Review of "Paul and the Law" (1987) by Heikki Räisänen

[Mark Quayle]

Nope, its both/and, since the beginning of Christianity. Anything else is a novel invention or misunderstanding of Scripture.

mere assertion

 

[fhansen]

mere assertion

Backed by Scripture, history, and reason.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Backed by Scripture, history, and reason.

Another assertion

 

[The Liturgist]

A necessary return to the roots, you mean. Pope Clement I (late 1st century) adhered to sola fide:

CHAPTER 32 -- WE ARE JUSTIFIED NOT BY OUR OWN WORKS, BUT BY FAITH.​

​

[...] All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (Clement I, First Epistle)​

If Bishop Clement* advocated Sola Fide, that would put him in contradiction with St. James the Just of Jerusalem, who famously wrote “faith without works is dead.” My own view, from reading the totality of Clement, is that at most, he advocated Sola Scriptura as the early Lutherans and I believe some Calvinists understood it, which was a salvific faith inseparably linked to reception of the sacraments, which were regenerative, which led to good works, as opposed to the asacramental Nuda Fide of many contemporary Protestants.

However, calling this idea as expressed by St. Clement Sola Fide is anachronistic in the extreme, since Sola Fide did not exist as a discrete theological concept in the Early Church and the term is never encountered in Patristic writing. It would be more accurate to call it Clementine Soteriology and then draw parallels as appropriate between Clementine Soteriology and the Sola Fide concept.

*remember, the Roman bishops were not styled Pope until the sixth century, three hundred years after the Alexandrian patriarchs such as St. Alexander, St. Athanasius the Apostolic and St. Cyril the Great began being called Pope, or rather Papem, a Greek word meaning father - for the same reason, the Ethiopian Orthodox Patriarch, appointed by Alexandria until the 20th century, is called Abune, which is a Ge’ez word equivalent to the Syriac Aramaic Abun or the Arabic Abouna.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes, Romans 8 tells us that there’s no condemnation for those who’re in Christ. But we must read that whole chapter, that whole letter, to understand why. It’s because, through faith, we’ve been reconciled and translated into new creations, now able to walk with God, by the Spirit, under grace, doing His will as slaves to righteousness that results in life instead of to sin that causes death. To the extent that we truly remain in Him, we’ll live rightly.

This is correct. You have through pious pursuit of Roman Catholicism acquired an Orthodox phronema.

Another assertion

Both assertions made by @fhansen are in this case correct. If you read The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, or better yet the entire Fount of Wisdom (which includes a scathing criticism of the newly emergent Islam) by the eighth century Church Father St. John of Damascus, or even read De Incarnatione by Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who also defined our 27 book New Testament canon, or for that matter his Life of Anthony and on a related note The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, you will find them consistent with what @fhansen wrote.

 

[FireDragon76]

The problem was resolved way before medieval times. Luther only subverted or confused the issue. The new covenant was never intended to serve as a reprieve from the obligation of man to be personally righteous, to overcome the sin that separates him from God, but rather to finally be the very means to authentic righteousness, not by the law but by the Spirit, now in union with God.

When you start talking like that, you sound like you are of a different spirit. The reason we should do good works is for the sake of our neighbor and to glorify God, not so that we personally overcome sin. God did that, in Christ, for our sakes. Christ himself, not our own works, has bridged the gap between man and God.

John himself says if any man says he has no sin, he is deceived, and the truth is not in him. The idea that we can personally overcome sin isn't supported by the Christian tradition.

 

[Teofrastus]

If Bishop Clement* advocated Sola Fide, that would put him in contradiction with St. James the Just of Jerusalem, who famously wrote “faith without works is dead.” My own view, from reading the totality of Clement, is that at most, he advocated Sola Scriptura as the early Lutherans and I believe some Calvinists understood it, which was a salvific faith inseparably linked to reception of the sacraments, which were regenerative, which led to good works, as opposed to the asacramental Nuda Fide of many contemporary Protestants.

However, calling this idea as expressed by St. Clement Sola Fide is anachronistic in the extreme, since Sola Fide did not exist as a discrete theological concept in the Early Church and the term is never encountered in Patristic writing. It would be more accurate to call it Clementine Soteriology and then draw parallels as appropriate between Clementine Soteriology and the Sola Fide concept.

*remember, the Roman bishops were not styled Pope until the sixth century, three hundred years after the Alexandrian patriarchs such as St. Alexander, St. Athanasius the Apostolic and St. Cyril the Great began being called Pope, or rather Papem, a Greek word meaning father - for the same reason, the Ethiopian Orthodox Patriarch, appointed by Alexandria until the 20th century, is called Abune, which is a Ge’ez word equivalent to the Syriac Aramaic Abun or the Arabic Abouna.

(Remember that the Second Letter of Clement is viewed as inauthentic. The first is authentic.) I think it's difficult to interpret Paul differently than that justification is acquired through faith only, such as in Romans 4:3. History Valley has a recent video about the radical distinction between the schools of Paul and James:

 

[Mark Quayle]

Both assertions made by @fhansen are in this case correct. If you read The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, or better yet the entire Fount of Wisdom (which includes a scathing criticism of the newly emergent Islam) by the eighth century Church Father St. John of Damascus, or even read De Incarnatione by Pope St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who also defined our 27 book New Testament canon, or for that matter his Life of Anthony and on a related note The Sayings of the Desert Fathers, you will find them consistent with what @fhansen wrote.

Mine was a remark on the notion posited by @fhansen that "we are free to leave him". My remarks are not about whether he is historically correct, although his claim to be so was, as you say, an assertion, which is what I also said. My original remark was concerning the raw fact that what God has begun he will complete. If God has regenerated someone, they will not leave him, even if they sometimes wish to. They may ignore, quench the Spirit, run rogue, rebel and "live in sin" for years, and many other things, but they cannot leave —not because of their choice, but because of God's choice.

 

[fhansen]

Another assertion

If God has regenerated someone, they will not leave him, even if they sometimes wish to. They may ignore, quench the Spirit, run rogue, rebel and "live in sin" for years, and many other things, but they cannot leave —not because of their choice, but because of God's choice

And this has exactly nothing in common with the Christian faith as understood from the beginning, for 1500 years, in the east and west. And those going by Scripture alone disagree over this very matter. I would suggest challenging yourself by an objective immersion into the ECFs, to get an authentic “flavor” of what the church believed and practiced from early on.

 

[fhansen]

When you start talking like that, you sound like you are of a different spirit. The reason we should do good works is for the sake of our neighbor and to glorify God, not so that we personally overcome sin. God did that, in Christ, for our sakes. Christ himself, not our own works, has bridged the gap between man and God.

John himself says if any man says he has no sin, he is deceived, and the truth is not in him. The idea that we can personally overcome sin isn't supported by the Christian tradition.

And John also says that those who act righteous are righteous, and that if we continue in sin we don’t even know God. The Catholic Church has continuously maintained that man cannot justify himself, based on the law or by any standard because man has no righteousness of his own, apart from God. Adam separated, alienated, humankind from God and Jesus came in the fullness of time to reconcile us with Him, because man is made for union with God, that’s his very purpose, and is hopelessly lost, sick, dead, disordered, existing in state of injustice, when apart from Him. We cannot find ourselves; grace is absolutely essential to turn man to God. And the first work of grace is the gift of faith, faith being the beginning of salvation, the root and foundation of all justification, as Trent puts it.

And this justification, this translation of the ungodly to the godly, consists of a real justice or righteousness, not limited to forgiveness and remission of sins and a declared righteousness only. So the reason a Christian now begins to walk in righteousness is because he’s been given that gift, the life of grace, the life of God in us. And to the extent that we remain in Him we will continue to walk in it, and grow in it. Simply put, the nearer a person is to God, the greater their righteousness, the greater their love, to put it best. And the Christian tradition absolutely declares that, with God, man can and must overcome sin. If that’s not consistent with your tradition, I guess I don’t at all mind being of a different spirit.

 

[The Liturgist]

Mine was a remark on the notion posited by @fhansen that "we are free to leave him". My remarks are not about whether he is historically correct, although his claim to be so was, as you say, an assertion, which is what I also said. My original remark was concerning the raw fact that what God has begun he will complete. If God has regenerated someone, they will not leave him, even if they sometimes wish to. They may ignore, quench the Spirit, run rogue, rebel and "live in sin" for years, and many other things, but they cannot leave —not because of their choice, but because of God's choice.

While Calvinism as a whole cannot be refuted scripturally, this particular doctrine, unconditional election, can, as can indeed much of TULIP, which really ought to be considered I think based on my conversations with @hedrick s separate proposition from the actual theology of John Calvin, since TULIP was the work of the Synod of Dort, whereas Calvinism the work of an exceptionally talented, if occasionally misguided theologian with a deep knowledge of Patristics, and since that time there has not been one single Calvinism but rather mutliple Calvinisms, so that the Reformed Catholic Calvinism I am comfortable with, which is liturgical and elegant, is very different from the theology of those churches that embrace, for example, Federal Vision Theology, which I don’t even understand, or the Neo-Orthodoxy of Karl Barth, which I do understand, but happen to disagree with.

So regarding unconditional election, we can regard this as erroneous on the basis that even St. Paul feared of falling away, and our Lord in Matthew 24:24 warns of false christs who will lead astray, if possible, even the elect. What does if possible mean? Well, since Christ our God is omniscient, he is not speculating about whether or not the elect can be lead astray, but rather must, on the basis of His omniscience proposing what I would translate on the basis of dynamic equivalence “if it is possible for a specific member of the elect to be led astray, they are at risk of being led astray by a false Christ.”

There is a specific danger also in the doctrine of unconditional election which is related to the idea of Once Saved, Always Saved, and that is the spiritual danger inherent in assuming oneself to be unconditionally saved, which is as dangerous as assuming oneself to be beyond hope of salvation. And we see in the Patristic corpus numerous warnings of the dangers of this.

 

[The Liturgist]

(Remember that the Second Letter of Clement is viewed as inauthentic. The first is authentic.) I think it's difficult to interpret Paul differently than that justification is acquired through faith only, such as in Romans 4:3. History Valley has a recent video about the radical distinction between the schools of Paul and James:

Note that I never mentioned the pseudigraphical 2 Clement. I am only interested in 1 Clement, and frankly while it is an important Patristic writing, it is much less important than the epistles of St. Ignatius the Martyr to the various churches following his arrest in Antioch, while he was en route to Rome, where he was fed to lions in the Arena. Rather I would group 1 Clement with the epistle of St. Polycarp as important Patristic writings that provide moral guidance, but which are not breakthrough works of theology on a par with the Ignatian corpus, or the Apology of St. Justin Martyr, or the seminal theological writings of St. Irenaeus of Lyons against heresies.

Now regarding Romans 4:3, there is nothing in it which contradicts what St. James wrote. But we should remember that Martin Luther did interpolate on his own authority the word “alone” into Romans 3:28, which is one of those actions of Martin Luther which prevent me from venerating him as a saint (the others being his attempt to delete the “antilegomenna”, and his anti-semitic tract. But where Luther argued a disparity between St. Paul and St. James, I see harmony.

A true living faith, as understood by subsequent Lutheran theologians who refined Luther’s early work to account for anomalies such as this, as well as the Early Church Fathers and the Orthodox, Anglican, and Catholic theologians, is a faith that produces good works. Indeed even a full-on TULIP-believing Calvinist will interpret good works as a sign of election, and evil works as the identifying characteristic of a reprobate.

Thus, since the different branches of Protestantism have successfully reconciled the Epistle of James with the Pauline corpus, I regard any attempt to set aside the Epistle of James as amounting to eisegesis. The 27 book canon of the New Testament was handed down to us from St. Athanasius, the same man who defended Christianity against the Arian heresy at Nicaea in 325 as protodeacon to St. Alexander of Alexandria, and who after becoming patriarch of Alexandria, spent much of his career exiled as far away as the dangerous frontier town of Trier, in modern day Germany, which in the fourth century Roman Empire was the Wild West, a place where Greek, the native language of St. Athanasius, was not widely spoken or understood. After returning from this torturous exile without conceding any ground on the doctrine of the faith, and being welcomed back by large crowds into Alexandria, St. Athanasius then proceeded to issue his famous 39th Paschal Encyclical, in which he included the Epistle of James and several other works, some of which were at the time highly controversial, such as Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews (since no one knows for sure who wrote that work, although many church fathers believed it was of Pauline provenance, however, it is better written - given that the Church tradition records that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were based on a narration given by St. Paul, and given the exquisite eloquent Greek written by St. Luke the Evangelist, which is matched only by that of Hebrews, I suspect St. Luke wrote it, most likely inspired by a homily St. Paul delivered in Aramaic. But there is of course no definite proof one way or the other.

One thing is for certain, and that is that the epistles of St. James and St. Paul can be reconciled, and most churches have done that, and the result is much better theology than if one merely discards the epistle of St. James.

 

[FireDragon76]

And John also says that those who act righteous are righteous, and that if we continue in sin we don’t even know God. The Catholic Church has continuously maintained that man cannot justify himself, based on the law or by any standard because man has no righteousness of his own, apart from God.

Rome doesn't determine truth. The idea that Peter was the first Pope isn't supported by serious historians. The entire Roman edifice is supported by just one verse in one Gospel.

Adam separated, alienated, humankind from God and Jesus came in the fullness of time to reconcile us with Him, because man is made for union with God, that’s his very purpose, and is hopelessly lost, sick, dead, disordered, existing in state of injustice, when apart from Him.

If we are reconciled to God in Christ, why do we need the so-called treasury of merits of the Church?

And this justification, this translation of the ungodly to the godly, consists of a real justice or righteousness, not limited to forgiveness and remission of sins and a declared righteousness only. So the reason a Christian now begins to walk in righteousness is because he’s been given that gift, the life of grace, the life of God in us. And to the extent that we remain in Him we will continue to walk in it, and grow in it. Simply put, the nearer a person is to God

What does it even mean to be "near to God"? Is there some place that God is not?

 

[fhansen]

Rome doesn't determine truth. The idea that Peter was the first Pope isn't supported by serious historians. The entire Roman edifice is supported by just one verse in one Gospel.

Soooo....were you agreeing or diagreeing with the statement: "man cannot justify himself, based on the law or by any standard because man has no righteousness of his own, apart from God?"

And you don't determine truth either, BTW. As far as the Roman "edifice" is concerned, it doesn't matter to me if no Scriptural verses can be used to support it; the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an absolute fallacy that started to cause much division and confusion from day one, as Luther feared that it might-and lamented that it did.

If we are reconciled to God in Christ, why do we need the so-called treasury of merits of the Church?

We need to be continously nourished and upheld in that reconciled, justified state-because we can also easily walk back away from it by returning to the flesh, living unjuslty.

What does it even mean to be "near to God"? Is there some place that God is not?

Apparently not in the hearts of fallen man.

"You adulterous people,don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:

“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded." James 4:4-8

That drawing near to God is an ongoing process, not fully consummated until the next life. It can be defined as loving Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. which, again, in turn defines our righteousnness, our telos, our purpose. And it all begins in this life.

 

[FireDragon76]

Soooo....were you agreeing or diagreeing with the statement: "man cannot justify himself, based on the law or by any standard because man has no righteousness of his own, apart from God?"

And you don't determine truth either, BTW. As far as the Roman "edifice" is concerned, it doesn't matter to me if no Scriptural verses can be used to support it; the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is an absolute fallacy that started to cause much division and confusion from day one, as Luther feared that it might-and lamented that it did.

That has nothing to do with whether a doctrine is true or not. Even the Gospels record Jesus as being divisive.

We need to be continously nourished and upheld in that reconciled, justified state-because we can also easily walk back away from it by returning to the flesh, living unjuslty.

I see no evidence that Christians live any more "justly" than non-Christians. So this logic doesn't seem to uphold the integrity of the Christian religion. Even Luther said that it seemed to him that the Turks lived ascetical, pious lives, moreso than Christians.

 

[fhansen]

That has nothing to do with whether a doctrine is true or not. Even the Gospels record Jesus as being divisive.

Sooo...again, did you agree or disagree with the statement?

I see no evidence that Christians live any more "justly" than non-Christians. So this logic doesn't seem to uphold the integrity of the Christian religion. Even Luther said that it seemed to him that the Turks lived ascetical, pious lives, moreso than Christians.

Well, then we're all in trouble-and Scripture is wrong. If Christians don't live more justly, if they don't love better, IOW, than I think we must reassess our status as sons of God-while we also reassess Luther's innovations. Maybe revisit that 1st letter of John. Sola Fide is another problematic doctrine, depending on how it's understood. But I can tell you this, the gospel and the new covenant were never about doing away with the requirement for man to be and live justly and obediently, but rather are the means to realizing that very thing. It all begins with faith...but doesn't end there. As Paul put it in 1st Cor 13:2:
"...if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing."

and as Augustine said,
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

 

[Mark Quayle]

And this has exactly nothing in common with the Christian faith as understood from the beginning, for 1500 years, in the east and west. And those going by Scripture alone disagree over this very matter. I would suggest challenging yourself by an objective immersion into the ECFs, to get an authentic “flavor” of what the church believed and practiced from early on.

Do you think the ECF's have a corner on the market of understanding and interpretation of Scripture? Further, however, I dispute the notion that the ECF's as known currently, are all that there were, that read and interpreted. To put it another way, I doubt very much that Luther introduced anything new. I didn't find what I did because of Luther or Calvin, but from Scripture and good sense and hard experience.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sooo...again, did you agree or disagree with the statement?

Well, then we're all in trouble-and Scripture is wrong. If Christians don't live more justly, if they don't love better, IOW, than I think we must reassess our status as sons of God-while we also reassess Luther's innovations. Maybe revisit that 1st letter of John. Sola Fide is another problematic doctrine, depending on how it's understood. But I can tell you this, the gospel and the new covenant were never about doing away with the requirement for man to be and live justly and obediently, but rather are the means to realizing that very thing. It all begins with faith...but doesn't end there. As Paul put it in 1st Cor 13:2:
"...if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing."

and as Augustine said,
"Without love faith may indeed exist, but avails nothing."

I don't think you are representing Luther's views accurately, but are resorting to typical Catholic polemics.

Luther believed Christians should do good works. He did not believe that a human magisterium got to define what was, and wasn't a good work. Good works benefit our neighbor and glorify God, but they do not put away sin or make us righteous.

 

[fhansen]

I don't think you are representing Luther's views accurately, but are resorting to typical Catholic polemics.

Luther believed Christians should do good works. He did not believe that a human magisterium got to define what was, and wasn't a good work. Good works benefit our neighbor and glorify God, but they do not put away sin or make us righteous.

I haven't relied on any "typical Catholic polemics", whatever that is, as far as know, or explicitly stated Luther's position for that matter. And It doesn't matter who says it anyway-it only matters what the truth is. And every person interpreting Scripture becomes their own human magisterium. Catholicism simply maintains that God estalblished a church to fulfill that role.

So Luther believed Christians should do good works, that faith alone does not mean a faith that is alone? But, at the same time, that the believer remains unchanged, with a righteousness that is strictly declared of and imputed to him, such that, naturally, it might follow that you should "see no evidence that Christians live any more "justly" than non-Christians". So which is it, do we "improve" by virtue of coming into fellowship with God, or not? Such is the confusion engendered by the doctrine of Sola Fide, which can't quite provide a solid answer to that question.

Real, personal, righteousness is a gift given to the believer at justification. Read Romans and all of the bible in that light and you'll better understand the gospel. And why these verses perfectly align with each other:

"If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Matt 19:17

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13

"Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” Gal 3:11

"Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." Heb 12:14

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Eph 2:8-10

Once freely made just, our part is to remain walking in that justice, by remaining in Him. If we do not live justly then we are not in Him. This directive did not change one iota with the new covenant:

"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God." Micah 6:8

 

[fhansen]

Do you think the ECF's have a corner on the market of understanding and interpretation of Scripture? Further, however, I dispute the notion that the ECF's as known currently, are all that there were, that read and interpreted. To put it another way, I doubt very much that Luther introduced anything new. I didn't find what I did because of Luther or Calvin, but from Scripture and good sense and hard experience.

The ECFs are simply in a better position to know. And we don't live in a vacuum-coming up with our own complete theologies out of whole cloth, or strictly from our personal readings-our theologies have preceded us and come prepackaged to one degree or another. And if your experience comfirms your beliefs, that's good, and as it should be; so have mine. But I believe that you can have a fuller and clearer understanding of the truth, that should confirm experience even more soundly.