Audio only:
Dr. Karlo Broussard discusses where Catholics often misstep when debating justification with Protestants—especially by muddying stages, terms, and the grace–works relationship—and how clearer biblical and Tridentine framing leads to more fruitful dialogue.
TRANSCRIPT:
Karlo:
Hey friends, welcome back to the channel. I’m so glad to have you here with me. Today’s episode is another bonus episode where I sit down to chat with Catholic apologist Dr. Steven Boice about where Catholics go wrong when debating the topic of justification. I hope you enjoy the conversation.
Stephen:
Welcome to another episode of Facts. I’m your host, Steven Boyce. We’re doing a special weekday episode where I brought in a special guest to discuss justification. I mean, can you have any more controversy as it relates to Protestant and Catholic? And then you have people that are kind of in between like the Anglicans who come in the middle here and say, “Well, I don’t know what I think about that. ” So we want to have a good discussion about where people go wrong, specifically do Catholics go wrong in this or do they approach it the wrong way? Or do they look at the arguments with kind of a wrong perspective and take angles that are not really healthy for discussion dialogue? Or do they have just a misrepresentation of the churches teaching altogether? So what I did is I brought in a friend who’s been on the channel before.
Dr. Carlo Broussard from Catholic Answers. So glad to have you back on the show again. Dr. Broussard, how are you? Steven, I’m doing all right, Pal. Thanks for having me on, man. It’s a pleasure.
Yeah. I mean, there’s a lot of subjects. And I was talking about your episode, maybe I think it was two or three days ago. I was having a conversation with a guy about our discussion on purgatory. And now at the time, I was not in full communion with Rome. I was still an Anglo-Catholic. And it was discussions like that, that I needed to kind of push me in a direction where there were certain things that were hanging me up and keeping me out of Catholicism. Purgatory is one of the big ones. And I remember that discussion being one of the most important to making the jump and saying, “I can consciously accept this concept of purgatory that I think has been left out. ” And it was a big deal. So if you guys missed that-
Karlo:
Oh, bless
Stephen:
You God. Yeah. I mean, people need to go back and watch that. If you miss the one on purgatory, you can find it in the archives. So we’re glad to have you back. So kind of talk about why the subject of justification before we kind of get into some of the dialogue. Why the justification discussion? Because it seems like we’ve exhausted this. There’s been endless debates for really since the reformation and it doesn’t seem like we can ever settle this matter. So why is this so important?
Karlo:
Well, I think the focus that we’re going to take tonight in our conversation is on Catholics and how Catholics approach this topic in conversations with Protestants, especially within the world of apologetics, conversations that are involving apologetical discussions. When Catholics read popular apologetics, they sort of get their Bible passages ready and they go to war quote unquote. And they enter into these discussions and they make arguments for the Catholic position against the Protestant position. And what I’ve discovered in my training as an apologist for Catholic answers is that often we misstep. We present a passage in a way that’s not quite nuanced enough to resonate with a Protestant, or we might say something and use certain lingo that our Protestant friends will interpret and conceive in an entirely different way than what we’re thinking and consequently lead to false conclusions and create barriers intellectually to where we can’t communicate with each other appropriately and we’re talking past each other.
And so that’s why I wanted to focus on this topic. I did something similar recently on Adrian Lawson’s channel, Sips With Sarah on Sola Scripture, where I see Catholics often misstepping in critiquing solo scripture. And I think the same thing happens when it comes to justification. In these sorts of dialogues, sometimes Catholics misstep whenever they’re debating the topic of justification, particularly with a Protestant Christian. And so I thought it would be fun and enlightening to kind of walk through some issues or some missteps by Catholics. And I will say this right up front, several of these missteps I have been guilty of. And I remember vividly one of the issues where I misstepped and old James White called me out on it, and so I’m appreciative of it. So I can speak from personal experience. Whenever I engaged in these sort of missteps, it was just simply due to a lack of proper full formation.
And over time, when receiving that full formation in this issue, I was able to identify some of these missteps that I was guilty of in the past, and then trying to share that knowledge with others so that Catholics can avoid these landmines as well. And it’s all for the sake. It’s not for the sake of pride or anything, like I don’t want to mess up. I mean, obviously I don’t want to mess up, but for the sake of having fruitful conversations, like for an example of yourself, Steven, like the conversations that you had on your journey were fruitful because of the way in which the Catholic faith was articulated for you, which allowed for your reason to give you permission for the will to consent to the fullness of truth and the Catholic faith. And so that’s sort of the ultimate goal for these kinds of conversations.
It’s not meant to say, “Aha, Catholic, you got it wrong and we apologize at Catholic answers no better.” That is not my intention here. My intention is simply for the sake of making conversations more fruitful, especially within this context for our Protestant friends.
Stephen:
Yeah. I think that’s a good point because the problem, and you said it earlier, is that people have talked over each other on these matters
And we’re kind of focusing on the wrong things sometimes. I remember when Samuel Neeson and I were debating Trent and Jimmy on this very issue that I think it was somewhere around the hour and 30 minute mark, I remember looking over on the side and going, “Are we even disagreeing anymore?” I feel like we’ve spent the last 30 minutes agreeing and our terminology is backward and there’s so much to this. And the thing is like justification discussions, especially on the Catholic side of things, there’s the missteps on the Catholic side and then there’s the misunderstandings on the Protestant side.
Karlo:
Exactly.
Stephen:
And so it’s like a razor thin edge and you can go either way.
And so these are some of the discussions we’re going to have. And so what I want to do is for those that are listening and join the live chat, we do want to hear from you. We’ll take some discussions and questions that you may have toward the end of this, but we’re going to walk through each of these issues and we’ll pause at certain points. We’re going to talk about justification by works in a minute. But if this is your first time, thanks for joining the show. Hit the like and subscribe button. Also, I will have available in the description Dr. Carlo Broussard’s new channel, just. So we’ll have that available for you. Also, there’s an article that he wrote that is in the description. Hit that link and read that as well. And it’ll be relevant to what we’re discussing today. So thanks for those that have come in.
If you’re in the live chat, see if some of you have already responded in, check in with us, send some questions you might have about justification or your thoughts. We’ll see if we can get some time in and take those statements and questions. All right, Carlo, let’s get into the first one. We’re justified by works. I mean, you can’t even start anywhere, but James too, because that’s where this conversation always finds out. So this idea of we’re justified by works, no, no, it’s faith alone, so. That whole thing. Let’s start with justification by works from the Catholic’s perspective.
Karlo:
Yeah. So often what happens in apologetics is the Catholic comes into the conversation and says, “Aha, James 2:24, we’re justified by works and not by faith alone. The only time in the Bible where faith alone appears, the word’s not by or in front of it. ” Boom, close book case settle, right? But I think where the misstep is, is the failure to identify at which particular stage of justification do our good works apply because here’s where the problem arises. Catholic comes to the Protestant and says, “We’re justified by works.” In the Protestant mind, the Protestant conceives of that proposition or that statement as applying to the one time event in the past of justification when we were initially justified. And so the Protestant is thinking Ephesians two: eight through nine, when Paul talks about in verses one through seven, how we were dead in our sin, but we are now alive in Christ, transitioning from spiritual death to spiritual life, and that we are saved by grace and not by works.
And so the Protestant is interpreting that Catholic proposition of being justified by works and saying, “Well, wait a minute. No, that can’t be true because Paul’s clear that we are not justified by works when we initially transition from spiritual death to spiritual life.” Now, where the Catholic missteps is misapplying this text, because as the Council of Trent taught, for that initial stage of justification, the good works, the works of love even that we would perform prior to that initial justification, in no way is meritorious of the initial grace.
Stephen:
Now let’s pause right there for a minute because this is something that was discussed post reformation for clarity on the church’s position because what created this really blur was obviously Luther. This is a response to the reformation. Trent is responding to this in the 16th century, the late 16th century in relation to the idea of works, and they have set the record straight that the initial phase, the initial understanding that faith is important here. So pause there and spend a few more seconds on that because I think everybody in the audience needs to hear that, especially I know I have a lot of Protestant listeners, what is the Catholic position on death to life? So I know you said it, but I want to pause there and I want to reemphasize this so that we’re not misunderstanding because a lot of people say, “You guys, you’re depending on all works to save you.
” We don’t. Where is that for those listening in the Protestant crowd?
Karlo:
Yeah. So with regard to that initial stage of justification where we initially transition from spiritual death to spiritual life, which we as Catholics identify as the state of justification. Now that’s a different issue that we can talk about like what constitutes our state of justice or being at peace with God. For us as Catholics, it’s rooted in the interior righteousness, the spiritual aliveness or spiritual life that God brings about within our souls from spiritual death to spiritual life. And that grounds our rightly ordered relationship with God. It is in virtue of that interior righteousness that God brings about initially that I am at peace with God or justified. As Paul talks about in Romans five: one, no longer subject to condemnation because I’m in Christ. Romans eight: one. Now, some of our Protestant friends would disagree with that and say, “No, our justification is rooted solely in the forensic declaration of God by imputing the very own righteousness of Christ to us and crediting it to us.” So that’s a debate there, but at least from the Catholic side, even if we put aside this disagreement as to what constitutes or grounds our justification, we still agree in so far as we affirm any good works that we do prior to being justified.
And even Steven, the faith that we exercise prior to justification does not merit the initial grace of justification. It is purely gratuitous by God. Now, that brings up some other questions. Well, what do you mean faith before justification? Is it possible to have a non-saving faith? And the Catholic church says, yes. Faith preceding the initial grace of justification, which comes the theological, with which comes the theological virtue of faith so that we can say we’re justified by faith. The faith that comes before that is a gift from God. It’s a movement by God of the mind to recognize the truth and moving the will to ascent based upon the recognition of that truth, based upon the testimony of God. That is a gift and it is a … We call it faith, but it’s not a justifying faith yet. It’s a gift of faith order to the initial grace of justification to prepare us for and lead us to it, not to merit justification, but to lead us to it.
A good example of this, Steven, is in Acts chapter 10, before Cornelius and his Gentile friends received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and are saved, Cornelius exercises legitimate faith. In the beginning of the chapter, whenever his prayer ascends to God as a memorial before God, he was exorcizing legit faith, but it wasn’t justifying faith yet because the Holy Spirit had not come upon him and saving him. And so we … St. Thomas Aquinas has a whole article on this. I can’t remember the exact citation where he talks about non-justifying faith or in non-formata, right? Faith that’s not animated by the virtue of charity yet, the theological virtue of charity. But whenever we receive the initial grace of justification, we call it sanctifying grace as Catholics, ordinarily through baptism, but God can communicate that grace even without baptism and extraordinary circumstances, then comes the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which order us to God as our supernatural in thereby constituting a rightly ordered relationship, i.e. Justification.
But before that, whatever work we do and even the gift of non-informed gift of faith that we have, in no way is a cause to bring about or merit that initial grace of justification. And that’s the definitive teaching of the council of Trent.
Stephen:
So then that brings us into the discussion, particularly in James. So we do see in James that there is a statement, can that kind of faith save a person? And he gives examples of that. So Catholics will simply jump to that. They’ll say, “Well, see, if faith is not alone, faith that lacks these essentials of charity and love.” If you see a person who has nakedness and you don’t supply the clothes they need when you have that, how can you call that faith? I mean, he gives these examples. Can that kind of faith save somebody? And so therefore they would say, “See, that faith is accompanied by the works of charity and therefore solephide sucks.” I mean, that’s basically mandatories. So that’s where people will go with that. So there is a balance here where we need to start where you did. And maybe Trent is a good place to start because we have definitive teaching there.
Yeah. So start here and then let’s go to James,
Karlo:
Right? Right. And that starting point, Steven, establishes the common ground with our Protestant friend to signal to our Protestant friend that when we talk about our good works, contributing to or bringing about salvation and being involved in our salvation, we are not talking about the initial stage of salvation, we’re talking about once we are already saved in Christ at peace with God, therein, our good works come into play to contribute to our salvation or justification. And that’s where James 2:24 comes in according to the Council of Trent. Whenever the Council of Trent references James 2:24, and it’s one instance, it’s within the context of us already being justified, because you have to have the principle of charity in order for your charitable deeds to contribute anything to your relationship with God or being justified or saved. And the evidence as to why James 2:24 applies to this stage of justification, what we might call the ongoing stage of justification is because when James makes that statement, “We’re justified by faith, we’re justified by works, not by faith alone,” he says that in parallel to the example of Abraham’s justification on account of offering his son Isaac, James draws a parallel just as Abraham was justified by his work of obedience, of offering his son Isaac, we Christians are justified by our works, not by faith alone.
Now what’s interesting, Steven, is that when you examine Abraham’s obedient act of offering Isaac in sacrifice, that’s in Genesis chapter 22, and James is telling us he’s justified on account of that work, but we know, and our Protestant friends know that Abraham was justified, so our Protestant friends will argue, quoting St. Paul in Romans four, “He was justified in Genesis 15: six. When he believed God, and it was accredited to him as righteousness, right?” Well, we can even push that back further. According to Hebrews chapter 11, verses six, I think it’s six through eight, we discover that according to the author of Hebrews, Abraham was justified initially in Genesis 12 when he obeyed God to leave his homeland,
Because the author tells us he exorcized a faith in Genesis 12 that made him pleasing to God, and that’s justifying faith. So my point is this, when James teaches us that Abraham was justified by his work of offering his son, Isaac, he had already been justified. And so it applies to the ongoing stage of justification. And James says, “For us as Christians, we are justified by our works in parallel to that justification of Abraham in offering up his son Isaac on Mount Moriah.” And so our good works contribute to our justification, not initially, as Paul says, and transitioning from spiritual death to spiritual life by grace, not by works, but only after we’re initially saved in this ongoing relationship with the Lord, where our works of love merit or contribute to increasing in love, stabilizing the love, making it stronger in the loving relationship with the Lord, just like in my relationship with my wife, right?
Once we’re married, I perform certain duties within the marriage and a variety of different ways to sustain and increase the love in the relationship, so too in the relationship with our Lord. That’s where the good works come into play. And if we are not aware of that as Catholics and we make this misstep and we don’t help our Protestant friend interpret it correctly, it’s going to lead to false conclusions. Our Protestant friend’s going to be thinking, “Well, we are earning our salvation and our works are earning our salvation, but how in the world could that be when you’re spiritually dead?” Well, we would agree. If you’re spiritually dead, ain’t nothing you do that’s going to merit the grace of justification.
Stephen:
See, and this is the big discussion that comes into play, right? So when you’re looking at it from a Protestant perspective, they seem to, and I grew up in this trend where salvation is broken into three phases. You’re justified, that’s your initial. You’re in. You’re in the kingdom, your ticket is putched, you’re going to heaven, you got your salvation, nothing to worry about. You believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, you said a prayer. Then you start what’s called sanctification. Now that’s more optional. Yeah, you might not cooperate with God and it’ll lead to some discipline and he’ll wield you back to obedience and then you’re going to have this struggle with being detached from sin and so forth. And then when we die and then we experience eternity, we have brought to glorification and the resurrection. That’s what they do is you got justification and sanctification and glorification.
The problem with that from like the Protestant side of things is that they seem to detach the idea of salvation as a salvation is three things. It seems like more in a Catholic theology that they’re inseparable realities that cannot be detached in any way, shape or form. And so a lot of times when a Protestant is talking about sanctification and a Catholic is talking about justification, they’re actually talking about the same thing sometimes. It’s just that one is calling it justification and then the other is calling it sanctification. So can you clarify that because it seems like people are talking over each other when that. It’s like, no, no, your justification is by this and it happens at a moment, at a period of time. And we’re sitting there going, “Well, James two says that you’re not by father.” So what some might call sanctification, others … When I was debating Jimmy and Trent, that’s what I realized really quick is like we’re saying the same thing here.
We’re actually just saying justification and they’re saying justification, we’re saying santification, but we’re actually agreeing with each other at the same time.
Karlo:
Well, so as you put it, it’s a bit of a complicated issue. First of all, glorification is something distinct. As Catholics, we do not equate glorification with justification, at least on this side of the veil. Will our glorification entail justification in heaven? Absolutely. But that’s going to be the perfected state of justification. All right. With regard to justification and sanctification, for many Protestants, it is not, at least according to my discussions that I’ve had in my research and reading, it is not merely a difference in language and a reference being the same in reality. And the reason why I say that, Steven, is because, and this is one of the missteps, right? Initially, when I first started doing apologetics, I was thinking that along those very same lines, well, we’re just kind of using different language, talking about the same thing. However, Protestants of the reformed tradition will counter and say, “Absolutely not.
” Because although we affirm, so they will say sanctification, the interior transformation of regeneration, that is not the ground in virtue of which we are at peace with God, i.e., Justified. The sole reason why we stand in a rightly ordered relationship with God and we are no longer held accountable for our sins and the subject to damnation is on account of the forensic declaration by God imputing the very righteousness of Christ to us. And so on that view, Steven, I don’t think that we’re using the same language for a, excuse me, using different language for a same reference because on that view, that is essentially different than saying- Agreed.
Sanctification or interior righteousness is identical to our justification. And so for the Protestants of the reformed tradition, their common line is although sanctification is not the ground for our justification, they are inseparable and they go hand in hand. So when you’re justified initially, there comes an interior renewal of sanctification as well, but one is not identified with the other, they are essentially distinct. And this is a misstep that I was guilty of in the past where I failed to make these proper distinctions on behalf of our Protestant friends of the reformed tradition. And so once we have that target, Stephen, then as a Catholic in the conversation, we have to be able to critique that view of dividing sanctification and justification. And one way to do that is to appeal to evidence within the New Testament, especially within Paul’s writings, where he identifies a state of sanctification or interior righteousness that God brings about with justification.
And this leads to yet another misstep in Catholic apologetics. Many times, Catholics will look to a text in the Bible where it talks about sanctification, right? And then they’ll say, “Aha, you see, Paul talks about sanctification.”
Stephen:
This is your sanctification. This is your sanctification.
Karlo:
Right, right. And so therefore, you see, we are interiorly renewed and changed when we are saved, but then the Protestant of the reformed tradition is going to say, “Wait a minute, you’re assuming that we don’t believe in sanctification.” And I’ve made this misstep in the past, and this is where I was talking about earlier where White called me out, because as White will affirm and others, they agree that we are sanctified, but it’s not the ground in virtue of which we are justified. Or C. Sproul makes that very explicit in his book, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine on Justification. And so we, as Catholics in the conversation, it’s not enough just to appeal to a text that speaks of sanctification. We have to be able to connect that sanctification text with the concept of justification in order for it to be persuasive or our view to be persuasive for our Protestant friends.
And I have some articles at catholic.com where I’ve done this already. One is entitled, this is the most recent one entitled Catholics and Protestants Agree, kind of, dot, dot, dot, that’s the title they gave it, where I look at two passages, Stephen, two Corinthians 5:17 and Galatians 6:15, where Paul says, “We become a new creation in Christ.” But it’s not enough just to appeal to the text that says, “We become a new creation in Christ because the Protestant of the reformed tradition will affirm that too.” But the key question is, can we connect the new creation state and being in Christ with justification? And as I point out in the article that you’re going to have a link there, I give evidence. And from both two Corinthians five and Galatians six, that the answer is yes. In Paul’s mind, when he’s speaking of becoming a new creation in Christ, for him, that is justification, and that provides biblical evidence for at least the Catholic view that our interior … Let me restate that.
It provides evidence at least for the idea that our interior righteousness is at least a ground of our justification as to whether it’s the only ground of our justification as Trent, the Council of Trent taught, that would require further argumentation.
Stephen:
And this is something, and just kind of interacting with the audience here a little bit, this is the problem, and this is why we’re trying to bring clarity and we’re actually prompting conversation because there is a standard reform view, but there’s also a lot of views within the reform tradition on even the subject of justification and sanctification. Let’s not pretend like there’s a single view in the Reformation camp. I grew up in one group, I grew up in a more reformed Catholic group, or a non-Catholic, hating Catholic group. And then on the other hand, I grew up in an Armenian group for a while where I was around people and couldn’t stand it. It was awful and I was around those people and they would consider themselves the true reform on this side of things, and they would handle this very differently than say a five point Calvinist.
And so, as I’m interacting with people in the audience here, let’s not pretend that there is a single reformed position on the subject of justification and the nature of that and a single position on the subject of sanctification and glorification. And that’s why I said when I was growing up, there was this, “Oh, over here, you got justification and sanctification and glorification.” And then some people say, “Well, no, they’re all one thing. They’re interlocked. They’re inchangeable. If you’ve got one, you’ve got all. ” And then so there’s not a single position in the reform camp to be clear to those in the audience who are trying to argue that there is. There is not a single position. Put a Calvinist, a five point Calvinist in the same room with an Armenian and tell me you come out with the same conclusions on this. You won’t.
And so we have to remember this, folks, that in every group we need to be clarifying our positions. And the Catholics have a little bit of an advantage here because we have ecumenical councils like Trent who have given this teaching to us definitively where it’s not like, “Well, I got to be in this camp and I got to be in That camp, and then we’re going to be in this camp over here. The church has told us what the position of the church is and all the faithful should adhere to. And so let’s just be clear as we’re engaging this. Let me bring in a super chat, I don’t want to lose it. Real quick, Protestants say if works matter, you can boast and rather works are part of sanctification. But I’d be surprised if Protestants would boast in their sanctification or would they? That’s from Hercules.
All right.
Karlo:
All right. Let me- So you want to engage that? You want me to engage
Stephen:
That? Go for it. Yeah. Yeah,
Karlo:
Let me pull it back up. Okay.
So this is actually a great point because it touches on yet another Catholic misstep in these discussions. So let’s go ahead and follow the trail here and talk about that. And then I’ll relate it to the Super Chat comment/question. The Catholic misstep, it comes up whenever we start talking about cooperating with God’s grace. Now, if we just lay it out as such, you can fairly ask the question, “Well, wait a minute. This cooperation with God’s grace, which you Catholics would say involves good works, is that a work that’s coming from purely your own natural powers?” And so if that’s the case, how in the world can you be saved based upon that cooperation with grace if it’s coming just from your own natural power? Wouldn’t that give you a reason to boast before God, which would contradict the explicit teaching of Paul in Romans four where he says, “Works, conceiving of works that are not graced as giving one reason to boast before God.” And so the answer is yes.
If we understood our cooperation with grace involving good works as involving works that are proceeding solely from our own natural powers, as if we’re doing it by ourself, then the answer would be no, it could not contribute to our salvation in any way whatsoever. But here’s the nuance. Here’s the Catholic understanding. The cooperation with grace is itself a grace because nothing that we do that contributes to our salvation is without grace and not … And is … Let me try to phrase that differently positively. Everything that we do to contribute to our salvation is itself an effect of grace. Or to be more precise in the Thomastic tradition, the acts of love themselves are grace. It’s supernatural movements that God brings about as the universal cause and the ultimate creator that is contributing to my salvation. And so from the Catholic view, any work that we do that contributes to our salvation does not give us a reason to boast before God, because any work that we do that contributes to our salvation after we’re already saved is itself a grace, such that when God rewards us finally with heaven, say, and entering into heaven at our particular judgment when we die, it’s God rewarding his own works in and through us.
Now, this does not mean that the work is not coming from me. The good work is coming from me because my intellect and my will is involved. So the good action is an effect of my own agency, but that act when done supernaturally to contribute to my salvation is itself a grace, a supernatural movement of God that’s proportionate to the supernatural rewards of further graces, like an increase in grace and justification, or the final reward of heaven itself. So at no point, Steven, in the Catholic paradigm, whether we’re talking about the initial stage of justification, the ongoing stage of justification where our works begin to contribute or our final stage of justification receiving heaven where our works come into play and contribute to, at no point in the Catholic paradigm can we boast before God, because at every point, it’s all grace. Initially, without our works, after our initial salvation, our works that are themselves, the effects of grace, supernatural movements of God contributing to our salvation, and of course receiving the reward of heaven on account of good works performed out of charity themselves being grace.
Hopefully that gets to the superchat question.
Stephen:
Yeah, I think it does. And this is the beauty of sacraments in the Catholic faith because we are unworthy of these things. We can’t earn absolution. We can’t earn the opportunity to partake of the Eucharist and the beauty of Christ himself giving himself to us and giving us immortality in life and all these things that are beautifully attached that God is doing something. Even in marriage, you use marriage as an example. Marriage, we believe is the sacrament that God is initiating and working grace into these things. Sacraments are so important to the subject of grace because … And the reason I’m bringing that up is because the question was, on the other hand of this, initial justification at baptism, because somebody had asked, ask your guess, when exactly does a person receive justification at baptism, right? Well-
Karlo:
Ordinarily speaking, yes.
Stephen:
This is the part of the sacraments. This is the first sacrament that initiates into this. So if you would, I mean, he kind of answered his own question, but if you’d like to just participate in his own question, and then it seems like somebody came in and answered it for us, but talk about why that’s important even when we’re talking about baptism. Yeah. So
Karlo:
According to Catholic belief, God has divinely revealed for us that he wills to ordinarily communicate his grace to us, that inner life that makes us holy, right? We call it sanctifying grace. It’s a quality of the soul and virtue of which we are holy and at peace with God. It sanctifies us. It makes us holy. And with that quality of sanctifying grace comes the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, whereby my intellect and my will is rightly ordered to God and at peace with God as my supernatural end. That grace ordinarily initially comes to us through the sacrament of baptism. Can God give it without the sacrament? Yes, he can do that. The Catholic church affirms that in paragraph 1257 of the categorism of the Catholic church, but ordinarily it’s through the sacrament. Now, here’s a key point for this discussion, Steven. Many Protestants will counter and say, “Well, isn’t baptism a work?” Well, actually, it’s not a work on our part.
It’s God’s work through the instrument. It’s kind of like this. When I’m on Catholic Answers Live, Steven, somebody calls in and says, they ask their question and then our host, Cy Kellet will say, “Hey, we want to give you a gift. We want to give you a free gift, a book. So just hang on the line, give your address, and we’ll send you a free gift.” Now, is there anything that that questioner did to earn the giving of that gift? The answer is no. But how is the person supposed to receive the gift? Well, they’re going to have to go to their mailbox when the gift arrives and open the package, right? But even in that case, we still would not say that the individual caller earned or merited the gift. The gift was freely given, but there was a stipulation as to how you were to access or receive the gift.
Similarly, we believe God has revealed baptism to be the ordinary way and virtue of which we access that gift of supernatural life or sanctifying grace, where we receive it from God directly in and through the ritual washing that we call baptism. And the same is true with the other sacraments, the other six sacraments that we believe God has revealed as ways in which he wishes to give us the gift or to state it differently, ways in which he wills for us ordinarily to receive the gifts by simply showing up, right? And so with regard to Holy Communion, receiving, right? That’s why it’s called Holy Communion. We receive, we come in union with Christ through the reception of Holy Communion. We approach the sacrament of reconciliation to receive his mercy in and through this ordinary means of the sacrament. And so the same principle applies to all of the sacraments, which fits with what we’re talking about here, how from beginning to end and in the middle, it’s all in virtue of God’s grace working in and through us to accomplish his will.
And that’s directly from St. Paul’s teaching in Philippians chapter two, verse 13, right after in verse 12 when he says, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. And verse 13, he says, “For God works in and through you to accomplish his will.” And that’s exactly what we were saying earlier. Any good work that contributes to our salvation is itself an effect of God’s supernatural work in us so that when God crowns my good works with eternal life or further grace, he’s crowning his own works.
Stephen:
Wow, well said. See, when I grew up Baptist, we had this idea, and this is what I was thinking the whole time and always perceived, even as a pastor in the Baptist church. Baptism is something that we did for the Lord. Then I came to realize, and this actually happened when I became an Anglican, that baptism is actually something done to us.
Karlo:
Amen.
Stephen:
Something God does for us. Is that something we do for God? Is something God does for us? And that changed my whole perspective of, wow, what an amazing act of grace that God would desire to wash me. And he invited me to these things. And so it’s a beautiful thing to think about in the sacraments as it relates to all this, but yes, Catholics can say, “We believe in salvation by grace through faith.”
Karlo:
Yeah, absolutely. And to your point with regard to baptism, there is a truth in saying that we employ the sacramental baptism out of obedience to Christ because he said, “Go and be baptized.” So there is a truth insofar as we’re obeying Christ, but it is showing up as God stipulates for him to work on us, to do his thing on us, so to speak, through the sacrament itself.
Stephen:
It’s a beautiful thing. It’s a beautiful thing. So let’s continue through the issue. So we talked about justified by works controversy, James 2:24. The issue, we kind of been hitting on this in every way, the Catholic rejection of works preceding initial justification. So just kind of rehash that.
Karlo:
Yeah. This is actually yet another misstep that I will raise both hands on with regard to being guilty of in the past. So notice how so far in the conversation, I’ve simply been affirming the Council of Trent’s teaching and I’ve been very nuanced in the language I was using that the good works preceding our initial justification do not play a causal role to bring it about or merit it. But that’s different than saying our good works before initial justification have no role to play in relation to our justification whatsoever. You see the conceptual distinction there?
This latter idea is something that I used to think and present in discussions on this issue. But if you read the Council of Trent carefully, the Council of Trent actually rejects that view and affirms that good works preceding initial justification play a role in relation to justification, but do not cause it to be brought about or merit it. So what the Council of Trent says is the Canon nine there in his decree on justification, it’s all in this negative language, which is very complex and hard to understand, right? So I’m just going to state it positively. The Council of Trent affirms that we must cooperate with God before initial justification. That is to say, our intellect and will has to be active to where my mind is coming to know God’s revelation and I’m willing the intellects assent to that revelation to be true. That’s a cooperation, but here’s a nuance.
Those very interior acts of the intellect and the will, Steven, at that moment is what we call actual graces. These are movements that God brings about within me gratuitously ordered to our justification. That’s why it’s a supernatural movement. It’s not just a natural movement like God’s moving my intellect and my will to ascent to the truth that the grass is green. That has nothing to do with my justification. So it’s a natural movement. But the movement of the intellect and the wheel prior to justification where I come to know God’s truth and his revelation and I sent to it as true. And then I begin to desire God’s grace and I want saving grace given to me in the waters of baptism. Well, all of those interior movements of the heart and the mind, Steven, or what the Council of Trent calls cooperating with God to obtain the grace of justification.
They’re not meriting the grace, it’s cooperating with God to be led to the grace. And then secondly, the Council of Trent teaches that these good works that are brought about by God, supernatural movements, ordered toward justification, which we call actual grace, also prepare and dispose the heart or the soul to receive the sanctifying grace that comes about ordinarily through the sacrament of baptism. So hopefully I’m clear on that and we can see the distinction between saying good works prior to initial justification play no causal role to bring it about or merited and saying good works prior to justification have no role to play whatsoever. And then this third option, our good works prior to justification, although not meriting the initial grace of justification are brought about by God to lead us to and to receive the grace of justification.
Stephen:
Yeah. And I don’t think anybody who looks at scripture can argue how we see examples of that. I mean, you already talked about Acts and Cornelius, but I mean, you could even look at even Old Testament ideas. We mentioned Abraham, he was called out of the Caldees and told to, “I’ll tell you later where you’re going. Just follow me. ” And that’s chapter 12. And then in chapter 15, this is where you see this weird scene where he and God are in this covenant, there’s animals being split in half and this whole concept that’s being built up. And then James is focusing on later, much, much later. When Isaac, we always probably see him as his little boy, he’s probably a young man
At that point, but that’s what James is focusing on, but we almost see that in the life of Abraham. And we could even say that about Moses. I mean, there’s examples of this where you can see that kind of evidential play out in figures of scripture who are cooperating in order to obtain the grace of justification, but we don’t really see that highlighted until maybe a year later or two years later or three years later, sometimes even longer. It’s incredible to think about how that … You talked about Hebrews 11 by faith, these acts. Sometimes you look at these acts, it’s like, that’s the one you’re focusing on of all the things that were by faith, that one, I mean, what about this one over here? I mean, because we’re seeing a trail of acts of faith even that precede declaration of justifications and things like that because there was that cooperation.
Karlo:
Yeah. Here’s a great example of this. In Acts chapter two on the day of Pentecost, when Peter is preaching and the 3000 are stirred within their hearts and they ask Peter, “What must we do to be saved?” That very act, the interior act of desiring salvation, asking the question, it’s those kinds of works that the Council of Trent is getting at prior to initial justification that are cooperative with God and preparing the soul to receive the grace of justification because whenever those 3000 asked that question to Peter, they were not yet justified, but yet we still see good works involved, not meriting the initial grace, but involved to lead to the grace and prepare for the grace. And of course, Peter responds, repent and believe in the gospel of repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins and to receive the promise of the Holy Spirit.
And so we have their revelation that baptism brings about the forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit. But my point here is that we have a classic example of the precise way in which the Catholic church views good works and the role they play prior to initial justification.
Stephen:
I mean, there’s example after example in Acts alone, the Ethiopian eunuch in chapter eight, and he’s sitting there reading the Isaiah scroll and he’s just trying to figure it out. And Philip walks right by … Do you understand what you read? No. Who’s going to explain this to me? And then he explains it to him and says, “Well, here’s water. What stops me from being baptized?” Where did that come from? I mean, this idea, I don’t even think a Protestant would necessarily disagree that there’s something in the spirit of God and the work of God that is drawing and guiding and directing and changing the heart already that’s making it … And this is the big debate, especially on the Protestant side of things, Latin Flowers, your James Whites over here, this is the part that latent flowers jumps on the majorly reformed side on.
It’s like, but there’s something happening. There’s something happening in that person and they haven’t yet … I mean, they’re not unconscious agents that are just zombied into this and boom, they’re saved. Now all of a sudden they understand what happened before they were just zombied into it. This is a big discussion, but the church has been teaching this for a long time. And like Canon nine, like you said, is explaining this idea of obtaining grace of justification by cooperating in order to receive that grace of justification and obtain that. And these are misconceptions as well. So we’ve got justified by works. You’re talking James 2:24, Catholic rejection of works that precede initial justification as we talked about Canon nine. Well, here’s another one, Catholic attempts to reconcile our good works with grace, we must cooperate with grace. So idea. And again, we’ve touched on this, so let’s just try to hash that out one more time and then we’ll move to an issue because-
Karlo:
Right. And just the nuance there is that for the sake of our Protestant friends not being led to misconceptions, whenever we speak of cooperating with God’s grace, we have to emphasize that that very cooperation itself, the good works we are performing in cooperation with prior movements of grace within the soul are graces themselves, such that at no point can we stand before God and boast before him. And so the very acts of cooperation themselves are graces. And that’s super important because we do not want our Protestant friend to think that we are saying, “Well, yeah, God does a little bit and then you kind of do the rest.” Man, that’s heretical, right? That’s sincere. He started to finish
Stephen:
It.
Karlo:
Yeah. It’s not that God is somehow helpless now and just watching me do the cooperation. I’ve done my parts, your time to do your part. Right. Yeah. It’s not God rowing on one side and I’m rowing on the other. It’s me doing the things within the very causality of God in a supernatural way, because we’re talking about our relationship with justification here and salvation. It’s me performing these deeds of the intellect and acts of the intellect and acts of the will, but within the very supernatural causality of God on a supernatural level. And so once we can get that picture in place, I do think, Steven, many of our Protestant friends’ obstacles to the Catholic theology and understanding of salvation and justification can be resolved once we understand that particular framework.
Stephen:
Yeah. I think that one’s probably one of the bigger ones as it relates to the idea of what it means to cooperate because when you mentioned the word cooperate from Canonine, how Protestant might read that might be a little bit different than how a Catholic reads and understands the idea of cooperation because they might have an image or what that would look like in their mind like, “Well, what would that look like for me to do that? ” And how they describe cooperation could be very different. So I think the clarity-
Karlo:
Yeah. And that’s a good point because I wanted to mention this earlier, that let’s take the 3000 on the day of Pentecost. When they are quote unquote cooperating with God prior to their justification, desiring salvation, asking Peter what we got to do to get that salvation, that very cooperation itself is grace, we call it actual graces. These are supernatural movements of the soul that God, as the universal ultimate primary cause, is bringing about within them, ordering them to the grace of justification. So that cooperation is a gift, but that cooperation doesn’t merit the grace or is not directly proportionate to receiving the grace, it’s simply ordered to the grace. But the cooperation with God after we’re initially justified, where I have charity in the soul as an abiding habitual disposition, supernatural disposition, we call it supernatural theological virtue of charity, which serves as a principle and virtue of which I can perform charitable deeds, then that cooperation that is a grace itself can merit and be proportionate to an increase of the supernatural gift of charity itself.
So on each side of the equation, the cooperation is gift and grace, but the cooperation relates to our justification in different ways, depending upon which side of the equation we’re on.
Stephen:
Very, very well said. Very well said. I want to bring a couple questions in here. Cameron, he’s a young guy, Anglican, actually about 30 minutes from me, good guy. “Does repentance leading to baptism not result in forgiveness? It just sounds to me like it is possible to be repentant before baptism and not be forgiven. Hope my question makes sense. What you think?
Karlo:
Yeah. So ordinarily speaking, in the Catholic theological system, the act of turning away from our former ways and desiring to no longer do those sins ordinarily would not thereby bring about the interior renewal of the soul at his sanctification, which is mutually excluded from the guilt of sin, such that the guilt of, let’s say, the person’s immortal sin would not be remitted at the time of that act of repentance of turning away and desiring God’s mercy to be given ordinarily in the sacrament. So it would be ordinarily in the sacrament that the objective guilt of the prior sins on the soul would be remitted, thereby making the soul interiorly righteous in order to God as its supernatural end. But notice, I keep emphasizing ordinarily. This is just simply based upon what God has revealed to us that through the baptism, through the rebirth of water and spirit, we are birthed again.
We were regenerated, which would entail a remission of the guilt of sin through that sacrament. So ordinarily, prior to the sacrament, whatever movements are stirring in the heart to turn away from sin and receive the orders of baptism is not going to thereby bring about the removal of the guilt of sin. That comes with the sanctifying grace that is communicated initially through baptism. Now, again, that’s the ordinary way in which God has set things up and how he’s going to work in and through us, but that does not mean that God cannot bring about the remission of sin through an act of repentance in virtue of sanctifying grace being given before or apart from the sacrament of baptism. God can administer those graces without the sacraments. So as the catechism states in paragraph 12:57,” Although God has bound salvation to the sacraments, he himself is not bound by the sacraments.
Stephen:
“Yeah, great answer. Great answer. Got another stupid chat from Green Emperor 3:02, Dr. John Barclay’s work. Paul and the gift I think is a good scholarly work that breaks down the justification debate with his idea of God energizing you. Thank you for that. Super chat, green emperor and the shout out recommendation. Cameron said thank you for your answer. All right, let’s continue down the slippery slopes of problems. So let’s rehash. Number one, justified by works conversation in James two, we’ve covered that. The Catholic rejection of works preceding the initial justification. We looked at Canon nine at the Council of Trent. Three, Catholics attempting to reconcile our good works with grace. We must cooperate with grace concept. We talked about that. Now, let’s kind of talk about the Catholic counter to Romans three. So there’s this idea that we’re justified by faith and not by works of the law.
I mean, that’s what Paul said. Therefore, that settles it, that ends it, that’s the end of the discussion, which is true. I mean, Paul says in Romans 3:28 that we are not justified by the works of the law.
And so before we get into that, I want to kind of point this out and I know Barclay was just mentioned. I think he was kind of a rival to NT Wright on some concepts. But when you look at the discussion on works of the law, what I was taught, and again, and I’m going to clarify this because somebody in the comments tried to straw man me a little bit. Just because I’m saying I grew up in a circle doesn’t mean that’s all a Protestantism. As I said, there isn’t a stated position on a lot of things, but one of the biggest things about the works of the law was always something about my good deeds, like me being nice to this person and believing that that’s saving me or something, that’s the initiation. But the longer I studied the Pauline doctrines and theology on the so- called works of the law, there is a judicial and a system that was established that I truly believe, and there’s Catholics that kind of go back and forth on this too, Inglicans definitely did works of the law concepts.
What does that actually mean? Does that entail exactly like, oh, I did something to help this elderly couple the other day and therefore that is a … No. Or is it specifically attached to the Mosaic law? Is it attached to these systems that were set in place that Judaism was enforcing upon people for rights standing with God that Paul was initiated in and taught himself and had come to realize was erroneous. And so the idea of the works of the law in itself is already a disputed subject of, is that like any good deed or is that specifically talking about the deeds that are initiated and given to us Moses? There’s a lot of things to talk about here.
Karlo:
Yeah. All right. So my first thought is, and I appreciate the way you laid it out because the initial question is, what does Paul mean by quote unquote works of the law? One potential option that suggests it is any good deed, as you mentioned, we call that a work of love. Now let’s just camp out on that for a second. Sure. If Paul were envisioning or meaning by works of law, works of love, we actually wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with this because in the context, he seems to be talking about the initial stage of justification. In Romans 3:23, he says, we all have sinned and fallen short of glory of God. He’s juxtaposing the state of justification with the prior state of being sinners. And so it’s possible as a possible … Line of exegesis that Paul is saying, if he’s talking about works of love, he would be saying, “We’re not justified by works of love because he’s talking about the initial stage of justification.” And so then the question becomes, would that be a problem for the Catholic theological system?
The answer’s no, given what I’ve said already. That interpretation would actually fit with the Catholic theological system. Now, I do think, and I agree with you, that by works of the law, Paul is indeed talking about the works of the Mosaic law. And I think there’s strong evidence for that because in the subsequent verses, in verses 29 through 30, Paul asks the question, “Is God the God of the Jews only?” No. Is God of the God of the Gentiles only? No. And then he goes on to state, “The circumcise will be saved by faith just as the uncircumcised are saved by faith. Both groups are saved by faith.” The implication is that we are no longer justified by that which belongs to a particular people. We are justified by something that belongs to both groups, both Jew and Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, and that is faith.
Now think about this, Steven. Why would Paul have to make that argument that we’re justified by something that applies to both groups unless people were thinking that we’re justified only by that which pertains to the particular group of people, the Jews.
And therein fits this idea of the works of the law pertaining to the Mosaic law. Now, here’s something that I’d like to throw out at you, Steven, and I’d like to get your thoughts and response. And this is kind of like where the misstep happens. And I don’t know if you would even call it a misstep, but maybe perhaps a further insight. Notice and how our Protestant friends in the debate on this issue will turn to Romans chapter four. And so the counter to our appeal to the works of the law referring to the Mosaic law is that in Romans chapter four, Paul talks about how Abraham was justified by works. And if he were justified by works, he would have something to boast about.
Stephen:
Yeah. Yeah.
Karlo:
And then in Romans four: four, he says, “Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as gift, but as do. And one who does not work, but trust him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” So the Protestant counter here is often, well, here at Romans four, Paul seems to be expanding his conception of works over and above and broader than specifically works of Mosaic law. Mosaic. Because he articulates this general principle, “If works, then not a gift. If works, then not grace.” Now, I am actually sympathetic to our Protestant friends appealing to this verse. I do not think it proves what they think it proves, but it actually does help us articulate a vision of what’s going on in Paul’s mind, namely that the works of the Mosaic law are a specific instance of this more general conception of works not being grace, works not being gift, works that are divorced from fidelity and faithfulness to God, works that are divorced from belief in God.
So you can throw in the mix, feeding the poor on the street, clothing the naked, whatever good kind of good deed you want to do in reference to helping the good of a human being, throw it in there. If it is a work that is just being done to check off a box that is divorced from a personal relationship of faith in God, that work is not gift, is not grace. That work does not justify. And I think the works of the law in verse 28 of Romans three is a specific kind or instance of this more general conception of works that are not conceived of as gift or grace, works that are apart from faith. And so Paul’s having to rectify that view of works. So the conception of works that Paul is going after is a works devoid of grace. Now, the question becomes, could we agree with Paul here and say as a Catholic and say, “We are not justified by those kind of works.” And we agree 100% based upon what I was saying earlier, because whatever work does justify us, James 2:24 is a work that is gift, is a work that is grace, is a work that is within the faithful relationship that we have with Almighty God.
Those works justify just like Abraham when he offered up his son, Isaac. It wasn’t a work divorced from faith or belief in God. It was a work encapsulated within the relationship that he had with God. That’s the kind of work that justified him, not a work that is divorced from the faithful relationship with God or faith, as Paul puts it. So that’s how I would respond to this sort of engagement of Romans chapter three, verse 28. So I think that further insight can sort of appeal to our Protestant friends who are appealing to Romans four: one through five as a counter to our exo-Jesus of works of the law, using their deep insight to our favor actually, and not just our favor, but to the broader discussion of getting a proper conception of which view of works is Paul going after and saying, “We’re not justified
Stephen:
By.” No, I think that’s a great explanation. And I think it actually harmonizes where Paul’s mind was going in chapter three, because he was already working that all the way through from chapters one and two, especially when it relates to his gospel message being to the Jew first and the Greek. And then he talks about even those that had known the law versus those that had not known the law and the whole idea of conscience and creation in chapter one, that everybody is made responsible to the creator, whether they knowingly had a law given to them or not, that there was a law written in their hearts, chapter two, the conscience. And so what did he conclude by the end of that in chapter three, that all sin, Jew, Gentile, doesn’t matter, all sinned. And that salvation came to Jew and Gentile by grace through faith.
It wasn’t going to be by merit. It wasn’t going to be by self-motivational works or anything like that. It was going to be that which God produced. And so it made sense for him to conclude that in chapter three. But I agree with you. You get to chapter four and he doesn’t necessarily say works of the law in some of those places. It’s like, was he saying the same exact thing or is he just building on what he already established? I’m with you. And these were trip up passages for a lot of us throughout the entire process as it relates to when I was a Protestant in reading Romans three and four, and it made it that much easier. But these matters are deep and complex. And that’s one of the things that we talked about because one minute you think, “I’ve got it. ” That’s what he’s saying.
And then you go over another chapter, you’re like, “Wait a minute, Paul sounds like he just contradicted himself.” Or this is where the whole argument becomes, “Well, Paul and James don’t agree.” And that’s where Luther really, really battled this. And well, thank you, Steven Xavier. He gifted one facts membership. Thank you so much for gifting that. By the way, for those that are interested, you can be a member of FACS. We just opened this two weeks ago. There are two sections of that. You can be a part of the catechesis process or you could be a council member. I think the catechesis is 399. I think the council member is 999 a month. There is coming up. I’m going to pause and put a plug in since somebody gifted a membership. There is a discussion coming up at the very end of February. I’ve already polled those that are members now at a time that would be best for those, but Pat and I are going to have a discussion, a video discussion with anybody that wants to come on.
There’s two ways that people are partnering with facts, one through membership, which is brand new. We also have those that are giving through the link, which is going to be in the description as well. You give through another process because we are a 501. We are a nonprofit with a board of trustees. Just had a meeting with them in the snow on Saturday, had a great time with the board members, got their feedback on some new ideas. We are working really hard to update some of the things that you’ve been asking for. They are now in the process of being a reality. But one of the things that has been asked over and over again is that if our members could have an opportunity to just have discussions with Pat and I contribute to future episodes, that is going to happen. It’s on the last week of February.
There’s a link that’s going to be sent out to all members the week before, as well as those that contribute through the other portals. Your emails are attached to those donations. So we are sending out that link and it looks like the poll we’re getting, it’s closer to two o’clock in the afternoon on Saturday, the last Saturday of February. So thank you for sending that Gifted One Fax Chat membership. Thank you so much for doing that. Also, if you have not yet done that, just hit join. 399 a month or 999 a month, there’s different benefits for different members, but all of those members, regardless of which one you join, we’ll have an opportunity with Pat and I, who are both Anglicans. He was an Anglican priest, just recently converted to Catholicism. So I’m sure we’re going to get a ton of questions just on that.
But if you want to have a conversation with Pat and I, you want to offer future episode ideas. We are going to brainstorm with members that’s coming on. If you join by then, you will be given a link. I would suggest you do it sooner than later because we’re sending that link one week in advance and please don’t make me have to send it five and six different times. So if you want to join, you have a few weeks to definitely do that, but I would just go ahead and hit that join now. It takes five seconds to do so. If you’re listening for the first time, like and subscribe. And as I stated, there’s going to be some stuff in the description. Dr. Broussard has now opened a new channel connected with the whole thing with Catholic answers. That is going to be in the description along with one of the articles he’s written on this subject.
If you’d like more information, hit the description and hit that link. Okay? So let’s wrap this up. If you want to get your statements in, if you want one last question, because you’re going to be the lingering person that waited to the last minute, if you send a Super Chat, I will absolutely put it on. I can’t guarantee otherwise. But if you want something, you have a question or statement, now’s your chance as we wrap it up on the last point. All right, issue five, the Catholic Appeal to sanctification passages without connecting to justification. Now, again, we’ve been
Karlo:
Kind
Stephen:
Of touching all of this, and this is where your article really comes into play, and I’m going to say it again. It’s in the description. So if you want to read more there, you can. You’ve mentioned two Corinthians five. You talked about the idea of a new creation,
Karlo:
And
Stephen:
That old things are passed away, all things are becoming new. The idea of being in Christ, whoever’s in Christ Jesus, right? That’s Romans eight. There’s no condemnation to those people. So kind of talk about this appeal to sanctification passages where there’s a disconnect
Karlo:
To
Stephen:
The justification.
Karlo:
Yeah. And two Corinthians 5:17 is a classic example. So in papapologetics, within these discussions, you’ll find a Catholic appeal to two Corinthians 5:17. So you see, Paul says we become a new creation, and so therefore, whenever we’re justified, we’re interiorly renewed. But of course, some Protestants can fairly counter and say, “Well, wait a minute, we believe we become a new creation and are sanctified at the beginning of our conversion, but that doesn’t mean that’s the ground and virtue of which we’re justified.” Because some draw this hard division between the two. And so the counter would be, no, two Corinthians 5:17 doesn’t say our justification is this new created state within this interior state. It just says, “We’re created a new within.” So then the question arises, is there any way that we can connect what Paul says in two Corinthians 5:17 in this new creation motif with justification?
And I think the key is the theology of being in Christ. So there in two Corinthians 5:17, whoever is in Christ is a new creation. The old things passed away behold, all things made or have come. That’s the key, I think, Steven, being in Christ constitutes the new creation. So then the next question is, “Well, is there anything elsewhere in Paul’s writings where being in Christ is conceived of as a state of justification?” And the answer is Romans eight: one, where Paul tells us that when we are in Christ, we are no longer subject to condemnation. In Paul’s theology, and even for our Protestant friends, to no longer be subject to condemnation is the state of justification, to be justified. So notice, new creation equals being in Christ. Well, being in Christ, according to Romans eight: one, is not being subject to condemnation. Not being subject to condemnation is a state of justification.
And so therefore, new creation is the state of justification, or to state that differently, the state of justification is or involves the new created state, this interior state of renewal, holiness, righteousness. So that’s how I reason through two Corinthians 5:17. And I go into greater detail in a more organized way with my thoughts in the article, as I mentioned before, Catholics and Protestants agree, kind of. And then you can do similarly the same thing with Galatians 6:15, where Paul there also talks about being a new creation. But the key there is going to be how he juxtaposes the new creation that we are as Christians with circumcision. He says, “For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” Now, prior to that in verse 14, Paul had already described the world being crucified to him, implying that the new created state is the new state in opposition to the former state of being in the world.
Then he juxtaposes the new creation as a Christian with circumcision. Notice, circumcision was the old way for achieving justification, and he’s juxtaposing that with being a new creation in Christ, which entails that the new created state is the new way of being justified. Being interiorly holy is the new way of being at peace with God, not being at peace with God through circumcision.
Stephen:
And that’s good because Paul’s theology, I mean, especially in Ephesians and all this words like in Christ, whoever’s in Christ, in Christ, in Christ, he loved that conversation. What does it mean to be in Christ? You’ve been chosen before the foundation of the world. In him, the in him clause shows up all the time in Ephesians. I think it’s an interesting concept on the new creation aspect because when you look at Paul and how he’s battling this out, I love the Galatians idea here, where he describes the world crucified to him, and he’s starting to use this language of putting to death, looking at what Christ accomplished. Do you think that there’s some sort of connection where he started working the theology of Christ died for sin, and here’s a responsive act in the Christian life of really the crucified one is now a part of now the world is crucified to me, or this idea or I am crucified with Christ I live.
Not I, but Christ was me. He built this crucified living idea through his theology, especially in Galatians. What play does that have here?
Karlo:
Yeah. Well, here’s an example par Arcsalans. Romans six: three through four correlated with verse seven and 17 through 18. This would be yet another text where we can see in Paul’s mind connecting sanctification with justification. So in Romans six: three through four, that’s the classic text where he says, when we are baptized, we are baptized into the death of Christ. That maps on with the Galatians text of being crucified to the world, right? Being crucified with Christ, sort of dying with Christ. So he says that happens through baptism in Romans six: three, but we rise to a newness of life with Christ. So he’s articulating this transition from death to life in and through baptism. Then in verse seven, he says, “In this death, that is the baptismal death, we are quote unquote, freed from sin.” Now, everybody who exegetes that text understands Paul to be speaking of sanctification because in verses 17 through 18, he goes on to articulate how he and the Christians in Rome want slaves of sin, but now have become slaves of righteousness, right?
And so he’s talking about sanctification, but here’s the connection to justification, Steven. In Romans six: seven, when he says, “In the baptismal death, we are “freed from sin.” The Greek verb there for freed is decayou. So it’s literally in the baptismal death, we have been justified from sin. So he’s connecting sanctification, the interior renewal in which we are no longer a slave to sin with justification.
Stephen:
Love it.
Karlo:
Thereby showing us sanctification, the interior renewal can serve as at least a ground so far in the dialectical argument, it’s a ground for justification, which is enough to refute the idea that our sanctification is not a ground for our justification.
Stephen:
Well said. Such good stuff. Guys, listen, if you are interested in this kind of conversation, again, there’s more to be seen. Check out Dr. Broussard’s channel that is connected to Catholic Answers. Also, go on to Catholic Answers. He is on there doing Q&As, call-ins, check it out. There’s a description, link, hit it, read what he has. He has a lot more on this. Good stuff. Also, if you’re interested in the subject of purgatory, I don’t know of anybody I’d recommend more than Dr. Broussard on this very subject. Instrumental in pulling me into the thought of purgatory and looking at it very, very differently, removing stigmas and decay and all this other stuff that’s been thrown on it. Even medieval views that have been supposedly held and opening my eyes to a new look at the subject of purgatory, huge help, huge help on that. Check out Dr. Broussard on that as you are continuing to study these matters for yourselves.
All right. Well, Carla, thank you again for joining the episode of Facts. We’ll make sure to have those descriptions there for you. Thanks for all that you do. Thank you for all your help and your friendship along the way of this journey. And many, many more that are in this journey as well. Keep studying. Keep reading. Keep thinking.
Karlo:
Well, thank you for having me on, Steven. God bless, brother. Well, my friends, that’s it for today. If you found this video helpful, make sure to like it, subscribe to the channel, comment below, and share it with someone who might need to hear this. And for more resources, check out our website at catholic.com, my personal website, carlobrusar.com. And if you want me to come and speak at your event, visit catholicancerspeakers.com. Lastly, I want to thank those of you who are already patrons. We are deeply grateful for your support because as you know, we can’t continue doing this podcast without you. And if you’re not already a patron, I’d love for you to consider supporting us over on Patreon for just $5 a month. You can get early access to my episodes, watch the episodes free of YouTube ads and get access to one of my six hour online short courses entitled How to Talk About Morality in An Age of Moral Relativism, which comes with lecture notes totaling to just over 20,000 words.
You can sign up for that at drcarlow.com with doctor spelled out, along with other levels of membership if you’re interested. Thanks for hanging out with me today and I’ll see you next time. God bless.