Click on the triangular “play” button above.
19 minutes.
Subscribe to “PaulCast” via iTunes | Subscribe to RSS feed | Download the mp3 file directly
Learn how Martin Luther doctored the text of the Bible by putting a word in Saint Paul’s mouth so as to justify Luther’s own peculiar doctrine of justification.
Saint Paul uses the word “alone” more than any other New Testament author, but he never uses it in conjunction with faith. The only place in Scripture where the word “faith” and the word “alone” exist together is within the Epistle of James: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Here we find the phrase “faith alone,” but it is categorically rejected – James asserts that Christians are not justified by faith alone.
Taylor was an Episcopal priest in Fort Worth, Texas before being received into the Catholic Church by Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth.
Taylor was also formerly the Assistant Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington, D.C., located three blocks north of the White House, where he lectured regularly. He was served under Archbishop John J. Myers and Msgr. William Stetson for the Pastoral Provision of John Paul II, the canonical structure by which Anglican clergy are received into the Catholic Church and then go on to pursue Holy Orders in the Catholic Church.
He is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary (M.A.R. Theology), Nashotah Theological House (Certificate in Anglican Studies), and University of Dallas (M.A. Philosophy). He is currently a Ph.D. student in Philosophy at the University of Dallas where he studies the Natural Law theory of Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae Ia Iaa qq. 94-108). Taylor and his wife live in Dallas, Texas with their five children. He is the author of The Catholic Perspective on Paul (forthcoming).
Visit his personal site at: www.taylormarshall.com
Taylor is also the Editor of Christian and American at: www.christianandamerican.com. 
The “key of D” metaphor in this one is brilliant! I love it. Is that a Taylor Marshall original?
I suppose that is a Taylor Marshall original. I’m glad that you liked it!
Godspeed,
Taylor
Hello Taylor, thanks for a good show! Started listening to your podcasts last night, doing #6 now. Anyhow, i got a few questions on this one.
Youre not very elaborate on the subject, but you mention that the Bible is saying Abraham is dikaiw no less than three times (Gen 12,18 and 22 i think). You take it as an intake for the view that righteousness is something gradually developed, sort of, and this would explain why Abrahams righteousness is mentioned at least three times.
Is this necessary? I think even the Catholic ‘New Jerome Biblical Commentary’ states that dikaiw is rightly understood as a juridical term of ‘being counted as righteous’. This is why dikaiw is mentioned in the Bible, not only in the setting of ‘being righteous before God’ but also in the setting of a court of the normal sort. Being proclaimed not guilty in a court (i.e. use of dikaiw), clearly is an instance of dikaiw as ‘being counted as righteous’ i.e. the sort of righteousness Luther is talking about.
I am studying to become a Lutheran pastor, and i cannot say that ive heard a catholic deal with this honestly. If dikaiw is rightly used in court settings, why then must i understand it as a sort of inward/infused righteousness in other settings?
Also it is interesting to see that the Bible reads, regarding Abraham, that his faith implied his righteousness. Abraham believed in God -> dikaiw. Doesnt this suggest that faith is enough for dikaiw (whatever it is, inward or alien), and isnt this precisely Pauls argument in Gal 3?
Taylor. As you probably see, im slow to understand. You’d probably say faith IS sufficient for righteousness, inward or outward, if i by faith mean this-and-that with regards to the law and love etc. Why does Paul then, in the same Gal 3, talk of the law as a curse?
It strikes me, i sound like this Marcion you describe. Hah, have mercy, you’ve probably been here yourself.
Thanks for a good show. I enjoy canterburytales and Called to communion alot too. Been browsing around stuff like this for quite some time now, and i must say as a Lutheran that i am unshure of wether or not our school of thought can keep up with all of this. Historically, Lutherans have had a better confidence in their claims. I wonder why, maybe time is revealing another perspective on our position.
Anyways, thanks Taylor. God bless!
Josef,
Thanks for the great comment. It’s awesome to have a Lutheran seminarian here visiting. Please come back!
I agree with you 100% that dikaiw is a juridical/legal term.
However, the Catholic Church objects to the language of “alien righteousness” or mere “imputed righteousness” because God’s word accomplishes what it declares. If God says Bob is righteous, then there must be a true transformation of righteousness in Bob. To say otherwise would imply the classic “legal fiction” scenario whereby Bob is “legally righteous” but not truly – sort of like God saying “I impute a fourth angle to the triangle,” even though it doesn’t really have one.
The Catholic grants that in justification God declares someone righteous, but it’s based on a change in the sinner – not just a change in the mind of God.
Consequently, since we’re talking about a change in a person, there is considerations for growth in righteousness, etc. (as we see in the concrete example of Abraham where he grows in righteousness from Gen 12 > Gen 15 > Gen 17 > Gen 22).
in Christ,
Taylor
Thanks for the answer Taylor!
Youre saying the Catholic Church objects to the language of alien righteousness etc, because: Gods word accomplishes what it declares. So that when God says dikaiw, he both declares the person being righteous and infuses righteousness into the human so that he substantially can meet up with the establishment of dikaiw . Why is this true, out of necessity? Are there any biblical proofs for your standpoint, that dikaiw is not only a juridical term but also an action of infusing grace? Or am i misunderstanding you?
Youre saying that the alternative would be to imply the teaching of alien righteousness. Yes, thats right, now why is it wrong to imply the teaching of alien righteousness?
Youre saying that a relational change before God is weaker than a ‘substancial change’ in the human. Why is this true, out of necessity?
A Lutheran would say that a perfect righteousness identical to that of Christ, which is recieved through faith (being the first of the cardinal virtues), would be a stronger type of righteousness (if not the only type of righteousness) than anything that could dwell within a more or less sinful man. Why is it necessary for me to believe the opposite?
I find your triangle-illustration to be inadequate. It is not a proper comparison to the protestant understanding of dikaiw. There is a lutheran understanding of the human capacity for righteousness as ‘passive’, and it is fullfilled in the active righteousness of Christ. A triangle is a triangle, it has no passive capacity for being something else than a triangle lest it stops being a triangle (essentially speaking). But a sinful human being counted as righteous before God, doesnt change the fact that the human is a human, esentially speaking. A human is a person created as imago dei, and is as such being meant for righteousness. Just because man after the fall, cannot partake in righteousness by himself/herself, doesnt mean righteousness has nothing to do with us in any way like the way a fourth corner has nothing to do with a triangle. All that is being said by dikaiw as a relational term, is that man cannot by his/her own powers be righteous. Still, we are predestined to righteousness in a lutheran understanding. A triangle isnt predestined to anything, it doesnt need anything and God has no need to be in a certain relation to this triangle that isnt already established. We as humans, on the other hand, are (in my understanding) predestined to something (and as such, our capacities are fitting for this. Sinful state or not.), we are in need of everything for our lives and sustenance, and God wants to be in a certain relation to us. This is the point as which protestants starts citing John 3:16, but i’ll spare ye the preaching.
Ive listened through all of your podcasts now, and i like them. You speak alot about participation, and you claim this is the foremost teaching of Paul.
I feel as if i can grant that. Yup. The Holy Spirit dwells within us, and we can make it devastated. We can also make it more authorative with regards to controlling the rest of our faculties and all, sure.
However, a protestant would say that this is rather a movement that properly belongs to the continous movement of ‘sanctification’.. this is as you know nothing controversial in protestant circles. The Catholic understanding seems to make different claims; the sacramental participation in Christ and the formation of the faith etc etc, are the grounds for wich we are judged on the last day.. or something in the likes of this. The quality of our righteousness and participation is made the qualifications for our eternal life. Why is this necessary to believe? Why cant i say, with the protestants, that the qualities of my participation are merely accidents, if you will, of the faith that is given by God through his grace.
Thanks alot for your answers, i appreciate this. I also understand if you dont feel like taking an argument like this here. If you have any material that is avaliable online, related to this subject, i’d be happy to read it.
Be blessed!
,Joseph
Dear Joseph,
Thank you for your reply.
As a Catholic, I understand the Greek verb dikaio as juridical AND transformative. A sinner “becomes righteous” and this is why the Greek word was rightly translated as iustificatio—“making just.”
I’m saying that a legal, declarative change is not merely what God does for us. Salvation involves a union with Christ to the sinner and that union transforms the sinner into a new creation.
I was not merely “declared righteous” through faith, rather I “became righteous,” because Christ washed away my original sin and my personal sins so that I was a new creation. Grace filled my soul and the Holy Spirit came upon me. As Saint Paul wrote:
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor 5:21)
We BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of God. It’s not merely imputed. Luther didn’t do justice to the entire Pauline corpus, in my opinion. He stopped way too short of the glory of justification.
You wrote:
“A Lutheran would say that a perfect righteousness identical to that of Christ, which is recieved through faith (being the first of the cardinal virtues), would be a stronger type of righteousness (if not the only type of righteousness) than anything that could dwell within a more or less sinful man.”
Joseph, that’s the just the rub. If God’s righteousness can’t dwell in a man, how could a sinful man ever enter Heaven? You’ve got to have a transformation/infusion for this whole thing to work. If God’s righteousness is to holy to dwell in a sinner, then how can the sinner ever dwell in God??!!
You wrote:
“The quality of our righteousness and participation is made the qualifications for our eternal life. Why is this necessary to believe?”
Jesus said, “If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned” (Jn 15:6).
I read this (as a Catholic) as saying that if you don’t participate in Christ through union with Him, then you’re going to Hell.
Just a few bits of difference that I picked up from your email:
For Catholics, charity, not faith, is the highest of the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity), and faith isn’t a cardinal virtue at all (cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance). This may be a difference with Lutherans. Is it?
For Catholics, virtues (e.g. faith, charity, justice) are habits of the soul. This means that for us they are accidents, not substances in the soul.
One final thought. Which is better?:
A) To be married on paper – that is, to be declared married.
B) To experience the union of marriage, being transformed as “one flesh”?
Clearly, matrimony includes both realities. As I understand it, you’re choosing (A) to the exclusion of (B). As a Catholic, I’m saying both (A) and (B). God declares us righteous because He has made us righteous. When a baby is baptized, he is 100% holy.
Looking forward to your response. This is a very helpful dialogue.
In Christ,
Taylor
Thanks again for a great reply!
I understand your position regarding dikaiw. As for 2 Cor 5:21, the word for ‘be made’ (as you say) is ????????. Sure this can me translated as you say, but it can also mean ‘to rise up’ or to ‘enjoin’ or ‘be as one with’ etc. The most common translation here in Sweden (an ecumenical one) reads “… so that we through him would be as one with the righteousness of God.” and the second one most common translation (a more traditional protestant version) reads “… so that we in him would stand as righteous before God”.
I am no expert at greek, but when you say that this verse clearly suggests that we _become_ the righteousness of God, i know enough to say this is not the only possible reading of the verse. Also, have you considered the context? 2 cor 5:18-19 reads (NIV):
“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.”
As for Luther not doing justice to the pauline corpus, i’d agree in part. Especcially over time, i think it has become apparent that Lutheranism nowadays tends to grow more narrow for each day (and to be filled up with other things, feminism, ecology and other types of humanitarian issues. Weak, yes.). I grew up with a picture of a guardian angel hanging by my bedside, for instance. But i cant recall angels being mentioned in any sermon i’ve heard in my entire life. Appearantly Luther too venerated Mary (not that this has alot to do with Paul, but anyways), but this is has no real place in mainline Lutheran spirituality apart from the high-church one (which, as you may know coming from the anglo-catholic context, is not so mainline nor widely appreciated). There is just no need. When Paul instructs in his letters to take him or the apostles as examples, in reality i think Lutheranism today is more and more apt do just skip through. Examples from old such as saints, apostles, church fathers have no real place within our spirituality. Partly because we are sensitive to contexts, and if we’d pick (yes, pick) examples for ourselves, it would be something more modern. There is also the problem of saints, apostles, church fathers presenting teachings that i guess Lutherans have different problems with. In that way, it is convenient to point towards Christ alone. We can make our ideas his own (my church recently accepted the practice of gay marriages. One of the suggested readings for the ceremony is Matt 19:4-6… you see what i mean?) and besides, we dont need other examples because Jesus is the purest and best example anyways. It is true Jesus is the best example, but in my worse days i find all of this having sad consequenses. Anyways, thats a bit off topic.
You write: “if God’s righteousness can’t dwell in a man, how could a sinful man ever enter Heaven? You’ve got to have a transformation/infusion for this whole thing to work. If God’s righteousness is to holy to dwell in a sinner, then how can the sinner ever dwell in God??!!”.
This is a wonderful question, the one protestants are the happiest to answer. How can the bush burn in Ex 3:1 and on, and still not be deformed by the fire? How can Moses walk up on the mount of Sinai, and not be consumed by the flames? Your question is pointing exactly to this problem, but your example provides a wider span of categories. A human (per definition: a sinner, in my Lutheran understanding) is more inferior to the purity of God and his Heaven than a bush is to fire, or the person of Moses is to fire. Yet they whitstood the great holiness of God, no?
I dont think an imperfect righteousness would suffice, if there is any such thing at all. No matter if i recieve the grace of God a thousand times times in the Most Holy Eucharist, i wouldnt persist the fire of the bush or the fire on mt Sinai, let alone the Throne of God!
Job 25: 4-6:
How then can a man be righteous before God?
How can one born of woman be pure?
If even the moon is not bright
and the stars are not pure in his eyes,
How much less man, who is but a maggot—
a son of man, who is only a worm!”
Your solution would probably be to point towards the regenerative power of Baptism. I wish i could too put that much faith in this sacrament, but i cant, for i cant see how the Bible allows it. Your podcast on the sacrament of baptism is also very brief on its regenerative aspect.
Protestants would rather say, we are righteous before God because of our faith in Christ. This is a perfect righteousness. As for heaven, God will give us freely and without our coperation what we need;
Phil 3:20-21:
But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform [in english, the word "will" can signify lots of things. According to the greek though, it is going to happen in the future, not now] our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
Note that Paul says God will transform us so that we will be like him, when he comes back for us. Not now. It doesnt say that WE will transform ourselves, before he comes. In fact, the text says the exact opposite.
1 John 3:2-3
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.
Note that John says that we dont know just yet what we will be. But again, we will know when he appears. Not now.
I find Jn 15:6, that you write of, to be an interesting piece of scripture. Thanks for this. If you got any more like this, i’d like to read them! When it comes to verses like this, there are a few in the gospels, im usually pointing towards Jn 6:40:
“For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”
Presently i must admit i feel a bit cheap for constantly pointing to this verse, when we know the will of Christ also says other things. Not only that we believe, but that we must love each other (jn 15:12) etc. And we learn that we remain in the love of Christ by keeping his commands (Jn 15:10, 1 jn 5:3 etc).
As for the virtues part, i find i was wrong. I thought faith, hope and love (with other virtues, the total being 7) was the cardinal virtues but you say they are the theological virtues. Appreciate this info, hehe. Lutherans dont speak of virtues so very often you know, im all lost here
Your final thought. I’d rather be married on paper, and experience the union of marriage too. And i would like to live like this, in union for my entire life. Each anniversary i would like to recieve nice gifts, maybe eat a cake and whatnot. Pherhaps even listen to our special romantic song, to remind us of our marriage etc etc. Oh and i’d want champagne and strawberries too, maybe rosebuds around the bed and i’d want my partner to wear extra-special underwear. What does this mean? You can say dikaiw not only means to be married on paper. I can say being married then also is all of the above, and a houndred things more. Still, why is this interesting? Sure it would be nice to have my partner wearing lace and all. It all would be nice. But ye, were married even if i dont get the lace. Were married even if i dont get the champagne, or the romantic song, or the gifts, or the cake. Were married if it says we are married. If Christ is God, and if Christ is the Church, and if i by my baptism belong to the Church and by faith stay in the true mystical Church wich is Christ… then i am in Christ. If this is the promise, if we are indissolvably married on paper, then yes… i am with God. With or without experience, with or without transformation or gifts or cake, lace, champagne, song or whatever.
Protestants say, you can get all this. We call it sanctification, im sure you know of it. We get it, God has not left me to live without the lace or champagne. It is possible that Catholics gets more of this sort than Lutherans. But is it necessary for the constitution of our marriage, to get all of this wich is in the B category? No. This is why, i guess, Lutherans focus on A.
), and i see youre contemplating your vocation for Holy Orders. I will pray for your discernment. If youre enjoying your union of marriage so much, my advice for you is not to live with Christ in a distance relationship. Like going to see him at mass, once or twice a week. Gogo become a priest man, be as one flesh with your beloved! If you want ME to appreciate B more, then heck.. atleast go get it yourself? 
I listened to the presentation of your conversion history here (liked the part with the cardinals hat on a silver plate
As for me, i try. But i know that were married on paper, and ive been told thats enough. I try to experience this union you speak of as much as possible. But sometimes i sin, listen to bad music, sometimes im not as thrilled in the Church which is Christ, sometimes im not that much into going to see him. Still, im happy that were married on paper and that this promise stands even though i may be the type of harlot that Hezekiel describes. Jn 3:16 suggests that God is content with doing nice things for bad people, and his mercy towards us hasnt ceased for some weird reason, even when we spat on His only begotten Son, tortured him and killed him. Yup, we are a weird couple, God and his Church. But God wills it this way, and im happy to be able to come along because i dont deserve it for any reason whatsoever and i’ve done nothing for any of this, i couldnt have… being a human with all that this means. You know, a Christ-spitting, befouled type of stupid person.
You say im choosing A to the exclusion of B. No, as you see im saying A is the constitutional factor of my eternal relationship with Christ. And i can add nothing to it. Christ gives me B, and i cherish it, as a ‘bonus’ if you will (as i said in the last post, Lutherans have the aspect of B too). Am i wrong to look at sanctification as a bonus?
You, on the other hand, say that A is more or less equivalent to B. I honestly cant see why this is necessary (although Jn 15:6 is interesting, more!), and i cant see how you can manage to appreciate the solid indissolvable aspect of the promise wich is A because you relate it so strongly to the mutual aspect of B, wich tends to be NOT so solid since man is man and God is God. Likewise i think A is A and B is B.
I think you yourself hint about this problem with separating A from B, when you at some place (cant remember) write about merits. My understanding is, this was the “hardest” for you to embrace, if you pardon my blunt language.
To me, the talk of such merits are a direct compromise of the exclusivity of the work of Christ. This benefits neither A nor B.
Its late here. Thanks for a good conversation, appreciate this alot. Peace be with you, and your family!
,Joseph
This one was too much James, too much Luther, and too little Paul. The Catholic perspective on Paul needs to deal well with the etymology, use and significance of the dik-root as well as take on the best Protestant arguments (eg Rom 4:5) instead of simply making fun of Luther and quoting James on the assumption that Paul, James and Trent mean the same things with the same words without showing it to be the case.
For Joseph – hälsningar! The distinction between justification as relating to salvation and sanctification as being a sort of extra bonus that is not necessary for salvation is a Protestant invention from the 16th century. Paul doesn’t know it, the Fathers don’t know it, the NT doesn’t know it. John 15 goes together with everything in Paul – participation is justification and justification is participation, sanctification is participation and vice versa too. That’s why Paul still holds to the final judgment by works.
Josef & Taylor,
This is almost the same as the conversation between, Jesus and Nicadimus, to enter the kingdom of Heaven you must be born again by water and of Spirit. Once born again then we are suppose to love, live and serve the Lord together. Jesus is the Vine, we are the branches, in which we produce fruit for the Lord. Not agrue over semantics, through these agruements the devil dilutes the Lords message, and set us against one another.
Your sprinkled not submerged etc. I’m right and your wrong etc.
The Message is the same, God offers man Salvation, and man offers God Religion via a lot of different denomination.
Emil Anton, thanks for the reply! Admittedly my writing above is crude and primitive at best, it is not fair to any serious protestant tradition to talk of ‘sanctification’ as a bonus. The Lutheran confessions say that works (i.e. sanctification) are expected to come out of a true faith, just as the good tree bears good fruit. If the tree doesnt bear good fruit, it isnt a good tree.
My point still stands though. Faith implies (a logician would express it like: ->) sanctification (i.e. sanctification is not optionary). But that isnt the same thing as saying faith is interchangeable (expressed like: ) with sanctification.
For instance, i have not heard that our Good Lord will come back and judge merely fruits. It is said, for instance in Mt 7:19, that the trees that do not have the fruits (i.e. renewal, works, sanctification or such) will not enter the kingdom of heaven. But take close care of the reading. Note the distinction between the ‘tree’ and the ‘fruit’ – clearly the quality of one thing implies the quality of the other, but they are NOT the same thing. Also note that it is said that WE will know them by their fruits. It doesnt say that God will judge them according to their fruits.
On the contrary, Jesus describes people doing miracles, preaching, the casting out of demons and all sorts of extraordinarily demanding spiritual works. Judged by their fruits, surely such people would be the foremost religious people of this time. Judged by Christ however, who doesnt need to look at fruits but to the heart, they are counted as practicers of lawlessness.
I know that the Catholic Church really doesnt speak of faith and works as interchangeable, wich is what you seem to imply Emil Anton. For instance, ive come to understand that a work, in order to be understood as meritorious, needs to be worked out under certain conditions. Faith is for instance one of the necessary conditions. The only difference between catholics and protestants on this point, is that in protestant understanding faith is the one necessary contition, not for merit, but for salvation.
Mary,
i agree with what youre saying. The problem is, that in order for the theologian to express himself (or herself, of course) that good, he will need to get rid of his lust for letters first. This only happens if he frequently reads alot and writes alot, and only after some time is he able attain the wisdom you are displaying by giving up his love for letters. All theologians are pharisees, and every faculty of theology is like a playground of vanity, more or less. We need this stuff though, small minded as we are, to be able to put our trust in the right persons and institutions. Once/if trust is gained, i’d burn/throw out/sell my books of theology, and learn directly from the incarnate word.
However, the business of spirituality is a dodgy subject, and trust is delicate. Google a picture of cardinal Manning, and you’ll see what im saying. I need way more theology to trust men like that
Pax et bonum.
Could you cite the 3 passages where Abraham is justified? I could only find 1: “counted to him as righteousness”.
Faith apart from the works of the law; that certainly communicates faith alone; salvation doesn’t come by works but by faith.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).
However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Rom. 4:5).
he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, (Titus 3:5)
James 2:14 begins a new paragraph and addresses the matter of those who say they have faith but their faith does not produce any fruit (works) in their lives. (V14) This shows the context or subject of the paragraph. James further explains the subject by his statement in verse 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.” This is the key to interpreting the passage.
To interpret the passage is simple. James is saying that if a person says they have true saving faith, their faith will produce works in their life. You will be able to see their faith in action. The justification spoken of here is not salvation, but justifying one calling himself a Christian and claiming to have saving faith when he is not living for the Lord.
the thief on the cross never had the chance to “work” for his righteousness; he was saved by his faith.
Hi. I hope this is not too late.
This seems to boil down to “faith and works” vs “living faith” debate. I guess that this has been shown to be equivalent as “living faith” or “true faith” is the same as “faith AND works” or “faith that works.”
I would beg to disagree with VB’s statement:
He did “work” by rebuking his thief companion and asking Jesus to “remember” him. I think there is a misconception of the meaning of “work.” As a catholic, i see “work” as an inner response of man and a “willful” transformation causing oneself to be truly dependent on the mercy of God rather than his own works, that is claiming of being righteous because of doing such and such.
In the end, the Catholic understanding is that it is the grace that saves man. But the infusion of grace cannot work without man cooperating in the work of God. Hence, “through faith” (Eph 2:8-9). Justification is done by God through the willful acceptance of man of the gift of God; but sanctification is done by the cooperation of man to the Holy Spirit working in him. In the end, both requires synergy (cooperation) of man and God.
God is BOTH merciful and just. One cannot separate one from the other. Being just would mean giving man a chance to prove himself in the human way. He is merciful to the point of dying for us all instead. If we assume that God does everything, then why didn’t he forgave everyone just very easily?
I think wikipedia made a good summary for the differences in the interpretation on Justification and Sanctification.
Thanks.
Thank you, Taylor.
Your explanation has given a new light to the thoughts of Paul in congruence with James 2,24 vis-a-vis the long history of misinterpretation of Paul’s doctrine of salvation-and justification. The dialog between Catholics and Lutheran have started. I hope this clarification would serve to contribute to bring them back to Mother Church. We started as ONE Catholic and Apostolic Church and we should be reunited as ONE especially in these turbulent times.
There are some attention-grabbing points in time in this article but I don’t know if I see all of them center to heart. There may be some validity however I will take maintain opinion until I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we want extra! Added to FeedBurner as effectively
Hello webmaster. I like your blog about Episode #4 Justified by Faith or by Faith Alone?.
But i have a question totaly off this subject: Do you use a seperate posting platform or do you make your blogs in the wordpress admin? If you post your answer below mine,then i will read this in the next few day’s.
Thanks shemale webcam
To Paul and others that have posted comments. Thank you. This is one of the first times that I have witnessed a charitable exchange of theology…not pitting one against the other but seeking truth. I enjoy this blog but will continue to come here for the comments as well. It is a blessing to have a Catholic and a Lutheran encouraging each other in faith. What a good example you have set.
Peace be with you,
Alan R.
Dear Taylor,
After reading about your credentials, I almost feel I should be addressing you as “Father”. I am an 1970 graduate of Seton Hall University, and its prep school, and I won the religion award when I graduated Sacred Heart of Jesus parochial school in Irvington NJ, now defunct. In my senior year of college, I took a course titled “the Spirit of Protestantism” to get a general idea of what “the other side” looked like and it was taught by a Protestant minister while at the Catholic college.
I had always been curious about the argument on the topic addressed here and I learned a little more. But I really thought that Pope John Paul II had changed the church’s understanding from faith and good works to simply faith after long discussions with Dutch theologians and Catholic theologians. I saw a front page headlined news article about this in the New York Times so I am not delusional. A retired priest said the Catholic Church and Luther were so antagonistic in their historic era that even if Luther had said the sky was blue, the Church might have disputed that.
when I took the course on Protestant theology, when we came to this topic, it was explained verbally and in the textbook following the course’s name that Protestant did believe works had to follow faith or else a person’s faith would be dead and lifeless. Anyway, to me as a college student, the argument seemed to be like which came first the chicken or the egg. But I say that not to belittle the theological differences but to show that it did not seem crucial to understand either interpretation. When I read the New York Times article and heard changes announced in Catholic Church, I thought this argument was resolved, only with regard to faith. I did not know Luther inserted the word “alone” after faith, but perhaps only to make his point clear.
It sounds to me that the church abandoning its position of “faith and good works” to simply faith (without the word alone) pretty well narrowed the differences involved between Catholicism and Protestantism, and we people only wish they could have come to this before the Hundred Years War and the Thirty Years War that followed the reformation. Bob of Portland OR