|
Q u i c k Q u e s t i o n s
Faith Alone?
|
This Rock
Volume 11, Number 2
 February 2000 
|
|
|
Q: I’m confused. Does the recent signing of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Holy See and the Lutheran World Federation (LWF) mean that Catholics should now use the formula "faith alone" when discussing justification? Also, I’m not sure what to make of the Joint Declaration in general.
A: The signing of the Joint Declaration (JD) definitely does not mean that Catholics should begin using the formula "faith alone" to describe the way in which we are justified.
The phrase "faith alone" (Greek, pisteus monon) is used only once in Scripture—in James 2:24—where it is rejected. If we want to model our language after the language of Scripture, then for that reason alone we won’t use the formula.
Further, the formula is intrinsically confusing. In common parlance, the term "faith" is a synonym for "belief." When coupled with the word "alone" and used to describe the method of our justification, it communicates to most people the erroneous idea that we can be saved by intellectual belief alone.
This has been a danger since the apostolic age. Some in the first century didn’t read Paul’s language carefully enough when he said that we are justified by faith and not by works of the Law (Rom. 3:28). They misunderstood him to be saying that we are saved by faith alone, and it was this misunderstanding of Paul that James was condemning in his epistle. That’s the whole reason James goes into the subject.
It’s also a problem for modern Protestants. The phrase "faith alone" is so confusing that Evangelicals themselves constantly have to explain what the formula does not mean—e.g., that it does not mean that we are saved by belief apart from trust or that we will be saved if we do not truly repent of our sins.
All round, the phrase "faith alone" is a bad idea, and the JD in no way encourages Catholics to use it as part of their theological vocabulary.
What it does is strike a very delicate balance on the subject of the formula. It acknowledges—rightly—that the formula is being used by the LWF in a sense that does not fall under the condemnations of Trent, but without encouraging Catholics to us it.
The classic Catholic alternative to saying we are saved by "faith alone" is saying that we are saved by "faith, hope, and charity." These are the theological virtues essential to justification. But the LWF has defined the term "faith" so broadly that it includes not only faith but hope and charity. In the LWF sense, "faith" equals "faith, hope, and charity" in the Catholic sense. That being the case, the Lutheran use of the "faith alone" formula does not fall under Trent’s condemnations, and the JD acknowledges this, but does not in any way encourage Catholics to begin using such an unbiblical and confusing formula.
This is why the formula never appears in any of the "we confess together" passages of the JD. If it did appear in one of those, the document would have encouraged Catholics to use the formula in their own theological vocabulary, which would result in a disaster of confusion. Rightly, the JD avoids this.
As far as an appraisal of the JD in general, the JD provides a valuable service in clearing away a significant number of misunderstandings regarding justification, but at times the language it uses is confusing.
The Vatican acknowledged this when it issued a document known as the Response to the Joint Declaration, in which the Holy See insisted on a number of further clarifications before the joint document could be signed. That was an embarrassment. The needed clarifications should have been worked out before the text of the JD was finalized.
Further, the JD gives very little attention to or simply omits altogether some aspects of the doctrine of justification. I would have liked to see the JD further explain the sense in which Scripture describes eternal life as a reward for "perseverance in working good" (Rom. 2:6–7). More attention needed to be devoted also to the subject of progressive justification, by which we grow in righteousness over the course of the Christian life. And we could have done with a fuller treatment of the way in which justification is lost through sin and then regained.
One of the most conspicuous absences from the JD is a discussion of the language James uses in chapter 2 of his epistle. James 2:14–26 is cited only once, but it is not quoted, and there is no exploration at all of the meaning of this passage. While we’re at this business of reconciling things, it would have been good to have a discussion of the way in which James and Paul are to be reconciled—especially when James is directly intending to clarify such an important misunderstanding of Paul.
-- Jimmy Akin
Q: What is the Easter duty? Does it mean that Catholics have to attend Mass at least on Easter Sunday?
A: Roman Catholics are already obligated to attend Mass on all Sundays, including Easter Sunday, and holy days in virtue of canon 1247, with due regard for various exceptions depending on circumstances.
The so-called "Easter Duty" is different. It is contained in canon 920 and generally requires all Catholics who have made first Eucharist to receive Holy Communion annually, usually around Easter. In the United States, with papal approval, this period runs from the first Sunday of Lent (March 12, 2000) to Trinity Sunday (June 18, 2000).
Although there is not a canonical requirement to confess all sins once per year (canon 989 speaks only of the requirement to confess "grave" sins annually), one should be properly disposed before receiving the Eucharist, and therefore sacramental reconciliation during the weeks around Easter should be considered. Most parishes offer extra opportunities for sacramental reconciliation during Lent with this thought in mind.
-- Edward Peters
Q: A friend of mine has used a Ouija board on several occasions. I have advised him against using it, but he insists it is used just for fun and that it is harmless. Is this true?
A: The answer is an emphatic "No"! The Ouija board is far from harmless, as it is a form of divination (seeking information from supernatural sources). The fact of the matter is, the Ouija board really does work, and the only "spirits" that will be contacted through it are evil ones.
It’s true that many people view the Ouija board as harmless. They often claim, "Oh, I don’t believe in it," or something to this effect. However, a disbelief in something does not necessarily mean that something isn’t real. The Ouija board has an objective reality that exists apart from a person’s perception of it. In other words, it’s real even if you don’t believe in it. And we know this because God himself tells us so.
The Lord repeatedly condemns any and all occultic practices, including divination. While many Bible passages could be cited, the following one is typical of his view of occultic practices: "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord" (Deut. 18:10–12, NIV).
On the experiential side of the issue, we have the testimony of the Church’s exorcists. Their experience shows that Ouija boards are far from harmless. Some investigating supernatural phenomena from a Catholic perspective have gone so far as to say that 90 percent of their very worst cases involving demonic activity have been linked to the use of the Ouija board.
Simply put, nothing positive can ever come from the use of the Ouija board, and God warns us against such things for our own spiritual safety.
-- Joel S. Peters
Q: Would it be possible for you to cite the Scripture passages that Jesus used when he quoted from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) and what Septuagint passages are clearly alluded to in the New Testament?
A: If this magazine were about ten pages longer, perhaps. Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32).
For those who may not know, the Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The common abbreviation for it—LXX, or the Roman numerals for 70—come from a legend that the first part of the Septuagint was done by 70 translators.
By the first century, the LXX was the Bible of Greek-speaking Jews and so was the most frequently used version of the Old Testament in the early Church. For this reason, it was natural for the authors of the New Testament to lift quotes from it while writing in Greek to the Church.
But, while the New Testament authors quoted the LXX frequently, it does not necessarily follow that Christ did. We know for certain that Jesus quoted the Hebrew Old Testament at times, since he read from the scrolls in the synagogue. But Jesus could have only quoted from the Hebrew, and the New Testament authors later used the Greek translation to record the fact.
Either way, it doesn’t matter, because the Greek New Testament is inspired, and the Holy Spirit chose to have the sacred authors repeatedly cite the LXX. It doesn’t really matter if Jesus was quoting Scripture in Hebrew or Aramaic if the Holy Spirit chooses to use the Septuagint when translating his words into Greek. The importance of the Septuagint is demonstrated no matter which of these is the case.
But, since you ask, here is an example where the Greek gospels present Jesus as quoting the Septuagint: In Mark 7:6–7, Jesus quotes the LXX of Isaiah 29:13 when he says, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’"
Of course, the reason people usually ask about the New Testament authors’ use of the Septuagint is because it contains the seven deuterocanonical books that are now omitted from Protestant Bibles. Showing that the New Testament authors quoted from the LXX argues in favor of (though does not in itself prove) the inspiration of these seven books.
For a full list of potential New Testament allusions to the deuterocanonical books, go to the Internet site http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm.
-- Jason Evert
Q: In every Bible I have read, both Catholic and Protestant, Matthew 6:9–14 and Luke 11:2–4 use the words "debts" and "sins" in the Lord’s Prayer, and yet as Catholics we say "trespasses" when praying this important prayer. Who changed the words and why?
A: In Matthew 6:12, the Greek word for "debts" is ophelilema, and it means "that which is owed." Likewise, the Greek word for "debtors" is opheiletes, and it means "one who owes another."
Matthew used the word "debts" figuratively for "sins," whereas in Luke’s more direct style, he relates that Christ teaches us to ask forgiveness of our sins (hamartia).
Today, the liturgical tradition of the Church has retained Matthew’s text, perhaps because he gives a more developed version of seven petitions whereas Luke’s version contains only five.
If you were to recite the Lord’s Prayer in Latin, you would find the word "debts" (debita) used. It is only English-speaking Catholics who use the word "trespass." According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the first definition of "trespass" is "a violation of moral or social ethics: transgression: esp: sin." The meaning used in the English Catholic prayer, therefore, remains true to Matthew’s figurative word for "sins".
To see the importance of this petition, and to see how the use of the word "trespass" helps link our thoughts to other words of Christ regarding this theme, consider the following texts. In Matthew 5:23–24, while Jesus is giving his Sermon on the Mount, he says, "So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift." Then, just a few verses after Jesus’ prayer, in Matthew 6: 14–15, he says, "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Finally, in Mark 11:25, Jesus says, "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses."
The implications of this prayer and related verses are clear. We must be willing to forgive others, or we condemn ourselves.
-- Jan Wakelin
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
