creap eternal life\u201d and \u201ceternal salvation\u201d or lay the \u201cfoundation\u201d for same; not faith alone. The truth, the gospel, and God, all have to be \u201cobeyed\u201d: not merely believed in.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mr. Armstrong once again makes the mistake of confusing the entire process of salvation with justification, which is only one of the steps.<\/span><\/span> This has been dealt with previously.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

And I have explained how in Calvinism they are inextricably bound together.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is contrary to Protestant doctrine, which holds that works fall under the category of sanctification, which in turn supposedly has\u00a0nothing directly to do<\/em>\u00a0with either justification or salvation. In Protestantism, such \u201cdeeds\u201d are done in gratefulness for a justification and salvation already received and assured. In Catholicism (and I say, in the Bible, which is precisely why we believe this) they are organically connected to faith and justification and salvation; never alone; always with faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

The texts do not prove the opposite of what Protestantism teaches.<\/span><\/span> On the contrary, appropriate distinctions must be made.<\/span><\/span> I have shown several times that we speak of justification by faith alone, but that sanctification is by faith and works.<\/span><\/span> This sanctification is continual and salvation too.<\/span><\/span> Sanctification and salvation are a process.<\/span><\/span> I can say that I am already saved, because I believe that if I die today I would be in paradise with Christ, being free from divine wrath, as it says: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life<\/em>;<\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Catholics believe in the notion of a<\/span> moral assurance of salvation<\/a>, which is not all that different.<\/span><\/p>\n

John 3:36 again: Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life<\/em>. John 5:24 again: Whoever believes in him is not condemned;<\/em> but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he did not believe in the Name of the only begotten Son of God<\/em>. Jn 3.18<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

If passages like these are the essence and summation of salvation, why didn\u2019t Jesus tell this to the rich young ruler? But I have already produced many passages warning against falling away from God.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cIt is condemned\u201d in the present and will also be condemned in the future. In other words, he is in a state of present condemnation that will end in the future. I can also say that I will be saved, for I know that my encounter with God and glorification will only take place in the future. In this sense, salvation is related to the final judgment, to the state of eternal happiness in action: He who believes and is baptized will be saved. However, whoever does not believe will be condemned!<\/em> Mk 16.16.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

This has to be understood in conjunction with all the passages warning about falling away, or stating that certain individuals have done so.<\/span><\/p>\n

Compare John 3:18 which says, he is already condemned; that is, it is as it will be, present and future. For this reason St Luke will say: It is in your perseverance that you confirm the salvation of your souls<\/em>. Luke 21.19. Salvation is confirmed, it is a process that extends until the last day: And perseverance must have full action, so that you may be perfected and complete, without any virtue lacking<\/em>. Jas 1:4<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s right. But the final confirmation won\u2019t come till the person dies and hasn\u2019t fallen away. No one knows with absolute certainty until that time comes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Perfecting is a process that amounts to sanctification, not justification. Saint Peter: Since you have purified your souls in obedience to the truth, which leads to unfeigned brotherly love, love one another fervently from the heart<\/em>, 1 Peter 1:22 To purify the soul, to perfect, to sanctify. <\/span><\/p>\n

The same Peter doesn\u2019t teach an ironclad assurance of salvation: a salvation that can never be lost:<\/span><\/p>\n

2 Peter 2:15, 20-21<\/strong>\u00a0Forsaking the right way they have gone astray; they have followed the way of Balaam, . . . For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Saint Paul: Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence, but much more now in my absence, so also work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure<\/em>. Philippians 2:12,13 Working out or working out salvation; you only develop what you already have. <\/span><\/p>\n

Why does it cause fear and trembling, then, if that is the case?<\/span><\/p>\n

Give me back the joy of your salvation and sustain me with a spirit ready to obey<\/em>. Psalm 51:12 How could King David ask to have the joy of a salvation he did not yet have?<\/span><\/p>\n

It can just as easily be interpreted as \u201cgive me back the salvation that included joy.\u201d Beyond this, I have produced many Bible passages that I think contradict these claims of \u201csecurity.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In conclusion: salvation and sanctification are a process. He may be a saint at present, but it\u2019s in process; he is currently saved but in process.<\/span><\/p>\n

Again, I add that justification and salvation are tied together in Calvinist thought: at least that is my understanding. That gives it a \u201cone-time\u201d sense just as is present in Arminian Protestant soteriology. The sanctification is an inevitable \u201cunfolding\u201d of what has already been declared in justification. If that is the case, why is Paul concerned about possibly losing this state, if it is allegedly \u201csecure\u201d? It makes no sense to warn others to be firm and vigilant about what is inevitable as a result of a one-time justification.<\/span><\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

\n

Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n

PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Summary<\/em>: Brazilian Protestant (Calvinist) apologist Francisco Tourinho defends Protestant justification and \u201cfaith alone\u201d. I refute it with copious contrary biblical passages.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[see book and purchase information] See: Part 1 \/ Part 3 Francisco Tourinho\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials\u00a0on my Facebook page: I have the respect of the academic community for my articles published in peer review magazines, translation of unpublished classical works into Portuguese and also the production of a book […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":65107,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[50],"tags":[8209,1482,3822,1121,2342,2346,16232,973,1471,1123,1120,1122,2344,1124,1210,181,1070,1117,1118,1071,2343,1586],"class_list":["post-65104","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-salvation-justification","tag-believing-in-jesus","tag-catholic-soteriology","tag-enabling-grace","tag-extrinsic-justification","tag-faith-alone","tag-faith-and-works","tag-francisco-tourinho","tag-good-works","tag-grace-alone","tag-imputed-justification","tag-infused-justification","tag-initial-justification","tag-justification","tag-justification-by-faith-alone","tag-merit","tag-original-sin","tag-pelagianism","tag-protestant-soteriology","tag-sanctification","tag-semi-pelagianism","tag-sola-fide","tag-sola-gratia"],"yoast_head":"\nReply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2) Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2)<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"See: Part 1 \/ Part 3 Francisco Tourinho\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials\u00a0on my Facebook page: I have the Brazilian Protestant (Calvinist) apologist Francisco Tourinho defends Protestant justification and \u201cfaith alone\u201d. I refute it with copious contrary biblical passages.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2) Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"See: Part 1 \/ Part 3 Francisco Tourinho\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials\u00a0on my Facebook page: I have the Brazilian Protestant (Calvinist) apologist Francisco Tourinho defends Protestant justification and \u201cfaith alone\u201d. I refute it with copious contrary biblical passages.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-07-18T23:37:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-09-21T17:05:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/07\/Cover-552x832-1-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"510\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"768\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"53 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html\",\"name\":\"Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2) Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2)\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-07-18T23:37:37+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-09-21T17:05:20+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"See: Part 1 \/ Part 3 Francisco Tourinho\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials\u00a0on my Facebook page: I have the Brazilian Protestant (Calvinist) apologist Francisco Tourinho defends Protestant justification and \u201cfaith alone\u201d. I refute it with copious contrary biblical passages.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2) Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2)","description":"See: Part 1 \/ Part 3 Francisco Tourinho\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials\u00a0on my Facebook page: I have the Brazilian Protestant (Calvinist) apologist Francisco Tourinho defends Protestant justification and \u201cfaith alone\u201d. I refute it with copious contrary biblical passages.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2) Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2)","og_description":"See: Part 1 \/ Part 3 Francisco Tourinho\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials\u00a0on my Facebook page: I have the Brazilian Protestant (Calvinist) apologist Francisco Tourinho defends Protestant justification and \u201cfaith alone\u201d. I refute it with copious contrary biblical passages.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2022-07-18T23:37:37+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-09-21T17:05:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":510,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/07\/Cover-552x832-1-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"53 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html","name":"Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2) Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2)","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-07-18T23:37:37+00:00","dateModified":"2022-09-21T17:05:20+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"See: Part 1 \/ Part 3 Francisco Tourinho\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist apologist. He described his theological credentials\u00a0on my Facebook page: I have the Brazilian Protestant (Calvinist) apologist Francisco Tourinho defends Protestant justification and \u201cfaith alone\u201d. I refute it with copious contrary biblical passages.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/07\/reply-to-francisco-tourinho-on-justification-round-2-pt-2.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reply to Francisco Tourinho on Justification: Round 2 (Pt. 2)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65104","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65104\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/65107"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}