[De Maria]

Justification by faith apart from works and Justification by faith and works are seamlessly combined in the Catholic Sacramental System.

Justification by faith apart from works succinctly describes the Sacraments of Baptism, Reconciliation, Confirmation, Anointing and Eucharist.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Sacraments are Works of God:
740 These "mighty works of God," offered to believers in the sacraments of the Church, bear their fruit in the new life in Christ, according to the Spirit. (This will be the topic of Part Three.)

987 "In the forgiveness of sins, both priests and sacraments are instruments which our Lord Jesus Christ, the only author and liberal giver of salvation, wills to use in order to efface our sins and give us the grace of justification" (Roman Catechism, I, 11, 6).


These Sacraments impart grace to the extent of one's faith:
The Church teaches that the effect of a sacrament comes ex opere operato, by the very fact of being administered, regardless of the personal holiness of the minister administering it.[3] However, a recipient's own lack of proper disposition to receive the grace conveyed can block the effectiveness of the sacrament in that person. The sacraments presuppose faith and through their words and ritual elements, nourish, strengthen and give expression to faith.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrame...atholic_Church

Justification by faith and works is the preparation of man for the reception of grace in the Sacraments:
2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:" Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing. CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 2001

An adult who converts to the faith of Jesus Christ, must justify himself in preparation for the Sacraments by performing works worthy of penance. He performs these good works by exercising faith in God. Just as we exercise our muscles, this strengthens his faith making him more open to receive the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit which transforms him according to his faith. He is then sent out again to continue doing the works which God prepared for him from the beginning of time and continue to exercise and enlarge his faith so that he becomes more open and properly disposed to receive more Sanctifying grace which is imparted by the Sacraments.

Which is completely consistent with Scripture which says, only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13) apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28).

What say you?

[TUT317]

Which is completely consistent with Scripture which says, only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13) apart from the works of the law (Romans 3:28).

What say you?

I would say that the above is subject to volumes of debate.

Tut

[RickJ]

Yes, there have been volumes of debate, however most Christians agree with the basic idea: Justification is by faith, and works are the evidence.
James 2:20.

[De Maria]

I would say that the above is subject to volumes of debate.

Tut

That's why I posted it in this section.

[De Maria]

Yes, there have been volumes of debate, however most Christians agree with the basic idea: Justification is by faith, and works are the evidence.
James 2:20.

I agree that works are the evidence of faith. But your statement could be construed to mean that works are the evidence of justification. That isn't what you mean, is it?

[TUT317]

In ethics, intrinsic teleological theories claim that actions should be judged by the goodness or the badness of their consequences.

Consider the above in light of Romans 3:20

For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law. Since through law comes knowledge of sin.

The big question is, which law is Paul referring to? I don't think it matters as all laws of the time (secular or otherwise) would have been heavily influenced by deontological principles. Roughly speaking, the adherence to rules and duties regardless of their consequences.

I think Paul is criticizing the idea that absolute standards of morality need to be imposed from the outside. I think there are some good arguments in relation to this. Paul is putting forward some type of natural law theory in an attempt to overcome some of the difficulties of rule based ethics.

Basically, the idea that moral standards that govern human behaviour are in some sense objectively derived from human nature and the nature of the world. On the other hand, strictly sticking to 'a law' creates an ethical problem, not least of all 'The Euthyphro Dilemma'. I think Paul and St. Thomas recognized this as an important area of debate.

It could be suggested that a deontological position is not in conflict with natural law theory. In other words, Paul was declaring how a sinner could get right with God through faith and the natural law. James on the other hand would probably say that a saved person could show their faith was real through works.

Are these ideas contradictory?


Regards

Tut

A

[Fr_Chuck]

I agree those are the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[Wondergirl]

Yes, there have been volumes of debate, however most Christians agree with the basic idea: Justification is by faith, and works are the evidence. James 2:20.

I agree if, in fact, you mean what Eph. 2:8,9 says, justification ("grace") is a gift from God, with no effort or work on our part. Works are then our thank you to Him. We do not participate in the act of justification; it has been done for us and apart from us.

[De Maria]

In ethics, intrinsic teleological theories claim that actions should be judged by the goodness or the badness of their consequences.

Consider the above in light of Romans 3:20

For no human will be justified in his sight by works of the law. Since through law comes knowledge of sin.

The big question is, which law is Paul referring to? I don't think it matters as all laws of the time (secular or otherwise) would have been heavily influenced by deontological principles. Roughly speaking, the adherence to rules and duties regardless of their consequences.

I think Paul is criticizing the idea that absolute standards of morality need to be imposed from the outside. I think there are some good arguments in relation to this. Paul is putting forward some type of natural law theory in an attempt to overcome some of the difficulties of rule based ethics.

Basically, the idea that moral standards that govern human behaviour are in some sense objectively derived from human nature and the nature of the world. On the other hand, strictly sticking to 'a law' creates an ethical problem, not least of all 'The Euthyphro Dilemma'. I think Paul and St. Thomas recognized this as an important area of debate.

It could be suggested that a deontological position is not in conflict with natural law theory. In other words, Paul was declaring how a sinner could get right with God through faith and the natural law. James on the other hand would probably say that a saved person could show their faith was real through works.

Are these ideas contradictory?

No.

St. James and St. Paul do not contradict. Although perhaps they thought they were contradicting each other. However, they are simply speaking about justification from two perspectives. St. Paul himself touches upon both perspectives in his own writings. For instance, he says:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


Note how this verse coincides perfectly with St. James:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Therefore, both are saying that works bring us to perfection. They are an exercise of faith which is the only thing which disposes us to the grace of justification.

And in the New Testament economy, that grace is given through the Sacraments. No works necessary. Because the Sacraments are the work of God.

Does that make sense?

Regards

Tut

A

Sincerely,

De Maria

[TUT317]

No.

St. James and St. Paul do not contradict. Although perhaps they thought they were contradicting each other. However, they are simply speaking about justification from two perspectives. St. Paul himself touches upon both perspectives in his own writings. For instance, he says:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.


Note how this verse coincides perfectly with St. James:
James 2:24
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Therefore, both are saying that works bring us to perfection. They are an excercise of faith which is the only thing which disposes us to the grace of justification.

and in the New Testament economy, that grace is given through the Sacraments. No works necessary. Because the Sacraments are the work of God.

Does that make sense?



Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi De Maria,

Yes, it does make sense. However, in the end I think justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality being (as you demonstrate) looked at from two different perspectives.

In this respect intrinsic finality is an end in itself, not a means to some other end. Some other end outside of us would require an extrinsic explanation. Saying that works brings us closer to perfection could be seen as an intrinsic justification only if it is a claim of self-perfection. Such a claim might have some type of validity, but from our point of view coming closer to God requires an extrinsic explanation.

How do we move from this position. In order to provide some claim to intrinsic validity we are forced to accept some type of objectivity about our beliefs. The intrinsic reinforcer becomes the goodness or badness of actions based on their consequences. Now this seems to be in conflict with an extrinsic explanation or an extrinsic reinforcer.

So I guess my point is can we have different perspectives pointing in different directions?

Regards

Tut

[RickJ]

Yes, it does make sense. However, in the end I think justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality being (as you demonstrate) looked at from two different perspectives.

Most people will not know or ever use the terms intrinsic and extrinsic.

Can not all Christians agree that Salvation is by Faith and that works are the evidence of faith?

Am I being over simplistic?

[Wondergirl]

justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality

Please take off your philosophy hat and say that in plain English for us poor, uneducated slobs.

[De Maria]

Hi De Maria,

Yes, it does make sense. However, in the end I think justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality

Finality? Not yet. I'll explain further below.

being (as you demonstrate) looked at from two different perspectives.

Two different perspectives. The perspectives are different. But not the ends. I'll explain further below.

In this respect intrinsic finality is an end in itself, not a means to some other end.

Your terminology is interfering with the idea of justification.

Some other end outside of us would require an extrinsic explanation. Saying that works brings us closer to perfection could be seen as an intrinsic justification only if it is a claim of self-perfection.

Very good. Yes. That is the difference between the Law and the Sacraments.

Such a claim might have some type of validity, but from our point of view coming closer to God requires an extrinsic explanation.

The existence of a loving God.

How do we move from this position. In order to provide some claim to intrinsic validity we are forced to accept some type of objectivity about our beliefs. The intrinsic reinforcer becomes the goodness or badness of actions based on their consequences. Now this seems to be in conflict with an extrinsic explanation or an extrinsic reinforcer.

Not necessarily. It is both/and.

So I guess my point is can we have different perspectives pointing in different directions?

No. But we can have different perspectives pointing in the same direction.

Ok, here's what I mean.

Justification is only in one direction. The perfection of the Soul moving in the direction of holiness and ultimate union with God.

Above you first said:
I think justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality


Only that justification when one is perfected in the after life and enters heaven for all eternity is final. Justification here on earth is not final. That is why Abraham and the patriarchs who were perfected externally by their works could not enter heaven, could not be perfected without us:

Heb 11:
39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Their perfection was only extrinsic as it was done according to works.

The gift of Sanctifying Grace was not yet given by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. So, although the Patriarchs were perfect on the outside, that is on the outside of their soul. They had not yet been washed with the one Baptism of the Holy Spirit washing their souls clean of any defect. That could only happen when Jesus gave us His Gift of dying on the Cross for us that the Paraclete might come. This gift requires no work on our part as it is freely given to those who obey.

That justification which I am now referring to is the justification in the Sacraments. The chief example of which is Baptism. These are fountains of Grace wherein God washes our souls of every defect. Since it is God who does it, the washing is perfect. But it is not yet final. As I said before, only the Judgment of God in the afterlife will lead to a final justification. That being our entrance into union with God when we will see Him as He truly is.

Then you said:

being (as you demonstrate) looked at from two different perspectives.


As you can see, then, if I have made myself clear, is that both perspectives are oriented towards union with God. However, they don't see the path the same way. Its not as though one took the high road and one took the low road, it is more as though one is looking to the right and one is looking to the left but they are both moving forward.

When St. Paul says "faith", he assumes that works are present in that faith. When he says "works", he means works alone or that these individuals place faith in their works and not in God.

Let me show you. First he says that only doers are justified:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

That is very much in agreement with what St. James says.

But then he says:
Romans 3:26-28 (King James Version)

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

That sounds almost as though he has done a 180 degree turn and has contradicted himself. But he hasn't. Lets continue to read:

19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:

20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

In other words, because he believed, Abraham worked. Because he believed God, he got busy and had sex with his wife, even though his own body was almost dead and his wife was sterile. Abraham exercised his faith.

And then Scripture says, THEREFORE, it was imputed to him for righteousness.

So, you see, St. Paul includes works in faith. Because, for him, if works do not exist, there is no faith at all.

St. James perspective is different in that he acknowledges the existence of faith without works, but considers that faith already dead rather than non existent. It is clear to me that St. James would agree 100/% that only doers of the law will be justified. But that is why St. James says that we are justified by works and not by faith only. If we break that statement down, we see that faith is assumed. He is not saying that one is justified by works alone. But that one is justified by faith expressed in works:
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

So when St. James says justified by works, he assumes the existence of faith.

Therefore, RickJ is correct.

Does that make sense?

Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

[TUT317]

finality? Not yet. I'll explain further below.



Two different perspectives. The perspectives are different. But not the ends. I'll explain further below.



Your terminology is interfering with the idea of justification.



Very good. Yes. That is the difference between the Law and the Sacraments.



The existence of a loving God.



Not necessarily. It is both/and.



No. But we can have different perspectives pointing in the same direction.

Ok, here's what I mean.

Justification is only in one direction. The perfection of the Soul moving in the direction of holiness and ultimate union with God.

Above you first said:
I think justification still boils down to intrinsic and extrinsic finality


Only that justification when one is perfected in the after life and enters heaven for all eternity is final. Justification here on earth is not final. That is why Abraham and the patriarchs who were perfected externally by their works could not enter heaven, could not be perfected without us:

Heb 11:
39And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: 40God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Their perfection was only extrinsic as it was done according to works.

The gift of Sanctifying Grace was not yet given by Jesus Christ sacrifice on the Cross. So, although the Patriarchs were perfect on the outside, that is on the outside of their soul. They had not yet been washed with the one Baptism of the Holy Spirit washing their souls clean of any defect. That could only happen when Jesus gave us His Gift of dying on the Cross for us that the Paraclete might come. This gift requires no work on our part as it is freely given to those who obey.

That justification which I am now referring to is the justification in the Sacraments. The chief example of which is Baptism. These are fountains of Grace wherein God washes our souls of every defect. Since it is God who does it, the washing is perfect. But it is not yet final. As I said before, only the Judgment of God in the afterlife will lead to a final justification. That being our entrance into union with God when we will see Him as He truly is.

Then you said:

being (as you demonstrate) looked at from two different perspectives.


As you can see, then, if I have made myself clear, is that both perspectives are oriented towards union with God. However, they don't see the path the same way. Its not as though one took the high road and one took the low road, it is more as though one is looking to the right and one is looking to the left but they are both moving forward.

When St. Paul says "faith", he assumes that works are present in that faith. When he says "works", he means works alone or that these individuals place faith in their works and not in God.

Let me show you. First he says that only doers are justified:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

That is very much in agreement with what St. James says.

But then he says:
Romans 3:26-28 (King James Version)

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

That sounds almost as though he has done a 180 degree turn and has contradicted himself. But he hasn't. Lets continue to read:

19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb:

20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

In other words, because he believed, Abraham worked. Because he believed God, he got busy and had sex with his wife, even though his own body was almost dead and his wife was sterile. Abraham exercised his faith.

And then Scripture says, THEREFORE, it was imputed to him for righteousness.

So, you see, St. Paul includes works in faith. Because, for him, if works do not exist, there is no faith at all.

St. James perspective is different in that he acknowledges the existence of faith without works, but considers that faith already dead rather than non existent. It is clear to me that St. James would agree 100/% that only doers of the law will be justified. But that is why St. James says that we are justified by works and not by faith only. If we break that statement down, we see that faith is assumed. He is not saying that one is justified by works alone. But that one is justified by faith expressed in works:
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

So when St. James says justified by works, he assumes the existence of faith.

Therefore, RickJ is correct.

Does that make sense?



Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi De Maria,

I would like to carry on this discussion but it obvious I am putting people off with jargon.

Perhaps it would be better if I let other people carry on the discussion.

Regards

Tut

[Wondergirl]

I would like to carry on this discussion but it obvious I am putting people off with jargon.

Perhaps it would be better if I let other people carry on the discussion.

That's not the solution, to run away. Just put your comments into clear English. I am very interested to read your thoughts.

[TUT317]

That's not the solution, to run away. Just put your comments into clear English. I am very interested to read your thoughts.

Hi Wondergirl,

Good point. Clear English is a good idea therefore I will approach the topic from a slightly different angle.

If we have faith in God's works( as did Abraham) then we need to demonstrate our faith through works. If God commands something of me and for what ever reason and I decide not to do it then this is hardly a demonstration of faith on my part.

What if Abraham decided not to obey God and kill Issac because he thought this would be an immoral act. Even though God was never going to let Abraham kill Issac it can still be argued that putting someone in that position is not very ethical on their part.

It doesn't seem possible that God can command anything immoral. Perhaps the problem is that from the human perspective it only seems immoral at the time. The other perspective says that such an act is clearly immoral and therefore God's commands have nothing to do with morality. Faith in doing works is simply doing what God commands, right or wrong. In other words,is something right because God commands it or is it a case of God not commanding anything which is not right?

Two different perspectives which don't seem compatible.

Regards

Tut

[De Maria]

Hi Wondergirl,

Good point. Clear English is a good idea therefore I will approach the topic from a slightly different angle.

If we have faith in God's works

This is an excellent summary of what I am saying as pertains to Sacramental justification, which are the Works of God. However, the rest of the message seems to be about an entirely different subject.

( as did Abraham) then we need to demonstrate our faith through works.

By obeying, agreed. And still on topic.

If God commands something of me and for what ever reason and I decide not to do it then this is hardly a demonstration of faith on my part.

Still in agreement. And still on topic.

What if Abraham decided not to obey God and kill Issac because he thought this would be an immoral act. Even though God was never going to let Abraham kill Issac it can still be argued that putting someone in that position is not very ethical on their part.

This is off topic. But I guess we can get past it.

In law, there is a saying, the King is always right. That means that the King is above the law. The King makes the laws therefore by his actions he can void the law.

God being the King of Kings is the same way. All life belongs to Him, therefore, if He commands someone to take a life, that person is not committing an immoral act.

It doesn't seem possible that God can command anything immoral.

It isn't. Morality is, at its essence, obedience to God.

Perhaps the problem is that from the human perspective it only seems immoral at the time. The other perspective says that such an act is clearly immoral and therefore God's commands have nothing to do with morality. Faith in doing works is simply doing what God commands,

Exactly!

right or wrong.

Doing what God commands is always right.

In other words,is something right because God commands it or is it a case of God not commanding anything which is not right?

Both are true.

Two different perspectives which don't seem compatible.

But not exactly the discussion we are having.

St. James did not say that God is immoral and St. Paul did not say that God is wrong. They both take for granted that God is right.

What they seem to differ upon is whether one is justified by faith apart from works or faith and works.

My contention is that WE are comparing apples to oranges when we compare Romans 3:28 to James 2:24.

Romans 3:28 should be compared to James 1:18:
18Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.

This describes Sacramental justification where we are born again, without our works.

And James 2:24 should be compared to Romans 2:13:
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

The teachings of St. James and St. Paul on justification are reflected in the Sacramental system of the Catholic Church.

Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

[TUT317]

This is an excellent summary of what I am saying as pertains to Sacramental justification, which are the Works of God. However, the rest of the message seems to be about an entirely different subject.


Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi De Maria,

Sacramental theology could be see by some non-Catholics as a threat to faith. From my point of view I am not prepared to criticize this. So I am skirting around the topic.

The problem is that I don't see faith as an example of intrinsic finality-dogma and creed-it is an example of extrinsic finality.

It is difficult to reconcile two types of teleological explanations i.e. two types of final causes.

I would rather discuss the things I mentioned towards the end of my post (Euthyphro problem) as I believe it has some relevance to the topic.

Regards

Tut

[De Maria]

Hi De Maria,

...
I would rather discuss the things I mentioned towards the end of my post (Euthyphro problem) as I believe it has some relevance to the topic...

Then please develop the argument since I thought I had addressed the idea of God and immorality.

Regards

Tut

Sincerely,

De Maria

[TUT317]

In law, there is a saying, the King is always right. That means that the King is above the law. The King makes the laws therefore by his actions he can void the law.

God being the King of Kings is the same way. All life belongs to Him, therefore, if He commands someone to take a life, that person is not committing an immoral act.



It isn't. Morality is, at its essence, obedience to God.



Sincerely,

De Maria

Hi again De Maria,

Most people disagree about the nature of morality, but the one thing they mostly agree upon is there should be some type of objectivity when it comes to morality.

I would argue that your 'king' example means in essence there is no objectivity when it comes to morality. Morality is simply what God wants.

At best this seems to be a subjectivist position. At worst it could be interpreted as, "God commands morality. Morality is what God commands".


What do you think?

Regards

Tut