# Common Roman Catholic argument against sola fide



## Confessor (Jul 20, 2009)

From James Akin

Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith—the kind that pleases God and wins his approval (Heb. 11:2, 6)—so we know that Abraham had saving faith according to Hebrews 11. But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it "when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive . . . " The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4—three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6. But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.​
How would you respond to this argument?


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 20, 2009)

> Romans 4
> 
> 9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
> 
> ...



Actually, we know of Abraham's faith (counted as righteousness) from places in addition to Hebrews 11.

The reformers described saving faith as having three components:

1) noticia
awareness of the claims of Christ to be God, Lord and Savior

2) assensus
assent in belief that those claims are indeed true
(e.g. Yes, I am aware Joe Biden claims to be and I assent to the fact he is Vice President)

3) fiducia
a resting in personal trust and reliance on what one is aware of and agrees is true

One can have the first two elements, and the church, and the world is full of that. But it is the third, particularly that God alone can do by changing our nature first.

This person probably has two difficulties here:

1) Not understanding that faith is the vehicle by which we access the imputed righteousness of Christ for justification. That is, nothing could possibly be added to or subtract from the perfect obedience of Christ in His life and death on the cross to satisfy God's perfect standard of holiness.

2) Believing that faith is a one time "work" rather than the evidence of a miraculous, God changed nature in the very core of a human being.


----------



## louis_jp (Jul 20, 2009)

I don't see a problem there, although I don't know how to answer it exegetically. I guess I would say that saving faith is persevering faith. Therefore, just because Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness in 15:6 doesn't mean that he wasn't counted righteous before. I think it is a verdict on his life of faith, rather than on an individual act of faith.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 20, 2009)

Scott,

Are you saying that before Genesis 15:6, Abraham did not have the third component of saving faith, _fiducia_?

---------

Louis,

Are you saying that Abraham was not actually justified in Genesis 15:6? Would you say that Romans 4:3 teaches the general principle of belief=>imputation of righteousness rather than the actual fact that Abraham was justified in Gen. 15:6?


----------



## Scott1 (Jul 20, 2009)

Confessor said:


> Scott,
> 
> Are you saying that before Genesis 15:6, Abraham did not have the third component of saving faith, _fiducia_?
> 
> ...


.


----------



## DTK (Jul 20, 2009)

Who, but the Romanist, is concerned to differentiate between the nature of the faith of Abraham in Genesis 12 and the nature of Abraham's faith in Genesis 15? Unlike the Romanists, we are unconcerned with the time of Abraham's justification, because we aren't the ones who are forced by means of special pleading to make a case for on-going justification.

The real problem for the Romanist, if he really and truly wants to be consistent, is where do works figure in with respect to Genesis 12 or Genesis 15? We know the answer. In both places, the sole instrument referenced is Abraham's faith. The Romanist seeks to create a crisis here which supposively can only be resolved by the communion of Rome. But here we agree with the words of Chrysostom over the claims of Rome...

*Chrysostom (349-407):* The patriarch Abraham himself before receiving circumcision had been declared righteous on the score of *faith alone*: before circumcision, the text says, “Abraham believed God, and credit for it brought him to righteousness.” _Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45_, 27.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 167.

*Chrysostom (349-407): *They said that he who kept not the Law was cursed, but he proves that he who kept it was cursed, and he who kept it not, blessed. Again, they said that he who adhered to *Faith alone* was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to *Faith alone*, is blessed. And how does he prove all this? for it is no common thing which we have promised; wherefore it is necessary to give close attention to what follows. He had already shown this, by referring to the words spoken to the Patriarch, ‘In thee shall all nations be blessed,’ (Genesis 12:4.) at a time, that is, when Faith existed, not the Law. _NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Commentary on Galatians_, 3:8.

And agreeing with Chrysostom regarding Abraham is the anonymous church father to whom Erasmus gave the designated name of Ambrosiaster, who was sometimes confused with Ambrose or Hilary the deacon...

*Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:27:* Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God *except by faith*. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 103. 
*Latin Text:* _Ubi est ergo gloriatio tua? Exclusa est. Per quam legem? factorum? Non, sed per legem fidei_. Reddita ratione, ad eos loquitur, qui agunt sub lege, quod sine causa glorientur, blandientes sibi de lege, et propter quod genus sint Abrahae, videntes non justificari hominem apud Deum, nisi per fidem. _In Epistolam Ad Romanos_, PL 17:80.

*Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 4:5: *How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by *faith alone*? Therefore there is no need of the law when *the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone*. Gerald Bray, ed., _Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 112.
*Latin Text:* Hoc dicit, quia sine operibus legis credenti impio, id est gentili, in Christum, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam, sicut et Abrahae. Quomodo ergo Judaei per opera legis justificari se putant justificatione Abrahae; cum videant Abraham non per opera legis, sed sola fide justificatum? Non ergo opus est lex, quando impius per solam fidem justificatur apud Deum. _In Epistolam Ad Romanos_, PL 17:82-83. 

Neither church father concerned himself with the crisis created by modern day Romanists.

DTK


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 20, 2009)

What is JA doing, going to a passage dealing with "faith", in order to prove something about justification?

All Hebrews 11 shows is Abraham lived a life of faith, something that is repeatedly stated in the NT.

The statement "Abraham believed God, and it was counted (imputed) to him for righteousness," is a statement of fact.

When Paul incorporates that statement into his argument, Rom.4:10-11, his point is to say that the _work_ of circumcision come _after_ it is said of him that God counts him righteous by faith.

JA sounds like he's trying to use the historical argument in a completely different way manner from Paul, or even James in Jas.2. And it won't wash.

Because, if justification is a declaration of legal standing, and if faith is how/when it is made, then true enough Abraham was justified by faith--and that, even before the Scriptures get around to explicating the fact.

Therefore, the historic argument would be, if Abraham was justified by faith well before he received circumcision, then he was justified by faith even before Moses writes "Abraham believed God, and it was counted him for righteousness." If he WAS justified by faith when in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen.12), then he IS STILL justified when he is still believing in God years later (Gen.15, or 17, or 22, or...).

You and I aren't just in a state of justification when God first accepts us in Christ historically. I AM justified today, too. And I will be justified tomorrow, if today I am, and if yesterday I was.

I am not waiting (nor was Abraham waiting) for the end of my life to get a final evaluation, and justification. Of course, we have a doctrine of perseverance. But our perseverance is a product of our union with Christ, from which flow all the graces of acceptance with God in salvation. Justification makes perseverance in faith possible.


----------



## louis_jp (Jul 20, 2009)

Ben,

Not exactly. I guess I'm suggesting that Abraham was "justified" when he first set himself in faith to follow God's call. I don't think that the statement in Genesis 15:6 means that he was only justified at that point. Rather he was commended at that point for his life of faith -- similar to the way James deems him justified when he offered up Isaac even later still. But like I said, I'm just speculating here.

EDIT: I see that others have now answered this better than I could.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 20, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Therefore, the historic argument would be, if Abraham was justified by faith well before he received circumcision, then he was justified by faith even before Moses writes "Abraham believed God, and it was counted him for righteousness." If he WAS justified by faith when in Ur of the Chaldees (Gen.12), then he IS STILL justified when he is still believing in God years later (Gen.15, or 17, or 22, or...).
> 
> You and I aren't just in a state of justification when God first accepts us in Christ historically. I AM justified today, too. And I will be justified tomorrow, if today I am, and if yesterday I was.



Well, the argument is basically that Gen. 15:6 is the instance in which Abraham was actually imputed righteousness for his belief, i.e., in which he was _initially justified_.

I agree that if Abraham was justified in Gen. 12, then he would still be justified at all points afterward. However, if he was justified in Gen.12, then it would be wrong to say that righteousness was actually imputed to Abraham in Gen. 15:6, for that would mean that justification *started* at different points. Hebrews 11:8 seems to signify that Abraham already had saving faith in Gen. 12, whereas Romans 4:3 seems to signify that Abraham _first had_ saving faith in Gen. 15:6.

Or at least, that's how the argument goes. I'm presuming the answer has something to do with the fact that Paul is establishing a general principle of faith=>imputation in Romans 4:3, but not that Abraham actually was justified for the first time in Genesis 15:6 -- or something along those lines.

This is just one of those arguments that is like a little dog that barks really loud. I know it's not really a problem, but I can't presently think of how to solve it.

Thank you all for your contributions.

P.S. This thread was not made for the Catholic forum, in case anyone's wondering. I plan on ceasing activity on that forum as soon as I finish up a few discussions on there, for it has shown only to slow down my learning.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 20, 2009)

He'd be reading Romans 4:3 incorrectly, at that point, if he read it as the MOMENT God first justifies him. That's not what Rom.4:3 says, and it can't say that because relative to the Genesis passages that's not when Abraham FIRST believes God. Paul is more interested in the logic of salvation by imputed righteousness, through faith; logic rather than history -- but then he appeals to history.

In fact, where Paul's argument uses the statement, it is introduced first as a statement of fact (Rom4:3), and a few verses later (vv10-11), the relation historically to circumcision is demonstrated. What is the _historic_ relation of justification to faith? Actually, it demonstrates a causal relation between Faith (then) Justification (what we call an "instrumental" cause). In reality, it is more logical than historical because of the complex of discrete components in salvation, but that's another discussion (ordo vs. historia salutis).

The historic argument in Rom.4 has to do with the relationship between faith and works, specifically when _in the text_ it *states* that Abraham has faith and IS justified, and _when in the text _the circumcision comes later on (which the Judiazers were saying was necessary for acceptance with God). Justification cannot be made dependent on ANY work.


----------



## Confessor (Jul 20, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> He'd be reading Romans 4:3 incorrectly, at that point, if he read it as the MOMENT God first justifies him. That's not what Rom.4:3 says, and it can't say that because relative to the Genesis passages that's not when Abraham FIRST believes God. Paul is more interested in the logic of salvation by imputed righteousness, through faith; logic rather than history -- but then he appeals to history.
> 
> In fact, where Paul's argument uses the statement, it is introduced first as a statement of fact (Rom4:3), and a few verses later (vv10-11), the relation historically to circumcision is demonstrated. What is the _historic_ relation of justification to faith? Actually, it demonstrates a causal relation between Faith (then) Justification (what we call an "instrumental" cause). In reality, it is more logical than historical because of the complex of discrete components in salvation, but that's another discussion (ordo vs. historia salutis).
> 
> The historic argument in Rom.4 has to do with the relationship between faith and works, specifically when _in the text_ it *states* that Abraham has faith and IS justified, and _when in the text _the circumcision comes later on (which the Judiazers were saying was necessary for acceptance with God). Justification cannot be made dependent on ANY work.



The little dog has stopped barking. 

Thank you all very, very much. God is good.


----------



## dudley (Jul 24, 2009)

*The moment of Justification*

I am a reformed Protestant Presbyterian because I suurended to the objective truth I found in Protestantism and the Reformed faith. I renounced roman catholicism after I found this truth. "If you also see the glory of this truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, then raise up the white flag of surrender and stop fighting ..."

Justification is seen by Protestants as being the theological fault line that divided Roman Catholic from Protestant during the Reformation.

Justification by faith alone is the essential difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant church. R.C. Sproul explains this well: "The Roman Catholic view of justification [is that] God declares a person to be just when justice (or righteousness) inheres in the person. The person, under divine analysis or scrutiny, is found to be just. God justifies the just. ...By stark and radical contrast the Reformation view of justification is that God declares a person just based upon something [external to them], something not inherent in the person: the imputed righteousness of Christ." 

Romans 4:5 very clearly teaches that we are at the same time justified and sinners: "Now to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." Notice that it says "God justifies the ungodly." That is, justification respects the ungodly. Therefore, justification cannot be based upon anything inherent in us--because we are ungodly when we are first justified. Also notice that justification is given to the one who does not work for it, but to the one who believes. Therefore, you do not earn justification through good works. Instead, it is given to you simply through faith. 

There are also many verses which speak of this righteousness as being given to us, indicating that it is imputed. Romans 4:6 says that God "reckons [or imputes] righteousness apart from works." Romans 5:17 says that believers receive the "gift of righteousness" from Christ. 

There is one more thing we need to keep very clear about faith: it is not something worthy of merit that earns us justification. It is connects us with Christ's righteousness, but does not earn us Christ's righteousness. Faith is an act, but it is not a work. In other words, God doesn't give justification because of any value in your faith--because your faith is a such a great thing that it deserves reward--but because it is how you are united to Christ. 

In grace,
Dudley


----------



## dudley (Jul 24, 2009)

*A suggestion to Ben*

Ben you are a minority of cradle Protestants who understand that it was the rc papists who broke from the true 'catholic "church and it was Calvin and the reformed Protestants who restored the church to its uncorrupted foundation.

Remember too when talking on the "catholic forum"papists think it is we, the Reformed Protestantants who separated and left the true church.

"There are but two religions in the world," we hear Olivetan saying. "The one class of religions are those which men have invented, in all of which man saves himself by ceremonies and good works; the other is that one religion which is revealed in the Bible, and which teaches man to look for salvation solely from the free grace of God." 

I came to truly believe there is nothing outrageous in believing that all true Christians are justified by faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone and that the Bible is our only source of authority. To challenge these twin pillars of Christian faith is to challenge the heart of the Gospel. Those who set aside these basic Christian tenets are themselves ‘outrageous’ and stand against the Gospel.

It should be a serious business with us to be thoroughly purged of every error which may have a tendency to foster the spirit of Popery, and when we have made a clean sweep at home we should seek in every way to oppose its all too rapid spread abroad in the church and in the world. This last can be done in secret by fervent prayer, and in public by decided testimony.

I believe in justification by faith alone.

I sincerely received and adopted the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the Presbyterian church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures when I became a Presbyterian.

I believe the Bible as the word of God and the only and final authority and path to salvation I submit in discipline to the doctrines of John Calvin and the teachings of the Presbyterian Church in doctrine and life.

It is Christ alone who is salvation to our souls, not the Church of Rome or the Pope"

I Dudley Davis believe in the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, the authority of the Bible alone in all matters of faith and practice and that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

Ben I would suggest that you also solicit the testimony of many of the ex Roman Catholics who are now on the PB and converts to the Reformed faith, many like me Presbyterians and some are Baptists. Also remember that I have said there are 15 million former American Roman Catholics (11%), born and raised Roman catholic who have left the Roman church in the last few years renounced her heresies and her pope and are now Protestants like me. 'We were blinded by false teachings of a corrupted gospel and now saved by Gods Amazing grace. To the contrary only 3% of cradle Protestants have converted to Roman Catholicism.

Perhaps it might be a good thing Ben to start a forum soliciting the testimonies of ex Roman Catholics who are now Protestantslike me.There are many of us right here on the PB. The Roman church does a better job of publicizing their 3% we need to get our testimony out. We are in reality in greater numbers and percentages....just a suggestion. 

In grace,
Dudley


----------



## dudley (Jul 24, 2009)

I meant to give credit to CH Spurgeon for the following quote: "It should be a serious business with us to be thoroughly purged of every error which may have a tendency to foster the spirit of Popery, and when we have made a clean sweep at home we should seek in every way to oppose its all too rapid spread abroad in the church and in the world. This last can be done in secret by fervent prayer, and in public by decided testimony."

I have come to admire and I agree totally with Spurgeon as on his criticisms of Roman Catholicism.

In grace,
Dudley


----------



## Cranmer1959 (Jul 24, 2009)

This is absolutely wrong. The text never says that persevering faith is counted as righteousness. It says that faith itself, the act of believing, is counted as righteousness. True faith has nothing to do with sanctification as a ground or basis for justification. It is the other way around. Abraham was justified apart from his works as Romans 4 clearly says. Abraham's life was not one of consistent sanctification. In fact, he fell into open sin several times and even gave up his wife to another man on one occasion! Abraham doubted God's promises on at least one occasion when he married the concubine, Hagar.

In fact, the doctrine of perseverance does not guarantee that an elect Christian will never fall into open sin or doubt. Rather, it guarantees that the elect will be brought to repentance and persevere to the end. The thief on the cross is another example of someone who did not have much sanctification. Rather, he was justified simply on the basis of his faith at that moment, not "persevering faith." This is as bad as the Roman Catholic confusion between justification and sanctification. Does your pastor not teach on these distinctions in Scripture?



louis_jp said:


> I don't see a problem there, although I don't know how to answer it exegetically. I guess I would say that saving faith is persevering faith. Therefore, just because Abraham's faith was counted as righteousness in 15:6 doesn't mean that he wasn't counted righteous before. I think it is a verdict on his life of faith, rather than on an individual act of faith.



-----Added 7/24/2009 at 08:42:34 EST-----

Both our faith and our repentance are monergisitically given gifts prior to our conversion. Ordo salutis?

Charlie



dudley said:


> I am a reformed Protestant Presbyterian because I suurended to the objective truth I found in Protestantism and the Reformed faith. I renounced roman catholicism after I found this truth. "If you also see the glory of this truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone, then raise up the white flag of surrender and stop fighting ..."
> 
> Justification is seen by Protestants as being the theological fault line that divided Roman Catholic from Protestant during the Reformation.
> 
> ...



-----Added 7/24/2009 at 09:00:16 EST-----

Even if Abraham is only justified in Genesis 15:6 it would not change the fact that Romans 4 teaches that justification is imputed on the basis of faith, which is itself a gift. However, the text seems to imply that Abram was a believer from the point of his departure from Ur in Genesis 12. I have not consulted any commentaries but it seems to me that Genesis 15:6 could be referring to the initial faith of Abram in Genesis 12 where the original promise is given (Genesis 12:1-4; Hebrews 11:8; Acts 7:2-4). The Bible nowhere says that Abraham was only justified at Genesis 15:6. Genesis 15:6 is simply referring back to the antecedent in Genesis 12:1-4 and Genesis 15:6 is a fulfillment of the prophecy given in Genesis 12. Romans 4 and Galatians clearly show that the Roman Catholic view is wrong. Scripture interprets Scripture and not the church interprets Scripture. 

The Roman Catholics have no argument but are great at trying to confuse the issues.

Charlie


----------



## dudley (Jul 24, 2009)

Amen Charlie!!!!Romans 4 and Galatians clearly show that the Roman Catholic view is wrong. Scripture interprets Scripture and not the church interprets Scripture. 

The Roman Catholics have no argument but are great at trying to confuse the issues.

Charlie"

That is a major problrm with roman catholicism. Her pope and the papist magesterium teach what they say is in scripture. They also wrongly try to give infinite answers to the mysteries of our faith and the almighty God who is infinite. We cannot understand a superior and limitless creator with our finite capabilities. Another example is the ludicrous teaching of transubstantiation. The papists have tried to explain how Chist becomes present to us in the Lords Supper and incorrectly teach that the bread and wine are transformed into his actual body and blood. We Protestants understand and we Presbyterians believe He, Jesus Christ becomes present in the Lords Supper to us in faith, how is a mystery that our finite capabilities cannot comprehend , Yes He is present in the Supper to the faithful but the symbols of bread and wine do in fact remain just bread and wine.

In faith,
Dudley


----------

