Replying to Avatar R.S. Christopher

I’m not a Catholic but this just isn’t true — and I don’t just mean in the ancient pre-schism catholic church, I mean even today in the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), this isn’t true.

There’s much to complain about with the RC church, but one nice thing is that their “magisterium” systematically articulates every aspect of their theology with painstaking precision (dating back pre-schism, with later innovations that they refer to as “doctrinal development”).

The east may criticize that the west over intellectualizes the mysteries and misses the “phronema” (the heart), but from a western and especially reformed perspective RC provides an exact articulation and exegesis on these topics.

For example:

Salvation is initiated and completed through Jesus Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection, which provide infinite merit for the redemption of humanity (CCC 1992; Hebrews 7:25)

Justification begins with faith and baptism, infused by God’s grace (CCC 1987–1995; Romans 3:24). Good works are necessary as a response to grace, not as a prerequisite or independent contribution (James 2:14–26).

And where it aligns closer to Calvinist/reformed confessions goes back pre-schism, to Augustine. Catholicism explicitly rejects Pelagianism (and semi-pelagianism) and affirms there is no human effort towards salvation without grace, that God is 100% responsible for your salvation, and man is 100% responsible for sin and rebellion against God.

The seeming contradiction was resolved earlier in Chalcedon (5th century, pre schism), that the person of Christ, fully human and full God, has a divine will and human will — and a “synergoi” between the two, that is, man and God cooperating (from man’s perspective free will, from the divine perspective complete sovereignty).

The Catholic rebuttal to reformed confessions (and TULIP more generally) is similar to the eastern (e.g., confessions of Dositheus) — basically a series of anathemas that most reformed theologians actually agree with, such as explicitly stating that God is never the author of evil.

The concerns from EO and RC are about these edge cases where Calvinism leads to moral determinism, or deism (clockmaker God) — and it’s important to point out that this is exactly what happened, e.g., to the Puritans (the most hardcore Calvinists and Christian nationalists to ever exist — whose theology I love, but the bad fruits of Harvard and Yale are undeniable).

Similarly, I’d be careful about the “violating free will” line, even staunch Calvinists reject that way of thinking as it leads to the view that God is the author of evil. The reformed position on this is technically not that different from the EO and RC position (despite all the Internet strawman versions). I think best articulated in that Jonathan Edward’s quote.. which RC and EO fully agree with.

Rome does hold that good works are necessary to justification. They call them “works of grace,” such that, with God’s help, you may work for your own justification. If justification is a declaration that a man is just, and it is based and depends partly on your own merits or works, then it is of works. You are still under the law and not under grace. If you already have the grace at conversion, but you are not finally justified, and must display the fruits thereof *for justification*, then what is yet required for your final justification is not grace (which is freely given), but works. Then you are a savior to yourself, and Christ is no advantage to you (Gal. 5:4), for you are yet bound to keep the whole law, in all of its rigor, in order to be accepted unto life (Gal. 5:3; Gal. 3:10). If your title to eternal life depends at all on your own works, though they be “works of grace,” you are under a curse.

nostr:nevent1qqszwevuudz093yk4pkwhmerv2jvkzwmq3vqc40ha40yns53a9umcscpr9mhxue69uhk2umsv4kxsmewva5hy6twduhx7un89upzqa2ut6r8ufymr6kq9ezntehskvzv4ezhspre6my5ysdx6a6czm2tqvzqqqqqqyn3w2mc

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Josh, I'm curious as to your thoughts on James 2:20-24. From what I can tell, the RCC separates initial justification from final. To me I see that the only place in the entire Bible that the phrase ‘faith alone’ appears, it is rejected. Especially the Abraham part: Paul quotes Genesis 15 as the moment Abraham was justified by faith, but James says the offering of Isaac decades later is when Abraham was ‘justified by works’ and when Genesis 15:6 was ‘fulfilled.’ This seems to me the Catholic initial-vs-final justification distinction in a nutshell;

"Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 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. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

---

or these other passages as well;

2 Peter 1:10 – “be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure.”

Philippians 2:12 "Therefore, my beloved, fas you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,"

Matthew 25:31–46 – The final judgment is explicitly according to works.

Romans 2:6–13 – God “will render to each one according to his works … eternal life to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory …”

Revelation 20:12–13 – Judged “according to what they had done.”

---

All love brother!

Good works are evidence of justification, not the cause of it. God declared Abraham righteous by faith alone: his faith was counted for righteousness. His later works made his faith evident in good works, such that his faith was 'justified' before men. This is the kind of justification James is talking about: you show me your faith, I'll show you mine. The question is the evidence of saving faith, and the sort of faith that saves (there is such a faith that cannot save), not the ground of justification. A person claiming to have faith before other people is justified in his profession when he bears fruit in keeping with repentance. Apart from works there is no justification to say a person has saving faith.