Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Koons on Faith and Works in Catholicism

(Image from Wikipedia)

I've read a bit more in "A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism," the essay (pdf) by Robert Koons, and I'm musing my way through his thinking -- specifically, through his views on faith and works.

On the issue of faith versus works, I wonder if Koons is merely explaining Catholic doctrine or possibly nudging it along towards a Lutheran position:
Rome does not claim that God's grace renders anyone sinless in this life: everyone sins daily and is in daily need of forgiveness for Christ's sake. At the same time, the Lutherans do not deny that there is something internal to us (in nobis) that is required for our justification: namely, the faith that lays hold of Christ's righteousness. So the question comes down to this: what internal condition (in nobis) is required for us to lay hold of Christ's righteousness? The Scriptures sometimes speak of faith justifying or saving (or even of baptism as saving). These are understood as elliptical, expressing that it is Christ as believed in who justifies, or Christ in whom we are baptized who saves. By the same token, when Rome speaks of our being justified 'by good works', this can be taken as also containing an ellipsis: we are justified by Christ as the one who brings forth good works in us as His fruit.

Lutherans say that it is faith alone that does the apprehending, although saving faith is always accompanied by regeneration and good works. Rome teaches that it is 'faith working in love' that apprehends Christ's merits: that is, that [it] is the whole process, including both faith (as its root) and hope, love and works of charity (as the fruit), that is involved in apprehending Christ. In both cases, it is only Christ and only His merits that reconcile us to God. Lutherans are unfair in claiming that the Romans propose to substitute our merits for Christ's. One could, with as much justice, claim that Lutherans propose to "substitute" our faith for Christ's merits. The biblical evidence (including the Lutheran's most important text, Romans 4), simply doesn't, taken as a whole, clearly favor the Lutheran position. (pp. 26-27)
Koons suggests that when Catholics speak of the Christian being "justified by good works," then the wording "can be taken as ... containing an ellipsis," namely, that the Christian is "justified by Christ as the one who brings forth good works" as fruit.

Question: Is that what Catholics do mean?

Certainly, it could be taken that way if that's what is meant. Okay, let's take it that way, with the provision that the Catholic position might be somewhat different.

Koons refers to Romans 4, the famous passage where Paul elaborates upon the statement that "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:3, NRSV). According to Koons, it seems, Lutherans emphasize that Abraham's faith is itself a gift from God, such that one's personal faith is the expression of an inward state granted by God. The faith is not a substitute for Christ's merit. Similarly, for Catholicism, one's works are no substitute for Christ's merit, for they can also be understood -- implies Koons -- as the expression of an inward state granted by God. At least, I think that this is what Koons is saying.

But why bring works into this economy of salvation at all since Paul not only quotes scripture as stating that "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Romans 4:4), but also says in Romans 4:3 that "if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about" and in Roman 4:5 that "to one who works, wages are not recognized as a gift but as something due"? Koons doesn't at this point explain why Catholics bring works in, but he would probably point to James 2:21-24:
21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar. 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:21-24, NRSV)
Such would be the reason that Catholics introduce works at this point in the economy of salvation. Even so, Koons argues, what this means in Catholic thinking is that the Christian is "justified by Christ as the one who brings forth good works" as fruit.

Is that what it means? Catholic readers, is Koons correct?

Supposing that he is, where does free will fit into this? If I recall, Luther rejects free will, whereas Erasmus affirms it. Does Koons Lutheranize Catholicism here and make good works purely Christ's works, or does he leave implicit a Catholic acknowledgement of free will on the part of human beings?

Labels: , ,

8 Comments:

At 8:34 AM, Blogger Hathor said...

Rome does not claim that God's grace renders anyone sinless in this life: everyone sins daily and is in daily need of forgiveness for Christ's sake.
Is this the "transcendent evil," you spoke of in your last post.

 
At 8:52 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

I think that "transcendent evil" would refer to the existence of a spiritual being characterized by a malicious will, e.g., Satan.

Human acts of evil would better be understood as immanent, but not in the same sense as the immanent evil that I mentioned yesterday. Human evil is immanent to human will. The immanent evil referred to in yesterday's post would be the sort of evil assumed to be characteristic of matter itself, which was a view that the Gnostics held, namely, that matter itself was the substance of evil.

The various types of Gnostics held variants on this view.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 9:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

<< Even so, Koons argues, what this means in Catholic thinking is that the Christian is "justified by Christ as the one who brings forth good works" as fruit.>>

Hello Jeffery,

Would'nt these verses tend to comfirm Koon's view?

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Tts 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Tts 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

Tts 3:8 [This is] a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

Hbr 10:24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

As it would happen, I was just on a website that referenced this quote from the CCC. So I thought I would pass it along.


The Catholic Doctrine of Justificaion
Published by Taylor Marshall.
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/

Below is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification. Note that the Catholic doctrine of justification is understood as "the acceptance of God's righteousness" (not our own) and that it relates to "divine love." It also leads to "obedience."


"Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1991)

Pax,
John

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

Thanks, John, for the useful verses.

Depending upon one's theological perspective, these verses could be interpreted in at least two different ways.

Catholics argue (or so I gather) that justification includes not merely an infusion of grace but also an inward disposition toward good works and that this takes place as a process.

Lutherans argue (or so I gather) that justification involves an imputing of righteousness through grace but that this is an event, not a process, and it is purely external, i.e., God covers up a sinner's impurity, whereas the works that are expressed over the growth of a Christian are part of the process of sanctification.

Koons is arguing that Luther was wrong to divorce sanctification from justification, that the Catholics have it right, soteriologically. I can see his point. Why should justification be purely external? Wouldn't it have some effect on the sinner? It seems odd otherwise.

But I'll have to follow Koons along his argument to see if I understand all of it.

Part of what is at issue here is the concept of works. I strongly suspect that we need to understand what the Jewish concept of works was if we want to understand Paul. I doubt that it meant all human activity, and I also suspect that it didn't mean acts of the will.

I'll have to see where all of this goes. Thanks for the input of those verses.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 3:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

<< I strongly suspect that we need to understand what the Jewish concept of works was if we want to understand Paul. >>

Hello Jeffery,

I agree.

If I remember correctly; E.P. Sanders believed that the Jews considered the enactment of God's covenant to be purely an act of grace. While the covenant's maintenance was dependent on their obedience. (i.e., works)

How widely his views were accepted, I don't know. Though, it would seem to make sense from what I remember about covenant agreements in the ANE.

<< I'll have to see where all of this goes. Thanks for the input of those verses. >>

My pleasure.

If you're interested, you might enjoy the following:

Sola Gratia, Solo Christo:

The Roman Catholic Doctrine of Justification

Richard A. White

http://salvationhistory.com/utilities/articlePrinter.cfm?pageName=%2Flibrary%2Fapologetics%2FSolaGratiaSoloChristo%2Ecfm

Pax,
John

 
At 4:38 AM, Blogger Kate Marie said...

Hi Jeffery,

I'm following your discussions with much interest, but with little time to devote to thinking these things through as thoroughly as you have. That's one of the reaasons I read your blog. You think, so I don't have to. :)

Anyway, I'm going to ask what is probably a stupid question. Could you explain what you mean when you say you suspect that the Jewish concept of works didn't mean acts of the will?

Thanks, Jeffery.

And John, thanks for the link to the White article.

 
At 4:45 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

John, thanks for the link to the article by White, which I found to be a useful and clarifying summary of issues that Koons is discussing in relation to justification.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 
At 4:57 AM, Blogger Horace Jeffery Hodges said...

KM, I'm guessing on this, so what follows are my tentative speculations.

I think that within a Jewish context, a work meant an act either in conformity to or in disobedience to the Torah.

The choice to accept or reject the Sinai covenant was done freely, as a decision made through the will. This choice was not a work because a free decision is not a work.

Carrying out the decision in its practical effects, though, is a work.

I'm not speaking with any special authority here, for I don't really know Jewish thinking on this point.

Jeffery Hodges

* * *

 

Post a Comment

<< Home