My wife and I are both blonde, and our kids received that attribute from us. We often dine out with another family, of which both parents and all children are brunettes. We usually get separate checks, yet our families are mixed together at the table, so we make it easy for the waiter: “The blonde kids are all on our ticket.” If the waiter separated the ticket based on which side people were seated, our bill would include the dinner of some brunettes, and their bill would include some blondes. In an environment where there are two types of people that need to be distinguished, it is easier to highlight their outward attributes than their inward ones.
But it would be a mistake to say that I pay for their dinner because they are blonde. I pay for their dinner because they are mine, and you can tell they are mine by the color of their hair. There is no causal link between their hair color and my provision for them.
In Romans 2:13, Paul says, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” In his response to the post earlier this week on “Romans 2:13 and the Jealousy Narrative,” Jason Stellman thought there was a causal link between obedience and justification based, among other verses, on Romans 2:6-10, which says,
Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
To this, Stellman responded, “It sure sounds like Paul sees a causal connection between one’s do-gooding and his final salvation, as well as between another’s do-badding and his final condemnation.”
First, let me say that I appreciate that Stellman took the time to craft such a thoughtful response to my post. But there is something in his response that must be addressed: Stellman’s identification of a causal relationship in Romans 2:13 would be like my waiter assuming that I am buying dinner for the blonde kids because they are blonde. Just as there was no causal relationship between the kids’ hair color and my provision for them, there is no causal relationship between doing the law and justification, or “doing well” and “eternal life” (v. 6). “Doing of the law” is simply a distinguishing attribute of believing Gentiles. Commenting on this same passage, Augustine affirmed that “doing the law” is an attribute of believing Gentiles, and then denied the causal relationship between “doing” and justification:
“Who they are that are treated of in these words [Romans 2:6-10], he goes on to tell us: … such Gentiles as have the law written in their hearts belong to the gospel, since to them, on their believing, it is the power of God unto salvation” (Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter, ch. 44).
“[Paul means] nothing else than that works do not precede justification. … ‘the doers of the law shall be justified’ must be so understood as that we may know that they are not otherwise doers of the law, unless they be justified, so that justification does not subsequently accrue to them as doers of the law, but justification precedes them as doers of the law” (ch. 45).
“Do-gooding” cannot be the cause of justification if justification precedes “do-gooding” and also does not accrue to them as “do-gooders.” We understand that Augustine took different positions on Romans 2:13 at different times in his life (about which more later), but here in chapters 43-47 on the topic of Romans 2:13, Augustine denied the causality that Stellman affirms. This is important because of how Stellman responded to our post:
[Kauffman’s] latest article takes me to task over my ‘succumbing to Roman arguments about the meaning of Romans 2:13’ (a charge which actually thrills me because it demonstrates that both St. Augustine and N.T. Wright are in fact Romanists.)
We’ll give him Wright, and some might even give him Augustine. We’ll even grant that equating “doers of the law” with “believing Gentiles” is a minority opinion that we share with Augustine here. More significantly, however, Stellman’s response highlights for us the soft white underbelly of all Roman apologetics: the underlying assumption that all existing evidence supports the Roman position.
Based on his introduction, we expected Stellman to produce evidence from Augustine’s exposition of Romans 2:13, but he did not. He merely assumed Augustine’s support on Romans 2:13, and then proceeded to argue for causality as if he had Augustine on his side. This is typical, and is evidence of the Roman Catholic propensity for “painting a target around the arrow,” something for which Stellman himself disparages Protestants. (Incidentally, I myself did not come to this understanding of Romans 2:13 based on Augustine—Augustine is merely offered as an example of Roman apologists’ promiscuous appropriation of church fathers, even when those church fathers do not consistently support them.)
Meanwhile, back at dinner: Yes, I render to every child according to his hair color: to blondes I lavish my wealth; to brunettes, I withhold it. But hair color is not the cause of my generosity. My children were mine before they were blonde. Their blondeness is just a distinguishing outward characteristic. It is not the cause of their relationship to me. My relationship to them is the cause of their blondeness.
We wrote earlier this week that “doers of the law” (Romans 2:13) refers to “believing Gentiles” (as did Augustine in Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter), because obedience to the law is the distinguishing characteristic of Christ’s people, and it is the obedience of believing Gentiles, Samaritans, harlots, tax collectors and lepers that Jesus used to stir the Jews to jealousy in the Gospels. The proper reading of Romans 2:13 in light of Romans 3:20-28 and the Jealousy Narrative, therefore, is that “believing Gentiles” receive the righteousness of God by faith without the works of the law. This is justification by faith alone. And this is why Paul begins chapter 3 with “What advantage then hath the Jew?” You may recognize this question, for the Jews frequently asked it in the parables (e.g., the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15), the Parable of the Laborers (Matthew 20).) Perhaps one day Mr. Stellman will join my family for dinner to discuss this further. Although he has no hair, we will treat him like a blonde by grace, and buy his dinner.
If you told your server upon sitting down “I will pay for everyones bill according to their hair color. Those who are blonde get a free meal, those that are not pay their own way”. Your server would assume the causal connection and you would probably end up paying for more than just your children’s fare. Also (as Jason and multiple others have already pointed out) Catholics agree with Augustine that works done before justification do not merit eternal life. So that quote you provided from Augustine is largely irrelevant.
Thanks, Kenneth.
I understand that Roman Catholics “agree with Augustine that works done before justification do not merit eternal life.” That is not in dispute. I was alleging that Stellman had succumbed to Roman arguments on Romans 2:13 on justification, and he responded that he was thrilled at the allegation, because it meant that Augustine was Romanist on Romans 2:13 on justification. All that is being discussed is Augustine’s interpretation of Romans 2:13 on justification. A quick comparison between Rome and Augustine will help here.
Stellman’s blanket appropriation of Augustine on Romans 2:13 on justification is therefore unwarranted.
My original post was on justification, and Stellman’s response was that Rome had Augustine on his side on the Roman interpretation of Romans 2:13 on justification. In that light, at least to me, Augustine’s exposition of Romans 2:13 on justification would appear to have some relevance to the conversation.
I appreciate hearing from you.
Timothy,
I appreciate the tone and charity in your writing style. It reminds me of my LCMS pastor Matt Popovits before a starting swimming the Tiber.
I was hoping you might be able to clear up a few things. In your response to me you stated that you understood that Roman Catholics agree with Saint Augustines interpretation and commentary of Rom 2:13. However, immediately following that admission you set up this “contrast” supposedly showing how the two are actually not in harmony. Is it your view that the quotation from Augustine that you have supplied is contrary to current Roman Catholic dogma? Or are you simply trying to show that his interpretation of this verse is applicable to both the Catholic and protestant paradigms?
It seems to me that Augustines view is that we are not “doers of the law” until regeneration/justification has taken place. Wouldn’t this insinuate that one does become a doer of the law after justification?
Roman Catholics agree with Augustine that the works gentiles perform must be works done under a system of grace and not works done under a system of debt (system of debt=grace accruing to one gradually by works done outside of initial justification). We do not earn grace but receive it as a free gift. The very first canon of the Council of Trent states this quite plainly:
It is my view that this was what Saint Augustine was communicating on his commentary of Romans 2. When one considers the totality of Augustines commentary on Romans (and also on justification in general) it begins to read very “Romanish”. Many of the following quotations are from the same work that you have cited to insure that we are not reading a “shift” in understanding or a “change” in Augustine view over time.
As you can see Augustine does not seem to make the usual protestant distinction that Romans 2 is “hypothetical” or “setting up the impossible”. Augustine instead seems to believe that our spirit wrought works done after justification are rewarded with eternal life. There are two kinds of works being discussed in Romans.
1. Works done under a system of Grace and
2. Works done under a system of debt.
1 is said to play a role in justification and 2 is condemned. Thats not to say that our spirit wrought works earn salvation as Augustine explains….
In conclusion then, the commentary you provided from Saint Augustine is in fact a dogma held by the Church (that mans works do not accrue salvation outside of grace) and so Jasons comments regarding him and Wright were justified. Further, Augustines complete commentary on justification and the book of Romans supplies ample evidence that he did not hold to sola fide and in fact did believe that our works play a role in our salvation. As Jason explains
I hope that this comment was helpful in advancing the conversation! God bless you Tim
Thanks, Kenneth,
Yes, some clarification is in order. I do believe I responded too quickly, and for that, I apologize. For initial justification, Roman Catholicism teaches, and Augustine agrees, “that none of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification” (Trent, Decree on Justification, Ch. VIII). But Trent also taught, that those who are truly Christ’s, after initial justification, can be said to have, “by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life.” (Ch. XVI). So indeed a mea culpa is in order: you observed that Roman Catholics “agree with Augustine that works done before justification do not merit eternal life,” and I answered as if you had said, Roman Catholics “agree with Augustine that works done before initial justification do not merit justification,” and for my haste I am sorry.
I believe we agree that Rome teaches: 1) that good works done before initial justification do not contribute to justification, and 2) that “observance of the commandments” done after initial justification, not only results in an “increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ,” but that they “are still further justified” (Ch. X), and further 3) that “by those very works, …[they] have truly merited eternal life.” Ch. XVI).
That said, my purpose in citing Augustine is that Rome teaches plainly that works done after justification continue to accrue to further justification, and Augustine denied that works done after justification continue to accrue to further justification.
I do believe this conversation is helpful, and I will continue to interact with you as long as you will tolerate me. To make a conversation more productive, can you help me better understand your statement that “Catholics agree with Augustine that works done before justification do not merit eternal life”? And do let me know if I you believe my 3 points are accurate.
Thanks for your comment,
Tim
Tim,
Thank you for engaging Jason this way. I’ve known about him since I started talking with him in the Summer of 2012. I encourage you to keep it up, as you are doing.
Take care.
Tim K.
Thank you for the response. Your three points accurately summarize the RC position. When I say that works done before justification are not meritorious I mean that they are not spirit wrought works and so are not done in the system of grace. Works done on the system of grace are the only works that can be meritorious.
I must insist that you are mistaken on your reading of the quote from Saint Augustine. You will recall that I mentioned the two types of works discussed in the book of Romans. 1. Works done under a system of grace that are meritorious (discussed in chapter 2) and then 2. Works done under a system of debt or works performed on a natural level. It is my position that Augustine has in mind only the 2nd kind of works in the quote you have cited. When he writes that justification “subsequently does not accrue to them as doers of the law” he is STILL speaking to gentiles doing works outside of grace previous to justification and is not discussing the further justification that takes place after one has received sanctifying grace. You have mistakenly taken him to be discussing both kinds of works in the same sentence but he is only talking about works of natural man the entire time. We can know that Augustine actually did believe that our works done after justification do merit heaven from the quotes I provided for you in my previous comment. God bless!
Ok, thanks, Kenneth. As regards your comment that I “have mistakenly taken [Augustine] to be discussing both kinds of works in the same sentence but he is only talking about works of natural man the entire time,” I can only say that Augustine’s point in Chapters 44-46 is that the “doers of the Law” in Romans 2:13 are the faithful of the new covenant—that is, the believing Gentiles who are justified in Romans 2:13. I am not sure how to make any sense of Chapters 44-45 if “he is still speaking to gentiles doing works outside of grace previous to justification.”
Thanks for your comments.
Tim
Kenneth,
Still out in reformed blogs seeking converts? Need I remind you?
http://oldlife.org/2013/12/wow/comment-page-3/#comment-109846
I’ve got more where that came from. Shall I find more, bud?
Enjoy your family Kenneth. See you around oldlife, sometime.
Andrew B,
I still recommend old life to all my Protestant brothers considering Calvinism. Its a great blog for the Catholic cause. Anyone can read through the oceans of extremely offensive and insulting comments over there and empathize with the above comment. Tim (if he is reformed) is actually very polite and courteous. Did you have anything to contribute to the conversation or did you just want to plant the OL flag of adhoms and derailing conversation?
Keep pointing friends to OL, Kenneth.
Good.
Peace.
Tim,
Indeed those that are justified and performing good works through God’s grace will merit heaven and Augustine is correct in his thinking that chapter 2 of Romans is discussing gentiles doing works of grace that further our justification. However, the specific quote that you cited is speaking of works prior to regeneration. Augustine explains his (catholic) interpretation further when he writes
You can see here again Augustine makes the distinction between works done in grace and works done in the natural. This theme permeates not only Augustines writings but also the majority of the ECFs . Now let us again look at the quote you provided with the hope of nit reaching an impasse in dialog.
“But the statement that ‘the doers of the law shall be justified’ must be so understood, as that we may know that they are not otherwise doers of the law, unless they be justified, SO THAT justification does not subsequently accrue to them as doers of the law(before justification) , but justification precedes them as doers of the law.”
He is making the point that gentiles will not come into justification in the same way the Jews had previously. Works of law and natural effort will not justify. But works in grace do. For he will render unto everyman according to their deeds
Kenneth,
The biblical basis for Sola Fide looks like this.
Peace.
Thanks, Kenneth,
I see Augustine here (in The Spirit and the Letter, Chs. 42-47) speaking of regenerated believers who are doing the law as a fruit of rebirth. I have a difficult time seeing what you do—namely, that Augustine is speaking of works done in the flesh. I understand the need for the Roman apologist to make this section of Augustine’s work fit into the Roman Catholic paradigm and to square with the rest of Augustine. Augustine himself in these very chapters identifies the “doers of the law” as “believing Gentiles” to whom justification does not accrue by the doing of the law, precisely because justification preceded their “law doing” by faith (the example he gives are the born again believers in Corinth upon whose hearts the law had been written, and men who could not do the law until they had been justified). Your efforts to make these works “carnal,” lest justification be said to precede “law doing,” is simply reading 1200 years of Roman Catholic doctrine back into Augustine to make him right. This is painting a target around the arrow after it has already been shot—something Jason Stellman criticizes about Protestants.
Because I base my faith on the Scriptures rather than on what men have said about the Scriptures, I do not have the same need to make Augustine fit into one paradigm or another, or to reconcile Augustine with himself. As I noted elsewhere, I did not come to this understanding of Romans 2 by Augustine.
Because profitable conversation is only possible when there is a common understanding at least at a single point—and we do not have that —I don’t see any value in extending the conversation beyond this point.
Thank you very much for your contribution to this blog.
Tim
Tim K,
Thank you for the charitable convo! I enjoyed it and look forward to further blog posts in the future. Have a blessed lent
Lent?
This, Ken?
PS
Beautiful family Tim! I’ve got three young boys myself
Feel free to share pix, Ken.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5nz83difyvpgd2l/pj1aeBmhBi
Blessings, friend. Come talk with reformed anytime.
By the way, Kenneth, freely admit much of the words we find in theology blogs should shame us Xtians. Do try to be on the side that helps. If my drudging up your OLTS words bothered you, my apologies.
There’s work to do to see Xtians talking more civilly. We must know that the world is watching. They will know Xtians by their love.
Adios.
*I freely admit(is what I meant).
Kenneth,
Also, as fun as personal stuff is, off blog is always an option. Why look. This blogger shows how you can email him:
http://www.whitehorseblog.com/contact-us
How a guy in his early 20’s with three boys manages to rile up Hartians, debate finer points of RCism, and can get under my skin at times, is something I don’t get.
Just be thankful for someone like Tim, as you are doing. These seminary guys really are something.
Actually, not sure if Tim is a graduate of seminary. But he is reformed, I figured that out.
Take care. Keep sending them all to OL 😉
In Galatians 5:1-4 Paul adresses the Romanist of his day. These judaizers believed in the necessity of grace. They tried to add one work or merit to be justified and Paul calls them ” those who are seeking to be justified by law” have fallen from grace and been severed form Christ. When confronted by these people he does not direct them to their grace enabled works, but faith. The exclusion of all works, even grace enabled one, and anything coming from ourselves to be justified, Eph. 2:8, constrains Rome. Its not like Paul is ambiguous in the Epistles. Simply put, those who are trusting in their works in some way to justify them, won’t find heaven.
Tim, Re reading this has been interesting. I don’t know about you but when Paul says ” not of yourselves” not of works”, those are impossible negatives to overcome for Roman Catholics with meriting continuation in grace and justice by one’s works. If my teacher in school told me she would give me a piece of pie if I just believe her, but I can’t aid in any way getting that pie or else I would forfeit receiving the pie because if it is of myself then pie grace would no longer be pie grace, it would be clear. Catholics can’t resist the urge to smuggle their own character into God’s work of grace even though they are told it isn’t of yourselves or of works, even grace enabled works.