Is There Fine Print in Romans 10?

"Before you sign a contract you had better read the fine print to see what is not covered," so says Pastor Seltz of The Lutheran Hour.  He goes on to say that "God's promises are not like that... there are no exceptions, there is no fine print.  Everyone who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ will not be put to shame.  Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.  You might be asking, 'Well, what does it mean to call on the Lord?'  Ah!  There's the catch, right?"  That's in the introduction to today's radio broadcast this first Sunday in Lent.  As he starts the actual lesson the above is repeated and then he asks, "Everyone?  Really? I mean, is there any fine print in Romans chapter 10?  You know about fine print, don't you?  Fine print spells out exclusions in contracts... Fine print says that even though it's being marketed is for everyone, it's not really for everyone.  So, is there any fine print in Romans chapter 10?  Does the word really mean everyone, or is there some fine print somewhere excluding people from this bold promise?  Where is the fine print in Romans 10?  Nowhere!  You won't find it there or anywhere in the Bible."  With all due respect, Pastor Seltz is wrong here.  Scripture, the Bible, DOES contain "exclusions" and even states that there will be some who cry out TO HIM "Lord, Lord!" who shall NOT enter the Kingdom of Heaven; in fact He will say to them, "depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (Matt. 7:21-23).  Part of "the fine print," if you will, limits entry into Heaven to those who "do the will of My Father in Heaven."  Simply calling upon Him is not enough, and the "fine print" is right there!

Attempting to prove his point, Pastor Seltz tells the story of the Pharisee and the Publican/Tax Collector who go into the Temple to pray (Luke 18:9-14).  The Pharisee boasts, "Thank you Lord for not making me like this tax collector..."  The tax collector humbly prays, "Have mercy on me, a sinner."  Jesus declares it is the tax collector who goes away justified before God.  Hmmmm, according to Pastor Seltz just "calling upon the Lord" is enough to justify, or save (keep in mind, he makes this equivocation in using this parable to support his argument for salvation).  So, per Seltz' earlier statement, the Pharisee should have been justified too!  Afterall, he too called upon the Lord, did he not?  Scripture tells us that the Pharisee did not leave justified.  So there we have yet another example of "fine print" which negates Pastor Seltz' premise.

Mt Claret Retreat Center, Camelback  Mountatin behind it.

Seltz goes on to tell another story, this one of a 21 year old man in Phoenix, Arizona who had decided to climb Camelback Mountain.  He made this decision without thought for any special clothing or gear - just a "strapping young man" who was full of courage.  However, as you may have guessed already, after getting about 50 feet up the side of a steep and shear rock face, he found himself unable to climb any higher and it was too risky to attempt to climb back down.  He was stuck, but he did happen to have a cell phone on him - so he called "9-1-1" and rescuers came out to save him.  He was saved because he gave up his pride and humbly called out for help.  Well, this climber happen to know the right number to call!  What if he had called the Mount Claret Retreat Center (a Catholic church and retreat center at the base of Camelback Mountain)?  The priests, nuns and/or office staff there would not have been able to "save" that young man - however, they would have known the right number to call to get him rescued!  The point we make here is just calling out for help may not be enough!  You have to call the right number!  When it comes to our salvation and the forgiveness of our sins, Jesus gave explicit instructions (more "fine print" for Pastor Seltz) which specifically points out who is able to forgive sins.  Jesus gave this authority to a special group of men, the Apostles, who would become our first bishops in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and only THESE MEN had the authority to forgive sins, and sins THEY did not forgive are NOT forgiven (John 20:22-23).  In the same context, as Jesus sent our first bishops out, they too were to send others out in the same manner  (John 20:21) [typo fixed, thanks Nathan!].  So, going somewhere which does not have this apostolic authority means you're going somewhere which has no authority to forgive sins - you would therefore be still stuck on the side of Camelback Mountain, to use Pastor Seltz' analogy.  You would not be "saved."

One cannot read Romans 10 in a vacuum, apart from the rest of Scripture.  The "fine print" is there, for those who have eyes to see.

Overall, Pastor Seltz message is not too far off the mark, in fact, "the message" is right on - but when it comes to where/whom to call, he "missed it by that much."

Please click on one of the "share" buttons below to share this article to your favorite social media sites - and feel free to comment too!

The Fatal Flaws in Sola Fide

The fatal flaw of sola fide can be found in the ONLY verse in the Bible which uses the words "faith" and "alone" (sola fide) together.  That verse is James 2:24:

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (NASB)
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. (KJV)
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?  (DRB)
You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.  (NIV)
See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.  (NABRE)

NO other verse uses these words together!  The ONLY place they are used together is in absolute denial of sola fide!  

Now according to the interpretation of Bradley Cochran (another blogger), even Luther's teaching on sola fide is NOT what most Protestants adhere to today. 

Luther’s notion of justifying righteousness is faith itself because faith satisfies the law.  Luther’s notion of justifying righteousness, then, was not Christ’s active and passive obedience, as in much of the Reformed versions of the doctrine of imputation.  
Furthermore, Luther’s fundamental understanding of justification is one of being “made righteous” by God’s granting of faith precisely because faith is transformational to the core of our hearts.  Luther’s understanding of “none are righteous,” is this: None are righteous apart from the heart transplant of faith, but with that transforming grace, people can be made righteous.  Luther’s understanding of “the works of the law” (pejoratively referred to today as works righteousness) is this: The works of the law are works done without transforming grace.  Good works, on the other hand, for Luther, are those done by the power of grace worked in the heart.

http://theophilogue.com/2009/01/17/what-martin-luther-really-said-luthers-sola-fide/

In other words, it is not faith alone, sola fide, which justifies - but the God given gift of faith which allows men to perform works which God sees as pleasing, or justifying.  Is the WORKS which justify, faith is the enabler to make the WORKS acceptable.  I'm not sure Cochran intended that, but that IS the logical conclusion to his argument - and that IS what Scripture tells us in James 2:24.

That being said, many Protestant sites make the claim that Luther said of sola fide, "it is the article by which the church stands; without which, it fails."  However, in doing a lot of searching for Luther actually making this statement, I've come up empty.  James Swan of BeggarsAllReformation blog also lists this among the "6 Quotes That Luther Didn't Actually Say." (Though Swan's "quote" does not mention sola fide explicitly, rather "justification" being the article by which the church stands or fails).  Did Luther himself say this?  For me, the jury is still out.  It is undeniable that many, perhaps even most Protestant apologists not only believe Luther did say it, they believe it - that their version of "church" falls if this article of sola fide falls.

In another article by Swan, from 2006, he defends Luther's use of the word "alone" in Romans 3:28.  The word "alone" does not appear in the original Greek OR Latin of this verse, it is an addition.  In Swan's article he dances around the fact, doesn't deny it - and then offers rationalization (some from Luther himself) for the reason Luther inserted the word into Scripture.  But oh, the irony!  Often when Protestant apologists are challenged with a scriptural view, they INSIST upon what was recorded in the original texts and reject ANY additions from later interpretations.  So why does Luther get a pass on this?  Why does someone like Swan support the rationalizations of Luther, and others, who argue for this addition to the text?  I submit he must do so.  If they do not defend Luther's defection from authentic scriptural text then they would be forced to admit Luther's Catholic critics were correct.  Luther SHOULD have accepted correction and not altered Scripture, but instead he entrenched himself in the error and used sarcasm as his defense.  

I'm sure Swan would be quick to point out that Luther himself pointed to other, respected, Catholics who used "alone" in reference to Romans 3:28.  The difference being, they were COMMENTING on the passage, not TRANSLATING it.  They were also contrasting "works of the law" not "works in general."  Works done in the state of grace, that is WITH faith, do indeed justify - as St. James so clearly points out and so explicitly states that faith is NOT ALONE in the matter of justification.  Even if we were to accept that "others made the same error" - why does this excuse the error?  It's still an error and still not appropriate to add interpretive words to a TRANSLATION of Scripture.  Now, if you want to call it Luther's PARAPHRASE of Scripture, fine - but let's not call it a TRANSLATION!  The fact is that MIS-translation of Romans 3:28 becomes quite foundational for the invented and anti-scriptural concept of sola fide. 
Whether or not Luther made the claim of the article of sola fide being that upon which his church, and the so-call Reformation, stands or falls - many DO put their "faith" in that article and that stance and the fact is - sola fide does not stand on its own.  Scripture does not support it and again, in the ONLY place where those two words are used together in Scripture (James 2:24) it is an explicit DENIAL of sola fide!  Come home to the Catholic Church.

AMDG,
Scott Windsor<<<

For more reading and related to this topic, let me recommend the following from another blogger and fellow convert:  Your Bible Probably Has a Mistranslation In It.
If you have enjoyed this article, please use the share or like buttons below it!  Thanks!

Infused v. Imputed

Infused v. Imputed

Article by Scott Windsor 

This is, perhaps, the dividing line between Catholics and (especially Calvinist) Protestants when it comes to Justification.  What do these terms really mean?  Let us begin first with definitions coming from each side as they define the terms then proceed with examination of the arguments.

Infused Righteousness (Catholic Position)

CCC 1999: The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification.

It is really as simple as that - grace is infused into the soul.  The soul is healed.

Imputed Righteousness (Protestant Position)

Lest we should stumble at the very threshold (this we should do were we to begin the discussion without knowing what the subject is), let us first explain the meaning of the expressions, To be justified in the sight of God, to be Justified by faith or by works. A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness; 2038 for as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion Book III, Chapter 11.2)

They admit that the sinner, freely delivered from condemnation, obtains justification, and that by forgiveness of sins; but under the term justification they comprehend the renovation by which the Spirit forms us anew to the obedience of the Law; and in describing the righteousness of the regenerate man, maintain that being once reconciled to God by means of Christ, he is afterwards deemed righteous by his good works, and is accepted in consideration of them. The Lord, on the contrary, declares, that he imputed Abraham’s faith for righteousness (Rom. 4:3), not at the time when he was still a worshipper of idols, but after he had been many years distinguished for holiness. Abraham had long served God with a pure heart, and performed that obedience of the Law which a mortal man is able to perform: yet his righteousness still consisted in faith. Hence we infer, according to the reasoning of Paul, that it was not of works. In like manners when the prophet says, “The just shall live by his faith,” (Hab. 2:4), he is not speaking of the wicked and profane, whom the Lord justifies by converting them to the faith: his discourse is directed to believers, and life is promised to them by faith. Paul also removes every doubt, when in confirmation of this sentiment he quotes the words of David, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered 2081,” (Ps. 32:1). 

I answer, that the grace which they call accepting, is nothing else than the free goodness with which the Father embraces us in Christ when he clothes us with the innocence of Christ, and accepts it as ours, so that in consideration of it he regards us as holy, pure, and innocent. For the righteousness of Christ (as it alone is perfect, so it alone can stand the scrutiny of God) must appear in court for us, and as a surety represent us judicially. Provided with this righteousness, we constantly obtain the remission of sins through faith. Our imperfection and impurity, covered with this purity, are not imputed but are as it were buried, so as not to come under judgment until the hour arrive when the old man being destroyed, and plainly extinguished in us, the divine goodness shall receive us into beatific peace with the new Adam, there to await the day of the Lord, on which, being clothed with incorruptible bodies, we shall be translated to the glory of the heavenly kingdom. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter, XIV, Nos. 11 and 12).

In short, righteousness covers over sin - but does not remove it.  The righteousness only makes the sin "covered" and "buried" so that we do not come under judgement.  It is not so different from the paraphrase of Luther in the statement of "snow covered dung."  Below is some research I have previously done on this alleged statement from Luther:

He may not have said those exact words, though he has been allegedly quoted as saying such, not merely by Catholics, but even by other Lutherans. The paraphrase may have come from Martin Luther’s Sermon on Our Blessed Hope (St. Louis Ed. IX: 930-957):

"We see grain sowed in the ground. Reason now asks: What happens to the grain in winter that has been sowed in the ground? Is it not a dead, moldy, decayed thing, covered with frost and snow? But in its own time it grows from that dead, moldy, decayed grain into a beautiful green stalk, which flourishes like a forest and produces a full, fat ear on which there are 20, 30, 40 kernels, and thereby finds life where only death existed earlier. Thus God has done with heaven, earth, sun and moon, and does every year with the grain in the field. He calls to that which is nothing that it should become something and does this contrary to all reason. Can He not also do something which serves to glorify the children of God, even though it is contrary to all reason?"

We do get closer to the saying here:

"I said before that our righteousness is dung in the sight of God. Now if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so" (Luther's Works, Vol. 34, page 184).

In that same document Luther adds:

"All the justified could glory in their works, if they would attribute glory to God with respect to themselves. In this manner they would not be dung, but ornaments" (Luther's Works, Vol. 34, page 178). http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2006/10/luthers-snow-covered-dunghill.html

The bottom line here is that Luther and Calvin are not far apart on this issue as both see justification as a "covering" of ones sin.

The Contrast

The contrast then is the Catholic position is one of healing and restoration of the soul to a condition of righteousness whereas the Protestant position doesn't cure or change anything - it simply covers it up - leaving the sinner with his sin (thus impure and cannot enter Heaven, according to Revelation 21:27).  Now this, alone, would not be so bad IF the Protestant position accepted Purgatory, wherein any stain of remaining sin in those who have been judged "righteous" or "saved" can be "purged," but they also reject Purgatory!  Thus the doctrine of imputation, as THEY define it, leaves them condemned to Hell!  The Catholic position of infusion of righteousness washes away sin and restores the soul to a state of grace which enables the person to be "saved" even if some stain of (venial) sin might remain, that too can be "cured" in Purgatory.  

Now the Protestant will argue, "How can one who has been imputed righteousness and judged righteous be condemned to Hell?"  And again, it is not the Catholic position that such a person would be condemned.  Those with any stain of sin remaining after they have been judged while still being "saved" will have their works tested.  If there are good works, they will endure the testing and the person will be rewarded; if there are bad works (sin) then these will be "burned up" and this person, though already judged as "saved" will "suffer loss."  This is fundamentally clear in St. Paul's words to the Corinthians:

 ¹³ Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.

¹⁴ If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

¹⁵ If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

(1 Corinthians 3:13-15, DRB)

This is as clear of a testimony to Purgatory and describes exactly what will take place there!  I repeat again, this passage speaks to men who have already been deemed to be "saved" and their works are being tested by fire and those which "burn" will cause this saved person to "suffer loss."  But I digress.

Back to the point, in the Protestant position of imputation the person is "clothed" or "covered" in righteousness, but like a snow covered dunghill, the sin remains.  A clothing or covering does not change or remove that which is clothed or covered.  In the Catholic position righteousness is infused into the soul, the soul is changed.  

Non-Religious Examples:

Infused:  Gasoline which is infused with ethenol, while still gasoline is now a cleaner burning gasoline - it has been changed.  A coach can "infuse the team with confidence" (source).

Imputed: To assign fault, blame or credit.  "An example of to impute is find an oil leak as the cause for a car breaking down" (source). 

A Matter of Semantics?

I believe that when push comes to shove, the Protestant will acknowledge that the person is changed by this imputation, but if they do - then what they are really doing is accepting the Catholic position of infusion.  It would seem that they must ultimately accept the Catholic position here, even if they continue to call it "imputed righteousness," for as explained earlier, such an imputation does not change anything, it only covers it up.  In the Lord's Day (the Judgment) when all our works are tested - the "snow" will be melted away and expose that which it covered.  Any sin which remains will be a cause of suffering for the person (again, who has already been judged to be "saved" at this point).  So, when we get down to the fundamentals here, are not the Protestants still affirming the Catholic position?  If so, why is this a major point of contention between us?  

I plea to our Separated Brethren, why not come home?

  

  

Sola Fide - Hofstetter Style

Response Article by Scott Windsor to:

http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/faith-and-works-part-1

Are We Justified by Works or Grace

October 8, 2008

Rather than approach this like a formal debate, I will respond in dialog format, quoting first Mr. Hofstetter’s article and inserting my responses.  My purpose in responding to these articles is because Hofstetter claims I have ignored his arguments regarding James 2.  When I challenged him to present the arguments I have allegedly ignored, his only response was “read my articles.”  I have now done so (see below) and renew my challenge to Mr. Hofstetter to demonstrate where I have ignored any argument regarding James 2 and the discussion of sola fide (we were not discussing sola gratia).

(All Scripture references are from the English Standard Version, ESV.

The reader should be able to see the Greek if UTF-8 Unicode is enabled

on the computer. Greek transliteration follows the B-Greek standard,

http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/transliteration.txt).

The question concerns the meaning of the term “justification” (Grk.,

δικαιόω, DIKAIOW) in James 2:14-26, and the relationship between faith

and works. Are Paul and James proposing two different schemes of

salvation, as it were, or are their ideas actually complementary, with

the sort of variation we would expect from two different authors having

two different emphases in their respective works? Closely related to

this is the overall canonical teaching on faith and works. In this

essay, I will restrict myself primarily to to the Pauline conception as

expressed in Romans and Galatians for purposes of comparison with the

exegetical treatment of James (though some passages from elsewhere in

the Pauline corpus will be cited for clarification). The primary text to

examine:

Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but

does not have works? Can that faith save him? Jas 2:15 If a brother or

sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, Jas 2:16 and one of

you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving

them the things needed for the body, what good is that? Jas 2:17 So also

faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Jas 2:18 But

someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith

apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. Jas

2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons

believe--and shudder! Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish

person, that faith apart from works is useless? Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham

our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the

altar? Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and

faith was completed by his works; Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was

fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as

righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God. Jas 2:24 You see that

a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. Jas 2:25 And in

the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when

she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? Jas 2:26

For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from

works is dead.

This is a frequent discussion and a major dividing line between those

the Pelagians and semi-Pelegians (Roman Catholics, Arminians) and the

followers of the Augustinian tradition as interpreted through Calvin

(various Reformed).

sw: Let me stop you here.  Pelagianism (P) and Semi-Pelagianism (SP) are both condemned heresies by the Catholic Church (P in 431 at the Council of Ephesus and SP in 529 at the Council of Orange).  Faithful Catholics are neither of these.  You’re building a strawman (thus far) on a false premise.

In this essay, I am not going to directly interact

with the “New Perspective on Paul” or the “Federal Vision”

controversies, accept to note here the similarity between those two

approaches and the historic RC/Arminian conclusions.

Overview of Paul's Treatment of Justification in Romans and Galatians

In both Romans and Galatians, the apostle sees justification as the act

of God in declaring the sinner “not guilty” before the law. The source

of justification is the grace of God, understood as God's decision to

supply this acquittal, and the ground or basis for justification is the

work of Christ understood in its holistic sense.

Rom 1:16-17 provides the theme for Paul's exposition of the subject in

Romans:

Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God

for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the

Greek. Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from

faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."

sw: And what is faith?  Or, more specifically, what is “saving faith?”   It must be noted that Hofstetter begins this essay stating he will explain James 2, yet rather than beginning with James, he begins with St. Paul.  I submit, as I have already done on CDF, that there is no conflict between Sts. James and Paul in the Catholic view, as Hofstetter, amongst many/most Protestant apologists, implies.  The fact which differs between the two Apostles is that St. Paul speaks against “works of the Law” and St. James supports works done in the state of Grace.  

Like any good preacher, Paul uses a biblical text, in this case Hab 2:4.

Paul's point is that both Jew and Greek (understood as the Gentiles in

general) are under the same standards and must meet the same

requirements for salvation, a very controversial idea in the NT church,

as Acts 15 and related passages indicate. “From faith to faith” has been

variously interpreted, but most likely refers to faith as expressed

throughout redemptive history. In other words, Paul expresses (and this

is consistent with his exposition throughout) that salvation (in the

broad sense) has always been about faith. The terms translated

“righteousness” and “righteous” in the ESV are simply the noun and

adjective forms of the verb frequently translated “justify” (all have

the root δικαι-, DIKAI-, changing only the ending to indicate the

precise part of speech). This demonstrates the relevance of this passage

to the subject at hand, and also helps make sense of Paul's development

of this theme throughout Romans.

I will interject here, no Catholic doubts that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ and Him crucified, resurrected and ascended into Heaven.  The question at hand, the one Hofstetter and I were discussing, is the matter of sola fide - “faith alone” - and James 2 clearly preaches against sola fide.  In fact, it is in verse 24 that we find the ONLY PLACE in ALL OF SCRIPTURE that the words “faith” and “alone” (or “only”) are used together, and what does verse 24 say?  Let us use Hofstetter’s preferred version:

Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

It says “NOT BY FAITH ALONE!”  What’s more it clearly states that a person is “justified by works!”  Now, I must clarify here too - the implication of the passage is also opposed to what I call “sola opus” (works alone) for it says “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone,” therein implying that the works are accompanied by faith, and directly stating that faith is accompanied by works - therefore it is “NOT by faith alone.”  We’ve seen several Protestant writers dance around this one - and what it typically boils down to by them is doublespeak.  They will make a statement like, “justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith that is alone.” (Sproul, RC, qtd. on http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/contra_sola_fide.html).  We shall see that Mr. Hofstetter uses the same doublespeak... later... I just had to throw that in now.

Continuing now with Hofstetter’s essay:

After establishing his theme, Paul elaborates that both Gentiles (Rom

1:18-32) and Jews (Rom 2:1-3:20) are under sin, and thus equally in need

of the grace of God revealed in Christ. This involves an extensive

discussion in chapter 2 on the nature of works and their relationship to

salvation. Paul says:

Rom 2:6 He will render to each one according to his works: Rom 2:7 to

those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and

immortality, he will give eternal life; Rom 2:8 but for those who are

self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there

will be wrath and fury. Rom 2:9 There will be tribulation and distress

for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek,

Rom 2:10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the

Jew first and also the Greek. Rom 2:11 For God shows no partiality. Rom

2:12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without

the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

Rom 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before

God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. Rom 2:14 For when

Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires,

they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. Rom

2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts,

while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting

thoughts accuse or even excuse them Rom 2:16 on that day when,

according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Now, does this indicate a form of salvation by works? Paul is actually

working toward the purpose of the law in demonstrating culpability and

the inability of any human being to keep that law. What Paul says above

is true in the absolute sense, but only hypothetical in the existential,

as the continuing discussion clearly indicates. In 2:15-16, he compares

the written law of the Jews with the “law of conscience” written on the

hearts of the Gentiles, a law which does not save, but which bears

witness that there is in fact a higher law of which even the Gentiles

have some knowledge, so that his comparison here certainly does not

indicate law keeping has the purpose of any kind of salvation. Even more

to the point is the further development to the end of chapter 2, where,

using the circumcision as a metaphor for keeping the law, Paul indicates

that true law-keeping is a matter of the Spirit, and not of any outward

observance (a theme which is also evident in the Prophets). The use of

circumcision here, besides making perfect sense in the comparison

between Jew and Gentile, also indicates that the ultimate work is not on

the part of the law-keeper, but on the part of the Spirit (which is to

say God himself). The individual no more contributes to the spiritual

law-keeping than the did the Jew under the Old Covenant contribute to

his own circumcision.

My argument here would be that St. Paul IS arguing that even works of the Law CAN justify, and our Lord made the same argument!  

Mark 12:28  And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31  The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions. (ESV)

What’s this?  Keeping the commandments (works of the Law even!) and in doing this, Jesus stated that the scribe who challenged Him was “not far from the kingdom of God.”  Yet, he was not quite there - I submit that the implication here is contra sola opus, that works alone do not gain salvation - but works with faith may.  The scribe, while having the works, lacked the faith necessary.

Back to Hofstetter’s essay:

This sets up Paul's conclusion in 3:1-20, the driving point of this

section of the discourse. In fact, no one is able to keep the law in any

kind of saving sense, and Paul liberally quotes his Bible to demonstrate

the impossibility of doing so. “There is none righteous (Grk., δίκαιος,

DIKAIOS), no, not one.” (Paul summarizes this in 3:23 as he rhetorically

refers to the previous discussion, “All have sinned, and fallen short of

God's glory.” Whether the oracles of God or the unwritten law of

conscience, the law serves the purpose of condemning all people and

preparing them, in its message of hopelessness, for the hope of Christ.

And I agree with Hofstetter here - no one is able to perfectly keep even just the two “Greatest Commandments” I quoted earlier, thus all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory.”  I again repeat, I do not, nor does Catholicism, teach that one can be saved by works alone - no more or less than one can be saved by faith alone.  But, where one has faith WITH works - THAT is a “saving faith” and can lead to salvation for those who persevere in that faith.

Back to Hofstetter’s essay:

3:21-26 is the response to 3:1-20 and furthers the original theme

statement of 1:16-17 showing it's particular application through Christ.

How is the dilemma of sin and the judgment of the law solved? It is

solved only through faith in Christ. Through the work of Christ, God

justifies, declares righteous, acquits the guilty. Both Jew and Gentile

have sinned, and both Jew and Gentile find righteousness not through

their works (an impossibility, Rom 3:20), but through faith in Christ.

There is an element of theodicy here, as well. How can God remain

righteous himself, and acquit the guilty? He does so on the basis of

Christ's work, Christ as the propitiation (Grk., ἱλαστήριον,

hILASTHRION), and he does so as a free gift (Grk., δωρεὰν, DWREAN). What

the law could not do, God does through Christ and on the basis of his

sacrifice. As Paul goes on to say:

Rom 3:28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of

the law.

This, then, is the primary theological premise through which the rest of

Romans must be read. To use somewhat more theological language, the

emphasis is on God's grace particularized through the sacrifice of

Christ, with faith is the instrumental means of accessing the consequent

salvation.

Has anyone begun to notice that we’re STILL not discussing James 2?  Remember, Hofstetter claimed that his essays contained the arguments I have allegedly ignored regarding James 2.  Other than quoting James in passing, Hofstetter has, so far, ignored St. James’ epistle.  For what it’s worth, I am in agreement with Mr. Hofstetter here!  Works alone do not justify nor can they save.

Back to more of Hofstetter’s essay:

One of the sub-themes of interest to Paul, and a theme which will be of

great concern also in the general epistles, is that of actual spiritual

reality vs. outward appearance. Paul actually goes in a direction

similar to James to show that real faith is validated by its fruits. How

does one know that one is really in Christ? Is mere profession verbal of

faith enough? Certainly not, or as Paul might say, μὴ γένοιτο, MH

GENOITO, “absolutely not!” True faith and truly being in Christ (as

opposed to mere verbal profession) always results in a changed life and

a changed attitude toward sin, as Paul makes clear in Rom 6.

This is certainly part of the background subtext for understanding the

“conditional” passage in Rom 11:

Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although

a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in

the nourishing root of the olive tree, Rom 11:18 do not be arrogant

toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the

root, but the root that supports you. Rom 11:19 Then you will say,

"Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." Rom 11:20 That

is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand

fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. Rom 11:21 For if

God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Rom

11:22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward

those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue

in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. Rom 11:23 And even

they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for

God has the power to graft them in again.

Well at least Hofstetter has mentioned St. James again!  However, as we see, it is only a passing mention and he returns quite quickly to his essay on St. Paul.  Since he has mentioned St. James again and even states St. Paul “actually goes in a direction similar to James” - let me affirm again, Catholics do NOT see a conflict between Sts. James and Paul!  BOTH of them teach that neither works alone nor faith alone justifies!  Rather, it is a working faith or “saving faith” which justifies.

Back to Hofstetter:

Is it possible therefore to turn one's back on the grace given? That

would run contrary to practically the entire preceding discourse. Paul

makes clear in Rom 8:29-30 that the redemption of the believer is rooted

in all eternity and dependent wholly upon God's grace. Note the

commitment on the part of God to bring the believer to glory. In Romans

9, Paul emphasizes God's sovereign grace, likening God to the potter and

his people to the clay. In Rom 10, Paul shows the universal nature of

the Gospel in reminding his readers of the words of Joel that “whoever

calls upon the name of the Lord [Jesus] will be saved.” Here in Rom 11,

Paul is contrasting Israel, which has been rejected, with his new

people, the Gentile believers in Christ, who have been “engrafted.” One

should not take the grace of God lightly, nor presume upon it, but

instead should fear, in the proper biblical sense of the word, implying

awe and gratitude for the immense grace of God. One should not presume

that simply because one has professed this faith that one is actually

engrafted, but should instead humbly seek to demonstrate that one's

faith is in fact real. This is in fact an implicit theology of

perseverance. The proper attitude of one who has truly experienced

engrafting is humble reliance on God and his grace, and seeking to live

according to that grace – Paul is about to spend five more chapters

informing his readers precisely what living according to God's grace

really looks like. If those fruits are not present, it means that the

inward reality intended to be represented by the outward profession is

absent. One has covenant identification without the covenant reality.

Well, Hofstetter concludes this essay going into yet another subject!  He has abruptly moved from a discussion of sola fide to the “Once Saved, Always Saved” (OSAS) discussion.  Is this a deliberate move to distract the reader further from the fact that throughout this entire essay he does not deal with what St. James wrote AT ALL?  This essay, from the perspective of it being a “response” to what I have argued from James 2, was a complete waste of time.   I have, however, taken the time to answer each of Hofstetter’s arguments from this essay - with the exception of not going down the rabbit hole of yet another discussion (OSAS) in his final comments.  Now, in fairness, he did point to TWO essays on the subject, as if they were somehow linked.  Let the reader note, this first essay was written in 2008 - and the second (which I’m about to get to) was written in 2011, a good two and a half years later!  Not that it matters too much - but let me state that the two essays are as much disjointed in subject as they are in time.

Faith and Works Part 2

April 10, 2011

http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/2011/04/10/faith-and-works-part-2

James 2:14-26

Salvation by Grace Through Faith or Works?

(A “continued” essay from Barry Hofstetter)

One of the major themes of the catholic epistles is the place of the

Christian in the world. What does it mean to be a Christian?

To be a Christian means that one is a follower of Jesus Christ and His teachings.  Of course from the Catholic perspective this includes NOT being separated from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which Jesus Christ Himself not only promised to build - but DID build upon the 12 foundations of His Apostles.  Those who are separated from THAT Church may be following a portion of the Truth, but the fullness of Truth - the fullness of the Faith can only be found in THE Church which Jesus Christ built.  Outside of that One Church you’re missing something.

How do Christians live their lives?

Christians are called to live in the world, but not of the world.

1 John 2:15  Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world— the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever. (ESV)

Note, that it’s not merely a matter of having faith or believing - but DOING the will of the Father - that’s “works.”

Back to Hofstetter’s questions which open this part of the essay:

What is the relationship of the Christian to society? How do Christians

“look” when those outside the community observe them?

As stated above, we are to be IN society, but not necessarily OF society.  How we “look” to those outside of the Christian community should be as those who love one another, as Jesus Christ so loved us first.  St. Francis of Assisi once said, “preach the gospel always, if necessary - use words.”  In short, our DEEDS show those outside of our community what our relationship is to Christ.  As someone else said (not sure who) “Actions speak louder than words.”  

Back to Hofstetter’s essay:

This is in contrast to Paul's epistles, which are much more concerned

with the new theological and eschatological reality in which believers find

themselves. The questions raised in the Pauline epistles are more in the

nature of “What is the relationship of the believer to God? How and why do

Christians have this relationship? Paul is interested in the indicative, in

the essential nature of the Christian life. The catholic epistles are

interested imperative, the results, the shape and form, of that indicative.

I would beg to differ with Hofstetter’s assessment here for it is in contrast to what he stated earlier!  St. Paul DOES speak of how the Christian is to act!  He DOES speak to the necessity of works/deeds!  Hofstetter concedes this contrast in the very next passage:

This is certainly a matter of emphasis and focus. Paul at times is very

concerned with Christian behavior, including how believers conduct

themselves in relationship to the world, and one may find a number of

references to the theological rationale for the Christian life in the

catholic epistles.

So, I’m not quite sure why Hofstetter felt the need to say St. Paul is contrasted in respect to those questions!  Now, while he concedes that St. Paul is not contrasted - he immediately goes back to arguments indicating he is and (finally) mentions James 2 again!

But the difference in emphasis is real, and often leads

to differing vocabulary, expressions and figures of speech as each author

makes his unique contribution within this framework. Such is particularly

the case in the passage which concerns us in this essay, James 2:14-26.

Paul and James use the similar vocabulary (works, justify, faith, et al.), but

they seem to use these words quite differently from one another. They use

the same OT paradigm (Abraham), but the lessons they draw from this

paradigm are quite different, some would say even contradictory. Luther is famous

here for wanting to exclude James from the NT canon on this very basis. Was

he correct?

Again, Hofstetter seems to be attempting to draw attention to conflict between Sts. James and Paul, and even draws Martin Luther into the mix.  Again I affirm that Sts. James and Paul are in complete agreement when it comes to faith and works and the necessity of BOTH of them WORKING TOGETHER for justification.  As for Martin Luther, no - he was not correct and had not the authority to make such a judgment in the first place, but let us not digress into yet another distraction.

To answer that question, a closer examination of the specifics

of this text is in order.

[Greek is unicode utf-8; transliteration follows the b-Greek protocol]

Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but

does not have works? Can that faith save him?

Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,

Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled,"

without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Jas 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me

your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons

believe--and shudder!

Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from

works is useless?

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up

his son Isaac on the altar?

Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was

completed by his works;

Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God,

and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of

God.

Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Jas 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by

works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

Jas 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart

from works is dead.

In this passage, James is concerned with true faith and the way in which

that true faith is manifested. The two cannot be separated. Faith, what we

truly believe, always manifests itself, something which we known not only

from the Scriptures, but from life experience as well. If there are no works

(and James makes clear what sort of works he has in in mind), then faith is

not present. Intellectual apprehension of the truth or doctrinal knowledge

of the truth is not sufficient. A faith that does not result in actions is

simply no faith at all – even the demons believe that God is one, but that

belief doesn't do them any good at all.

Hofstetter begins this paragraph stating the truth!  Saving faith is ALWAYS manifested with works accompanying it!  That being said, Hofstetter does go into a bit of a false statement.  The “faith” of the demons is also a “true” faith!  They DO have faith in the truth that Jesus is God!  What the demons don’t have is that true faith accompanied by works of faith.  Saving faith will ALWAYS be accompanied by works done in charity/love - for God IS love.  So while I agree that the faith of the demons “doesn’t do them any good at all,” it is false to say they have “no faith” or that somehow their “faith” in the “truth” is “untrue.”  What we DO see here, however, is the necessity of WORKS going along WITH FAITH for a “saving faith.”

Back to Hofstetter’s essay:

The kind of works that James has in mind are of a very practical nature,

and call to mind the various justice passages of the OT which have a similar

theme, e.g., Isa 10:1-3. Taking care of brothers or sisters in Christ who

are in dire straights is a clear manifestation of true faith, and refusal to

do so is a clear indication that whatever the profession of the individuals

involved, true faith is lacking. James does not exclude other types of

works, and determination of what those might be may be made from other

Scriptures, but his focus here is on just this type of very practical, real

world application. This is almost certainly due to problems in the practice

of those to whom James is writing.

The kind of works James has in mind and the speculation as to why he wrote this does not negate the fact that he states, quite clearly, “You see, a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”  The necessity of works WITH faith cannot be ignored.  The FACT that he clearly states “NOT by faith alone” equally cannot be ignored.  The CLEAR teaching here is that sola fide is flatly DENIED in Scripture!  

Back to Hofstetter’s essay:

James then proceeds to support his assertions with two OT examples, Abraham

and Rahab. His text for Abraham is Gen 22, and the testing of Abraham. This

passage has a rich background in and of itself (it cannot be understood

apart from the probation of Adam and Eve in Gen 3, as God continues to work

in Abraham in providing the nucleus of the new humanity who will renew the

Adamic covenant and stand as vice-gerents over God's universe). But here, as

always, James is concerned with the practical implications. Abraham showed

his faith by obedience to God's command, even his willingness to sacrifice

the Son of the Promise, upon whom Abraham's hope for the future rested.

In this context, we find James using language similar to Paul. Paul's claim

is that Abraham is justified by faith apart from works (Rom 4:1-5). How

does this square with James language, that Abraham was justified by his works?

Vs. 22 is central to properly interpreting this:

“You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was

completed by his works...”

In other words, works complement faith. Works are what makes faith alive in

that they show that the faith is a true and living faith. How do we know

that Abraham really believes, that Abraham true faith? Because his faith

works. It is effective faith. Abraham was justified by this faith because it

was real faith, and not dead.

Not to be too nit-picky here, but Hofstetter points out that St. James uses two OT references here, Abraham and Rahab, but only deals with the reference to Abraham.  I feel I need to be a bit “nit-picky” because of Hofstetter’s challenge that I have somehow ignored some of his arguments.  Back to the point.

Again, we would AGREE that Abraham’s faith is a living or saving faith and why?  Because his faith has works!  It is not merely that works compliment faith - but that works are absolutely necessary WITH faith - or that faith is a “dead faith.”  Again I assert, even a “dead faith” is a “real” faith - but a “dead faith” avails us nothing upon the Day of Judgment.

Back to Hofstetter’s essay:

Paul's concern in Romans is quite different. He is interested not in the

probative value of works, but in the actual nature of faith as the

instrument through which God communicates his grace. Paul wants to make it

clear that the works of the law do not have any saving value, and that

reliance on such works (he especially has in mind circumcision and the

ceremonial aspects of the law) is a false gospel. His point is that

Abraham's justification took place before circumcision, before Gen 22, and

is related solely to his faith.

And we’re back to St. Paul again.  Yes, St. Paul is primarily preaching against “works of the Law” when he speaks of such “works,” we AGREE!  St. James agrees too!  However, we need to go to that which precedes the part which Hofstetter quotes:

James 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty (ESV).

Note, St. James does not wholly throw out “works of the Law,” in fact he says that one is “doing well” if they keep the Law.  However, if one breaks even ONE law - he is guilty of ALL the law - and therefore positing the near impossibility of justification through the Law.  THEN he goes into the part about the necessity of faith WITH works in order to have justification - AND the FACT that faith alone (sola fide) is just as “dead” as works alone (sola opus).

So yes, Abraham (and Rahab too!) is justified by LIVING his faith and by his works - and “not by faith alone.”

Back to Hofstetter’s essay:

Although the same Greek word is used by both Paul and James, δικαιόω,

DIKAIOW, they are clearly not using the words in the same sense. Even in

English, “justify” may have different senses. There is the legal or forensic

use of the word, “to justify” in the sense of declare “not guilty.”  There is

also the probative sense of the word, “to justify” in the sense of “declare

right,” as in “My prediction was justified when the evidence was

considered.” In Paul, as the context clearly indicates (and not simply the

few verses cited, but beginning in 3:21), the usage is forensic. “Justify”

is used in the sense of “declare not guilty.” That declaration is based on

faith in Christ and his propitiatory sacrifice. In James, as demonstrated

above, the sense is probative, fitting well James' theme of how faith is

truly shown to be faith.

Well, there is a difference without distinction here.  “To declare not guilty” and “to declare right” are really the same thing.  I’m not sure why Hofstetter (and other Protestant apologists too) feels the need to try to make a difference here where no real difference resides.  It seems as though he is trying to make St. James to be saying something different from St. Paul, but as we have already established - they are really saying the same thing.  There is no conflict between them, and in fact, Hofstetter returns to that in his next statement:

It should also be noted that the idea of true faith resulting in works is

not at all foreign to Paul. Not only such verses as Romans 5:1-4, but the

entire structure of Romans indicates this. The first 11 chapters of Romans

are largely theological, exploring the implications of what it means to be

justified by faith. Chapters 12-16, on the other hand, explore the practical

implications of what it means that “the just shall *live* by faith.” There

is therefore no contradiction between James' view of faith and works, and

Paul's view of faith and works.

And again, WE AGREE!  Where we DON’T AGREE is in Hofstetter’s irrational insistence upon the slogan of “sola fide.”  The slogan is rooted in a lie!  The slogan is soundly and clearly refuted in the ONLY PLACE IN SCRIPTURE where the words “FAITH” and “ALONE” are used together.  I understand the Protestant “need” to rationalize their way around this - but all their argumentation is essentially doublespeak.  It is the attempt to make truth out of the lie.  Why is it so important to them?  Because it is one of the foundational teachings of those who left the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church less than 500 years ago.  To erase sola fide from their vocabulary is to erode the very foundation of their “faith.”  

I also assert that the “faith” of Protestants IS a “true faith” - it’s just not the fullness of faith.  Most Protestants believe in Jesus Christ as their Lord, God and Savior - which is true!  But they fall short of the fullness of the truth, the fullness of the faith, when they have abandoned that One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  They claim “reform” - but TRUE reformation does not happen separated from the One, for that is not “reform” at all, but a new forming.

The believer is justified through faith apart from works, but if

that faith does not result in works, it was not true faith at the

beginning.

And there is Hofstetter’s folly.  The believer is NEVER justified through faith apart from works!  Faith without works is dead.  Again, even a “dead faith” is a “true faith” - it is just not a “saving faith.”

In JMJ,
Scott Windsor<<<