Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 147
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Came across a philological-theological argument that the word for faith in the New Testament context (pistis) means embodied allegiance more than cognitive assent. This is interesting as it could indicate that the faith/works controversy comes from inappropriate translations and inadequate study of the original meaning for a first century audience. When I read this I immediately thought of the weird Centurion moment in the New Testament, where Jesus states that someone has the greatest faith (pistis) because he says —
I wonder if this anecdote was included in the New Testament specifically to illustrate the meaning of pistis. Because we see the cognitive trust that is typically thought of when we think of faith (say the word and it will be done), yet we also see an emphasis on fealty (not worthy) and, significantly, an even greater emphasis on obedience and allegiance to commands.
Well that's nice, but I don't think it's how "faith" has been translated down the ages. From the Scriptural view itself, the verse about "what is faith" doesn't say "it's swearing allegiance to the King, duh", it's the entire eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews 11:
"11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
Greek translations are tricky things, and Reformed scholars seem to love popping up with new takes in a "My Classical and Biblical Greek is better than yours" measuring contest.
Yeah, well I'm just an ignorant Roman Catholic, but I kinda think the "how will we be judged?" part is already covered, bro:
Matthew 25:31-46
I see this article comes from 2017 but it always amuses me to see Protestants rediscovering, and thinking they invented, Catholic concepts:
We gotchu covered there, fam:
Hebrews 11:1 may lean more toward assent but I think it’s still a bit nuanced, because the word translated assurance is hypostasis, its primitive connotation being “that which underlies the visible”. Some have translated this title deed. The word “assurance” is criticized because while the Greek words means certainty / certainly-persuaded, our word “assurance” doesn’t come close to that conclusiveness except in its technical business sense. For instance, if you are “reassuring” or “giving assurance” to a friend, it’s an open question whether this results in some cognitive certainty of a reality. But in the Greek there is sense of it being conclusively held.
In the rest of Hebrews 11, we see the examples of “why the ancients were commended” for their faith, and this is a list of people being obedient or committing to some action based on expectation of a promised reward. This seems more than “mental assent”, as in, “I assent to the truth of this and that”. It’s more like an allegiant assent, because the focus is on how the patron deity rewards its client believer. The person fully knows (not believes) that a promised reward will occur based on the relationship between the God and the believer based upon good faith (like the business term).
But I agree with you on the primacy of the passage in Matthew. The difficulty is in establishing compatibility between Matthew and some of the more “protestant” verses, like “by faith you are saved and not works”.
In context, isn't "works" the ceremonial Law of Moses?
That's probably the main thing in view (well, the Mosaic law as a whole; not merely the ceremonial component), but that doesn't defeat the protestant point.
Here's my reading: Verse 3:19-20: Paul asserts that the law gives knowledge of sin, that it's to reveal guilt, that it acquits no one. We're all guilty, and the law makes us know it. [note: guilt not exclusive to Jews, as it refers to the "whole world," and it describes the law as essentially revelatory of guilt, not creator of guilt. So in view is also being guilty, apart from the mosaic law]
3:21-22: But righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ is a thing, not through the law. [Conclusion: righteousness must exist distinctly from the mosaic law]
3:23-25: Righteousness is as a gift from Jesus; we're all inadequate otherwise. Received by faith. [Unfortunately, no definition of faith given.]
3:25-26: I don't have a clear enough picture of what precisely Paul is doing here.
3:27-28: So we can't boast. [Due, presumably, to 3:24-25]. I don't have a clear enough view of the semantic scope of law at the time, such that he speaks of a law of faith.
3:29-31: So gentiles eligible too. Upholding of the law. (Makes it clear that by "law of works" he did have in view the Mosaic law)
4:1-3: Repetition that works tied to boasting. Then, "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness." [note that while the επιστευσεν has some range of meaning, I'm pretty sure it's used of the one trusting/believing/whatever as the subject, and the one trusted in etc. as the object. This would be evidence against @coffee_enjoyer's theory, assuming this is connected to the earlier instances of faith/pistis. Abraham is a potent subject, as in him lies the origins of the Jewish people.]
4:4 Whatever's happening, it can't be something in such a way that a reward is earned.
4:5: And there we have it, it is in fact connected to righteousness in faith. In general, we trust (rather than be trustworthy->we are counted righteous.)
4:6-8: And our being righteous is comparable to David's being forgiven. [Reading the psalm that this is taken from, it does not look like this is talking about Mosaic ceremonies]
4:9-12: In general, saved by faith, the particular Jewish moral code (esp. circumcision) not such that it is necessary for salvation, nor is it sufficient.
4:13-15: Faith and the law treated as contrary principles of our being counted righteous.
4:16: Faith tied to it being grace-based
4:18-22: Definitely reads like it's talking of faith more as consisting in Abraham's trust than his fidelity.
4:23-24: And so this is analogous to us.
I think Romans 3 is largely inconclusive as to whether the protestant or non-protestant reading is favored, and may even lean catholic, but when Romans 4 is included, it seems definitely to favor the protestant position. Specifically, verses 1-8 and 18-24 read like Paul is not operating under a "saved by fidelity" system.
If I were not protestant, I would read "the law" in this as talking about discrete, external actions. Whereas, faith would be an internal thing, faithfulness.
But this seems inadequate to me, at least in light of other scripture. In the passage, I've pointed out that this is more difficult to reconcile with the 4:1-8 and 18-24. More broadly, Jesus summarizes the scriptures by describing the greatest commandment as something that per this analysis, would fall into faith; but it is clearly a requirement of the law, being both its summary and a specific commandment in it. With that conceded, any analysis of the law could not treat it as solely describing discrete external acts. The impossibility of following the law is probnbly also supportive of an internal component.
I'm very hesitant to break out Paul verse by verse and ascribe an individual meaning to each line. Chapters and verses were only delineated many hundreds of years after Paul wrote. He also does not come from the same tradition of writing that we developed, where we write our thesis front and center, then write our supporting evidence, then follow with a conclusion. This can make it hard to understand what the point of any given passage is.
With that said, my reading of Romans chapters three and four would be: The first covenant that God made with Abraham never promised eternal life, theosis, etc. to those who followed it. It did lead to Salvation - out of the Covenant came Jesus - but it does not grant salvation. When people failed to follow the first covenant, they weren't failing to achieve their own salvation. Instead they were merely demonstrating that humankind is weak and sinful.
In your exegesis of Romans 4, it seems to me that you are generalizing things that Abraham did as part of his forming a covenant with God in Genesis 15, into general moral action. I disagree that Romans 4:13 contrasts Faith and the law as opposing each other, but rather Faith preceded the covenant. If you reread Genesis 15 you will see that Paul's referring to it in a very orderly fashion. First you have him quote Genesis 15:6 ("Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.") Then right after that verse in Genesis, God forms the covenant ("On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.")
In Romans 4:18-25, Paul does generalize to the gentiles - because a huge part of his letter to the Romans is to argue that the gentiles do not need to join the old covenant to also join the new. A Christian's faith in Jesus is like Abraham's faith in God's promise - they both start a covenant. He is saying that Gentiles don't need to follow the old covenant to be justified because the old covenant never justified anyone. Unlike the new covenant, the old covenant never promised justification.
I also think we might not have the same terminology when we talk about Righteousness, Salvation, Justification. Sometimes Catholics and Protestants disagree about how much we are disagreeing because we just don't use the same words to talk about the same things. To be clear about the terminology I am using here are some definitions:
Justification - A formative process in which Christians are made righteous over the course of their entire lives. It is a gift from God, unearned, provided by Jesus' death on the cross to all who accept that He is Lord. This is something that can be lost or stalled and then picked up again. It is comparable to being born. It is unearned gift, but there are certain things you can do that hasten your (spiritual or physical) death.
Protestants often define justification as "To be declared righteousness," in a one time event. This dramatically changes how we read any Bible verse with the word "Justification" in it. Instead, Catholics would use the word "Salvation" in places where Protestants commonly use "Justification."
Salvation - Actually getting to Heaven. Not the same thing as Justification.
Righteousness - Correct behavior. Jesus imparts (not imputes) righteousness to us.
In the Catholic view, faith is an unmerited gift from God. Without God providing the grace of faith, there is no human effort that will grant a person faith. Faith leads to Justification, in which Christians become righteous over the course of their lives. At the end of our lives, we reach Salvation through this process of Justification, which we did nothing to earn but do need to participate in lest we lose it anyways.
This is a good video that examines the differences (an similarities) between what Catholics and Protestants believe on Justification.
I know there's nothing special about verses, I was just using them to go through the text in detail. The text contains detail; you can't just ignore that (but of course, the overall scope and arguments are also vital).
I'm assuming you're treating the covenant referred to here as roughly the same as the Mosaic one? That one definitely does promise life: "the one who does these things shall live by them," which Paul quotes in Galatians.
As to faith, etc: I didn't really address your position, mostly just coffee_enjoyer's, before. Let's get to yours.
As Paul does, in verses 23-25, and elsewhere. If you think there's a meaningful difference, point out where, and we can work from there.
Perhaps you may not think that Romans 4:13 does so, but I don't see how you could read 4:14 as not presenting a contrast/opposition of sorts. Read in context.
I think I've shown sufficiently that it does promise life, at least, above. Yes, I agree that obligations upon gentiles are a part of what's going on here. But they are not the primary object in focus. Rather, it's how the (yes, primarily jewish) law relates to our righteousness before God in general, and in so doing he sets it up as dependent upon faith, where faith is understood in a sense of trusting, rather than on something lawlike.
No, Paul's point is not that in both a covenant is begun. Never does he refer to the formation of the covenant as such. Further, that doesn't comport with the meaning of the passage, as the point (of some parts) is precisely that the gentiles don't need to be circumcised, whereas what you are saying would make the argument fail: they'd begin not needing to be circumcised, but then they'd need to get circumcised after (plausibly).
I am well aware that there are terminological differences.
The Protestant interpretations are closer to the Pauline ones, though sometimes more technical.
But okay, let's assume that the Catholic use of those terms, as defined here, is the same as the Pauline ones, for now, and see where things break down.
First: righteousness. You say:
In this passage, righteousness is counted to Abraham (seen repeatedly, should be uncontroversial). The righteousness counted here cannot be merely understood to be an instance of correct behavior. Rather, he's being counted righteous more holistically—as a whole person, as this is understood to constitute his righteousness in general. This faith makes Abraham righteous, not merely righteous in respect of his faith. This can be seen in the way that this is treated in the passage as the source of righteousness in general, in how the promise is attached, and in the previous context of the legal penalties, where it was talking about the relation of the law as a whole to a person, not the effect of any singular provision. Further, while this doesn't explicitly talk about imputed righteousness in the particular sense of Christ's work (at least, no more clearly than "received by the faith in 3:25), it is clearly talking about imputation of some variety ("it was counted to him as righteousness") and in verses 6-8, it talks about righteousness by means of the non-imputation of sin, basically.
Sure, though I'd also be willing to use that to refer to the enter process holistically, or in other important steps.
Yeah, sorry, that's just not what Paul's talking about here. Romans 4:2-3 connects justification to being counted righteous. This whole process is about how Abraham was justified, not his becoming righteous with this as one step of a broader whole (note: an aorist in 4:2, meaning a simple past action. This means Abraham believing probably acts as a discrete instance of justification, not one step in a broader process of justification). Further, the focus of this passage is on righteousness as reckoned by God, both as seen in the quotation, and in the opposition of righteousness to wrath, not as talking about our being made righteous. The law is presented as inadequate because it works condemnation, not for the reason of it failing to produce any good works.
Protestants rather understand the term in this passage to be following its legal usage (especially that used in the septuagint): to be talking about acquital or vindication, and this explains the passage far more potently.
The word has varied usage, but being counted righteous works well in this passage.
I am aware.
I've made an effort here, but if I remember correctly, Chemnitz' examination of the council of Trent, in the section on justification, does a pretty good job of showing why the protestant understanding of justification is correct, and the catholic one fails, and he does this in such a way that this is not merely a terminological dispute.
Do you believe that Jews who followed the Law went to Heaven without Jesus's death, and in fact would have made it to Heaven without Jesus' death? I never heard that position before, but Paul's quote in Galatians does not support it. Galatians 3:11-12: "Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”" The full quote is clear, the law is based on "living by" i.e. performing actions. It's not saying the law provides eternal life.
(I'm going to start using the Lattrimore translation, because I'm noticing a lot of theological language smuggled in when I switch between NRSV and NIV. Lattrimore was a secular Greek translator who is most famous for his excellent translation of the Iliad. He did become Episcopalian towards the end of his life, but this conversion was after he translated the New Testament. I think we're both trying to figure out the words as Paul wrote them, and short of studying Greek this is the best resource I can get.)
Let's go back to Romans. Paul starts Romans off with discussion of Pagan wickedness. Then he broadens it to discuss everyone's (even Jewish) sinfulness.
This doesn't sound like sole fide.
Then we have Romans 2:12-15 "For those who sinned outside the law will also perish outside the law: and those who sinned while within the law will be judged according to the law. For it is not those who listen to the law who are righteous in the sight of God, but it is those who do what is in the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature what is in the law, they, without having the law, are their own law; and they display the work of the law engraved on their hearts;"
So from the beginning, Paul is referencing the Law as referred to Torah observance. Gentiles "do not have the Law", but "display the work of the law engraved on their hearts." Paul seems really concerned with telling Roman Jews that Gentiles are able to do good without being Jewish. Because they are Gentiles they aren't participating in the nation-building or ceremonial aspects of the Jewish law, but rather the natural law or the moral law.
Throughout this, Paul is admonishing the Jewish people in Rome to not boast. They are just as sinful as the Gentile populace.
Now we move to Romans 4. So that I am not accused of ignoring any detail, I will go through section by section and explain how it makes perfect sense from a Catholic view:
Abraham is the patriarch, the father of the Jewish people. Abraham cannot boast because he had no power in himself to justify himself. Instead, God reaches out to Abraham and (despite some shakiness on Abraham's part) Abraham responds with faith. It is Abraham's response that counts as righteousness. Abraham believing God would give him descendants was a good/just/righteous action - it counts as righteous. It doesn't count as neutral or evil.
God singling Abraham out is a huge grace that Abraham received. Abraham did not deserve God's offer of a covenant. It is Abraham's faith in God that was considered the righteous action.
Abraham was able to achieve one canonically righteous action (his faith in God's promise) before being circumcised. Therefore, the uncircumcised Gentiles can also consider Abraham their Father in Faith (see that this is contrasted to verse 1, Abraham as the forefather in the way of the flesh.) And the circumcised are also supposed to walk in faith just like Abraham.
God told Abraham that the his descendants would inherit before the Torah existed. Abraham's faith was righteous (not imputed righteousness, but unqualified righteous.) It cannot be that only those who follow the Law of Moses will inherit the world, because the law by itself does not justify. "The law causes anger." This ties back to Chapter 3 verse 20: "since through the law comes consciousness of sin." The law only reveals human weakness. No one was ever going to follow the Torah all the way to Heaven.
Description of Abraham's act of faith. Restatement that faith is a gift, an unearned grace. Restatement that Abraham is the father of all those who have faith as well as the father of Jews in flesh. There is a little bit of a comparison between God bringing life from Abraham and Sarah's dead bodies and God bringing spiritual life from the spiritually dead Gentiles, but Paul doesn't really elaborate there.
Abraham's faith was righteous. God made sure that this passage was included in Genesis so Paul could win this argument with the Romans that the uncircumcised can be saved. I see very clearly the Catholic view of God sending grace, Abraham accepting the grace, and then that action of accepting the grace counting as righteousness.
Abraham was dead when Paul wrote his letter, so whether he was justified or not would have happened in the past, not as something ongoing. But 4:2 is an ironic negation - Abraham wasn't justified because of his action. Also, the aorist simply states the fact that an action has happened. It gives no information on how long it took, or whether the results are still in effect. An aorist could mean that the action took years. But however long it took, it's over now because Abraham is dead.
All four volumes are $180, do you know which volume or page number you're thinking of?
Alister McGrath is a reputable Evangelical historian. His book on the history of justification - Iustitia Dei - is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive treatments of the subject. McGrath writes, "[If] the nature of justification is to be defended, it is therefore necessary to investigate the possible existence of 'forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification...' [This approach] fail in relation to the specific question of the nature of justification and justifying righteousness... A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where not had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification - as opposed to its mode - must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
One of the foremost Evangelical scholars on the topic could not find a historical belief in Forensic Justification or the imputed righteousness of Christ. I know that many Protestants believe in a great apostasy. But I personally expect that those who lived closest to Paul's time and spoke Greek in the same cultural context would best understand what Paul's message is. And no one in the Patristic age read Romans and thought, "Forensic Justification."
For example, St. Clement of Rome who was bishop of Rome from 88 AD to 99 AD wrote, "Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works and not our words." (1 Clement 30) This is someone who lived in Rome and likely read the first edition of the letter Paul wrote. This is someone who knew Peter and Paul - Paul references Clement in Philippians 4:3. If Paul was arguing sole fide, why was Luther the first one to understand it?
Not at all. The law promised life were it kept. But no one keeps the law. For other similar quotes, see Deuteronomy 7:12, or 13:18, among others.
It's possible that I was misreading Galatians 3. But I'm not sure of that. Do you have reason to think the English idiom ("live by") carries over (I just checked: the greek prepositions used in the phrases translated "live by" are εκ (
from) and εν (in), for faith and the law, respecitively, so I think at least the first doesn't seem like it's analogous to the English usage you describe, though it's the second that matters. The Hebrew it's based on, it looks like translators seem to be doing it more per what I was suggesting.Yes, because you don't understand the protestant law/gospel distinction, which Romans fits into fairly easily. Paul's talking in Romans 2 about justification by the law, then in Romans 3-4, he talks about our inability to keep it and how we are justified instead.
I agree with what you say of Romans 2 subsequently.
Your reading of Romans 4:1-5
This seemed plausible generally. The place where you'd have the greatest difficulty in just those 5 verses is the opposition to it being as a repayment or due at the end of your selection there.
Your reading of Romans 6-12
I'll note that you don't bring up the David quote here at all (verses 6-8). But I think it's pretty important, and shows that the righteousness talked about here is probably not an inherent righteousness.
I don't think this is compelling. The passage seems to argue for a state of righteousness, not merely a single righteous action. This can be seen a little in the passage (like, it fits well with the reference to the blessedness described in the psalm, as connected in verse 9), but also elsewhere, as the overall topic's closer to how we can be righteous, not how can we perform a single righteous action.
Further, arguing that the gentiles would be able to perform one canonically righteous action is anadequate to what Paul is trying to do.
I'll agree with your reading of 4:13-21.
Your reading of 22-25
But the righteousness of faith is adequate for our righteousness, not merely the beginning of our righteousness.
Correct. But it does mean (at least, in the case of a finite verb, as here) that it's being viewed as a single action. It's saying Abraham was justified by faith, not that he was being justified, or began a process of justification, or something.
I'd brought this up in response to the differing definitions of justification, to argue that justify here was not a processy thing that took place over a whole life—rather, when Abraham believed God, it was credited to him as righteousness. See also how in 5:1 there's an aorist participle (note: aorists don't have quite the same meaning in particples vs finite verbs), where it's talking about us having been justified by faith, we have peace with God. I suppose you'd have to read this as saying that we have been justified by faith, and this, being the first step, puts us at peace with God, but we will still be justified more.
Just to check—you don't think that Abraham was justified solely by faith, right?
Oh, yes, sorry, I didn't think; I don't mean to impose any burden of buying anything. It's volume 1, pages 457-544 in the edition I have before me. If you can read Latin, it's all available free online, of course.
McGrath
I am aware that what the Reformers were teaching was not to be found in the medieval consensus, nor (I think) in those like Wycliffe or Hus that are often pointed to.
I agree that the teaching was virtually unknown throughout much of church history. The reformers cited almost exclusively Bernard of Clairvaux, if they wanted someone to back them up on this teaching, if I remember correctly. (Though I'd have to look back and see how compatible it is with the Theologia Germanica that Luther republished).
It's not weird to me that something like this was lost early in the church; this was also pretty true of the anti-Pelagian things that Augustine wrote, that are now widely accepted. McGrath, in the same work, describes the patristic teaching on justification as "inchoate."
Funny you bring up Clement, though.
To quote the same letter (32:4):
Huh.
So evidently, those two things must go together in some way.
I submit to you that the passage that you cited is not talking about justification in the relevant sense (check the context) while this one is. The passage you cited can be read in exactly the same ways that protestants read James.
But I think the passage of Clement I cited is even more clearly in line with the protestants in terms of the opposition to it being inherent righteousness than Paul is, as it mentions piety among the things by which we are not justified.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for posting this. I've often had difficulties articulating why my understanding of "faith" is different than "not needing proof to ascent intellectually to something". But the synonym of allegiance is excellent.
More options
Context Copy link
Some time ago I examined my modernity-shocked mind and came to the surprising conclusion that on most matters me and the local band of hardcore orthodox Christians see eye to eye. Apart from minor stuff such as male modesty (what?) and probably reproductive technology.
But faith is not for me, so I'm out of luck when it comes to finding a group I could imagine joining.
Why is male modesty not important to you but I assume from context female modesty is?
Male bodies are not sexy and I'm not budging on this so why wear too much clothing? As long as genitals are hidden, it's ok.
There are some male bodies that are sexy. Chris Hemsworth can absolutely provoke many women to lust by walking around shirtless.
Chris Hemsworth is a Hollywood star with a physique that's out of reach for almost anyone. Someone with his exact same physique but not his stardom also wouldn't turn nearly as many heads. "Look what they need to mimic just a fraction of our power" is a quotation that comes to mind.
He was an extreme example, but there are still a large amount of men who are sexy. Looking at dating app stats, the top 10% of most attractive men do have a pretty large amount of hook ups. It's not their words or ability to provide that convince women to have sex with them, it's what they look like.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I thought the traditional Christian take on male clothing was more that under-clothed men are undignified.
This is one of the things I don't like about California culture, and I don't care for events where the women all dress up fancy, and the men are in shorts and t-shirts. It seems slovenly. Many churches ask men not to wear shorts because it's disrespectful, not because men commonly have sexy knees. I agree that sexy male knees are not really a thing. Sexy male chests is a thing, but not that common. Very muscular men who jog around shirtless to show off are certainly being immodest, but also aren't all that common, at least places I've visited.
That's something entirely different. I'd not dream of attending a funeral or a religious service in shorts.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link