In my discussions with a Catholic individual, I’ve specifically explored how they reconcile Paul’s teachings on justification with the traditional Catholic perspective on the same topic (I’ve edited my comments to make them clearer and more impactful).

1. Availability to those saved from Abraham onward: Discussing a potential condition required of Abraham pre-circumcision, extending universally to subsequent individuals.
2. A Necessary and Sufficient Condition of Justification: Proposing a singular method for universal justification, using Abraham as the exemplar.
3. Demarcation from Paul’s Opponents (e.g., Judaizers): Seeking distinction from opposing views, notably those of groups like the Judaizers.”

The argument posits the existence of a universal precondition for justification, illustrated through the example of pre-circumcision Abraham. It suggests a single method of justification, specifically highlighting Abraham’s journey as the paradigm for universal justification.

However, Catholic doctrine significantly diverges from these positions. It acknowledges a multitude of avenues and approaches toward attaining justification, in contrast to the proposed singular precondition or exemplar. This discrepancy underlines a fundamental disagreement between the presented viewpoints and Catholic teachings regarding the diverse and multifaceted nature of justification.

Catholic Fightwear:

There is no inconsistency is the Church requiring baptism for salvation as necessary for all those under the new covenant and not under the old. They are different covenants, and faith (and works) served in both.

Baptism is necessary and sufficient because it requires faith. You are arguing as if it is something apart from faith, but it is very much a part of it, as faith is a part it.

Again, you are strongly focused on amount, which is really the wrong question.

Can you say that faith alone is all that is required for initial justification? Yes, and the Church agrees. I do too.

But can you say that such faith can exist without works? No. This is the conundrum of the Protestant position.

In addition, you are arguing multiple things here. Baptism, a sacrament, and is something that is actually a work God does to us, seems to being lumped under your definition of good works. So you are conflating topics which makes it confusing.

This is why it is difficult to answer amount because you shift the types of works (not intentionally, we just recognize divisions). Baptism necessary? Yes. Once. Easy amount. Good works, necessary? Yes, because faith cant exist without them? The amount is something that matters for initial justification because the fact that works are done means the faith is alive and can justify one.

Further, we believe in salvation being a continuous thing. This is the more important aspect in which works come into play with faith. I think you are trying to get down to exactly what is necessary for the moment of initial justification and arguing that that is what Romans 4 is about and that is the doctrine of Sola Fide.

1) Sola Fide is too flexible a term because it means to many things to different groups. So not really helpful.
2) the moment of initial justification is through faith. We both agree on that. But what is faith apart from works? Does a man have faith if he “believes in Jesus” but completely rejects all truths about him? No. Even at a small amount he has to have some assent to truth in word and deed.

God justifies in the same way, seems like a box you have made….

1) Paul’s only argument in Romans 4 is that faith was necessary in both the Old and New. It is shared in common. That does preclude that baptism could not be added to the new covenant just as circumcision was removed.

2) Peter admits that there were arch types of baptism that foreshadowed what we do now. It is reasonable to conclude that these events and other Jewish practices acting sufficiently in this way.

3) the way in which Christ ministered to the dead when he descended is a mystery. Those who died in faith were ministered to in some fashion that was sufficient to their salvation. God’s giving us baptism is a grace. A gift to us. If he has chosen to will a means of justifying us, a way of imparting grace unto us, that is his choice. There is no wrong in holding that gift until a certain time.

I’m not saying I know the answer to why baptism now. Just postulating logical theories. I just remain unconvinced that God can’t institute baptism as a matter of salvation under the new covenant and not the old. Or have accomplished the same matter in another way

I guess that would be my place to go next. Why is what you are claiming necessary?

TheSire:

“There is no inconsistency is the Church requiring baptism for salvation as necessary for all those under the new covenant and not under the old. They are different covenants, and faith (and works) served in both. “

While it’s argued that baptism is necessary under the New Covenant, Romans 4 teaches that justification aligns with the model of Abraham’s faith. This discrepancy arises when we concede different means of justification in the Old and New Testaments, contradicting the Apostle Paul’s teachings. If baptism isn’t universally required for justification, as some are justified without it, labeling it necessary becomes problematic. This is precisely why the term ‘necessary’ is used – it denotes an indispensable condition, not merely a sufficient one.

“Again, you are strongly focused on amount, which is really the wrong question.“

The crucial focus isn’t on quantifying the amount or tallying specific works for acceptance by God. Instead, the primary concern lies in identifying and defining the essential and complete conditions necessary for achieving justification.

“Can you say that faith alone is all that is required for initial justification? Yes, and the Church agrees. I do too.“

While it’s acknowledged that faith alone is sufficient for initial justification, the argument intertwines baptism inseparably with faith. However, this view inherently imposes the condition of baptism onto the concept of faith itself:

• CCC 1257: “The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation.”
• CCC 1992: “Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through baptism.”
• CCC 1213: “Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit and the door which gives access to the other sacraments.”
• CCC 1266: “The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification.”

“Further, we believe in salvation being a continuous thing. This is the more important aspect in which works come into play with faith. I think you are trying to get down to exactly what is necessary for the moment of initial justification and arguing that that is what Romans 4 is about and that is the doctrine of Sola Fide. “

However, suggesting Romans 4 encompasses justification in general is crucial. If confined to solely initial justification, ongoing or progressive justification might seemingly require circumcision. Yet, this would muddy Paul’s distinction from opponents and blur his argument that circumcision isn’t pivotal for justification.

“Paul’s only argument in Romans 4 is that faith was necessary in both the Old and New. It is shared in common. That does preclude that baptism could not be added to the new covenant just as circumcision was removed. “

Moreover, if Paul’s argument merely emphasizes explicit faith, it neglects the nuances of implicit faith. While Paul discusses explicit faith, if this exclusively governs everyone’s initial justification, it potentially contradicts Vatican 2’s concept of implicit faith within justification.:

1. CCC 846: This passage addresses those who are not formally within the visible boundaries of the Church but are nevertheless oriented towards the Church by a variety of means, including a sincere search for God and His will. It states that those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church but seek God with a sincere heart may achieve eternal salvation, as God can lead them in ways known to Him.
2. CCC 847: This passage underscores the necessity of faith and baptism for salvation but also speaks about God’s mercy and His ability to reach individuals in ways beyond what we understand: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

However, circumcision was never a prerequisite for justification, which contradicts the presupposition that underlies Paul’s argument. Therefore, baptism isn’t intended to substitute circumcision for justification because Paul’s argument asserts that circumcision was never a requirement for justification.

Moreover, there’s no evidence indicating that the Judaizers believed faith was unnecessary for justification. The critical matter for Paul isn’t the necessity of faith but rather its sufficiency.

“Peter admits that there were arch types of baptism that foreshadowed what we do now. It is reasonable to conclude that these events and other Jewish practices acting sufficiently in this way.”

Granting that Peter indeed acknowledges the existence of baptismal archetypes, such as Noah’s flood, hinting at present-day practices, it’s still implausible to view surviving a flood, building arks, gathering and caring for animals aboard the ark, following God’s commands faithfully, and repopulating the earth as ordinary means of justification. If there were a single definitive means of justification, it would suggest the obligatory nature of engaging in these specific acts.

“the way in which Christ ministered to the dead when he descended is a mystery.“

As for Christ ministering to the dead upon His descent, it remains a mystery. However, Abraham was justified during his life, not in the intermediate state. This seems to conflict with Paul’s clear stance for the sake of a vague theological argument.

Catholic Fightwear:

Why is Romans 4 teaching universal rules of justification? I think you are pulling something from there that isn’t there and that none of the Church Fathers closest to Paul saw in the passage….strange that they would have missed it

TheSire:

Clement, knowingly or unknowingly, echoes a Pauline-style approach when traversing salvation history to assert that, in whatever manner he believed justification occurs, there’s a resounding statement that “from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen.”

He believed that justification had to be uniform and consistent throughout all human history. However, within Catholicism, the New Covenant introduces new pathways to justification. This contradicts the views of Paul, Clement, and other prominent figures in church history who upheld the idea of a uniform mode of justification across time.

Catholic Fightwear:

You can’t claim that Clement believed that when he believed in the necessity of Baptism. The conclusion here is that you are wrong in how you interpreted all of them.

Unless you thunk you know Clements beliefs better than Clement?

And as stated before…Paul clearly speaks of works in Romans 2….

TheSire:

I don’t maintain Clement’s views on justification as flawless, but there are aspects that resonate better with my perspective.

Catholic Fightwear:

St. Clement of Rome Quote #1 Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 30. He definitely disagrees with you….. Convenient for you that the early Christians, universally misunderstood the doctrines of justification and salvation. Thank goodness we have you to cherry pick the quotes from them that are true so we don’t have to read the other things that they clearly believed but were false

Let’s not trust what Clement thought. Let’s be mind readers and guess instead

TheSire:

I still believe there’s some deception in your approach. Presenting Clement’s stance and then dismissing it seems contradictory, as he did advocate the singular view of justification. However, my point is not to claim absolute consistency on Clement’s part. While he did teach about one universal way of justification, it doesn’t necessarily mean he remained entirely consistent with that viewpoint throughout all his teachings.

You might be selectively approaching the Fathers, emphasizing only the comments that align with your beliefs while disregarding others. For instance, Clement’s perspective on justification by works appears compatible with Protestant interpretations of James 2. The main point is that some aspects of his views resonate more with the Protestant standpoint than with yours.

That means I’m placing more trust in Clement’s viewpoint than in your selective interpretation, as you’re dismissing a cited part where I acknowledge the possibility of Clement’s potential error in applying all his beliefs.

To cite the relevant portion:

1 Clem. 31:1 Let us therefore cleave unto His blessing, and let us see what are the ways of blessing. Let us study the records of the things that have happened from the beginning.

1 Clem. 31:2 Wherefore was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?

1 Clem. 31:3 Isaac with confidence, as knowing the future, was led a willing sacrifice.

1 Clem. 31:4 Jacob with humility departed from his land because of his brother, and went unto Laban and served; and the twelve tribes of Israel were given unto him.

1 Clem. 32:1 If any man will consider them one by one in sincerity, he shall understand the magnificence of the gifts that are given by Him.

1 Clem. 32:2 For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh; of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea and the rest of his tribes are held in no small honor, seeing that God promised saying, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.

1 Clem. 32:3 They all therefore were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous doing which they wrought, but through His will.

1 Clem. 32:4 And so we, having been called through His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through faith, whereby the Almighty God justified all men that have been from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

https://carm.org/lost-books/first-epistle-of-clement-to-the-corinthians-clem/

This parallels my argument, evident as Clement navigates salvation history, demonstrating the continuity of justification, consistently following the same path.

Notice that this is just one example of many. Here is a witness from Tertullian:

What I say, then, is this, that that God is the object of faith who prefigured the grace of faith. But when he also adds, “For ye are all the children of faith,”^53115311 Gal. iii. 26. it becomes clear that what the heretic’s industry erased was the mention of Abraham’s name; for by faith the apostle declares us to be “children of Abraham,”^53125312 Gal. iii. 7, 9, 29. and after mentioning him he expressly called us “children of faith” also. But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith, if not Abraham’s? For since “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness;”^53135313 Gal. iii. 6. since, also, he deserved for that reason to be called “the father of many nations,” whilst we, who are even more like him^53145314 Magis proinde: as sharing in the faith he had, “being yet uncircumcised.” See Rom. iv. 11. in believing in God, are thereby justified as Abraham was, and thereby also obtain life—since the just lives by his faith,—it therefore happens that, as he in the previous passage called us “sons of Abraham,” since he is in faith our (common) father,^53155315 Patris fidei. so here also he named us “children of faith,” for it was owing to his faith that it was promised that Abraham should be the father of (many) nations. As to the fact itself of his calling off faith from circumcision, did he not seek thereby to constitute us the children of Abraham, who had believed previous to his circumcision in the flesh?

Augustine also testifies that Abraham is the example we ought to follow:

If you would, at his clear well-known voice, wake up from your unprofitable dreams, you would follow in the footsteps of our father Abraham, and would be blessed, along with all nations, in his seed. For, as the apostle says, “He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all that believe in uncircumcision; that he might be the father of circumcision not only to those who are of the circumcision, but also to those who follow the footsteps of the faith of our father Abraham in uncircumcision.”⁴⁸⁶⁴⁸⁶ Rom. iv. 11, 12. Since the righteousness of Abraham’s faith is thus set forth as an example to us, that we too, being justified by faith, may have peace with God, we ought to understand his manner of life, without finding fault with it; lest, by a premature separation from mother-Church, we prove abortions, instead of being brought forth in due time, when the conception has arrived at completeness.

Remember, I’m not arguing we agree on everything about justification, but that justification for Abraham is one and the same for us, and the ways in which God justifies Abraham is the same.

For those interested, some respond to Trent Horn on the issue of Clement: