WE ARE NOT MADE RIGHTEOUS BY DOING RIGHTEOUS DEEDS;

[Hmm]

Thus the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled not by works, but by faith; and faith is at work in love

Great summary!

 

[fhansen]

Antinomianism is simply the other side of Legalism.

It can be a bit more nuanced than that though I believe. Some antinomians believe that the necessity of obedience of the moral law is a legalistic concept, such that it’s held to be wrong to teach an obligation to obey the Ten Commandments. And reasonably or not that position can apparently arise from the doctrine of Sola Fide as demonstrated by some on this thread I believe.

It’s related to the reason why many insist that Catholicism teaches a works-based salvation or why they cannot reconcile the prima facie reading of Romans 2:13,
“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. “
with Rom 3:28
“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law”.

It’s related to the reason why some argue that man is no longer obligated, with eternal life at stake, to be personally righteous under the New Covenant. Since a strictly imputed righteousness is said to make one righteous in the eyes of God, then any obligation to be actually righteous can be seen as not only superfluous, but prideful and arrogant, negating the work of Christ by supplanting it with our own. But Catholicism teaches that only because of the work of Christ is man now finally equipped to work too, but not with works of the law, which exclude Christ, but with works of grace, works of love, which are only possible with and because of Him.

So, thus freely and gratuitously equipped at justification, now with the Spirit who pours out love into our hearts, we can work out our salvation with He who works in us.

God's Law is serious and real, and we are to do it. Not as though we can earn our way into paradise; but because as God's people it's what we ought to be doing. Not by fretting over the things of the Torah which don't even apply anymore, but rather that in faith we fulfill the law in this one word, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Galatians 5:14). Thus the righteousness of the Law is fulfilled not by works, but by faith; and faith is at work in love.

But is it what "we ought to be doing" because it's not only simply right to do but also because without such righteous living one cannot enter heaven (a very Scriptural assertion in any case)? And we know that love fulfills the law but I'm not sure we can link faith directly to that fulfillment even though it's absolutely necessary as the basis. In historical teachings I'm familiar with, FWIW, one can have faith without having love but love always encompasses the other virtues, of faith and hope. It may seem like hair-splitting but with the differing opinions on what it means to be justified-and of what is required of man- I'm not sure that this understanding isn't helpful, as well as consistent with 1 Cor 13 incidentally.

Either way in his statement Luther links faith-and the justification it obtains- with personal righteousness; we can't claim to have one unless we have the other, even if personal righteousness still involves choice and struggle, with failure to be expected at times, and then a contrite and repentant heart necessary to restore us to right relationship with God who's always calling us back to Himself with the open arms of forgiveness and love. In Catholicism this personal righteousness, obtained and exercised and expressed and grown and otherwise possessed to whatever degree God deems sufficient and appropriate for us an an individual, is required for salvation. Only love can fulfill the Law, and yet the Law must be fulfilled by love. It just happens that, to the extent that we really do love, obedience comes freely and willingly, of its own accord-and our obligation is thus satisfied, and without even needing to hear the Law.

Anyway, the primary difference between the old and new covenants isn't with our obligation to be personally righteous-that remains. The difference is that, with the new covenant it's recognized that this can only occur in partnership with God, entered into via faith, not on my own.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people." Jer 31:33

 

[Hmm]

In historical teachings I'm familiar with, FWIW, one can have faith without having love but love always encompasses the other virtues, of faith and hope.

I'd be interested in knowing what these historical teachings are because it seems the opposite way round to me. I can easily imagine love without faith - children, people who haven't heard of Christ or are unable to fully comprehend what they have heard (probably most of us and perhaps the reason for this is that what they have heard is a gross distortion of the facts!) etc. - but I simply can't imagine faith without love. How can anyone have faith in Jesus but not respond to His love? I'm not disagreeing with you btw - I quite prepared to believe it's entirely possibly but I can't understand how.

 

[fhansen]

I'd be interested in knowing what these historical teachings are because it seems the opposite way round to me. I can easily imagine love without faith - children, people who haven't heard of Christ or are unable to fully comprehend what they have heard (probably most of us and perhaps the reason for this is that what they have heard is a gross distortion of the facts!) etc. - but I simply can't imagine faith without love. How can anyone have faith in Jesus but not respond to His love? I'm not disagreeing with you btw - I quite prepared to believe it's entirely possibly but I can't understand how.

Some rambling thoughts:
I remember one of your recent posts mentioning that you thought the idea of faith as consisting of "intellectual assent" was relatively new. But for its part the Catholic Church has held that position for quite some time. Faith, along with hope and love, are sometimes called "theological virtues". This only means that they are supernatural gifts.

So regarding "faith": the ability to strictly believe in-or give intellectual assent to- the truths set forth by Christianity is not at all a simple or minor thing for a human; these generally involve supernatural truths that we cannot come to believe in solely on our own. But since even demons believe in that sense, and shudder, faith shouldn't, in the strict sense for the purpose of defining and understanding all this stuff, refer to trust in or reliance on God. The virtue of "hope" carries that role, being understood more as the gift of trust in Christ and even confidence in the promises of God. And then "love" is the gold standard for defining justice or righteousness for man, the goal of our faith, a primary aspect of the purpose and perfection of man.

So Paul could say in 1 Cor 13:2:
"...if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing."
and follows in verse 13 with:
"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

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

So these concepts, faith and love, are separable. And yet in Scripture as well as in common usage, including with Catholic commentators, etc, the term faith is often used to mean trust in and reliance on God, combining faith and hope in the process. And, in actual practice, there must be an element of love involved as well, even early on in our walk: "We love Him because He first loved us." 1 John 4:19

And yet love, agape, the kind and quantity of love that God has and that He has in store for us, won't be so well developed when we first turn to Him. Many in the bible came to Jesus out of need: healing of illnesses and other medical problems, or fear of death, believing He's the way to eternal life. Or some other need. And this still involves faith; we can't need or fear or love something we don't believe in. But while we can and should all grow in the virtues, love, again, is the ultimate goal. And, "Love casts out fear" 1 John 4:18

Anyway, the words of Basil of Caesarea, a 4th century bishop, always bear repeating:
"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."