In what way faith is required in the promises of the Gospel.
In what way faith is required in the promises of the Gospel.
§ 26. Bellarmine takes his fifth argument from the concession of our side:
Our adversaries do not deny that faith is required in the promises of the Gospel. From this it follows, first, that it is false to say that they deny that the promises of the Gospel are conditional because some condition—namely, faith—is required in them. Second, it is false that the condition of fulfilling the Law is not required, for Scripture teaches, as is clear from the passages cited, that the condition of fulfilling the Law is required with the same words or words even more clear than those with which the Scripture teaches that the condition of faith is required for salvation.
We respond. (1) When we deny that the promises of the Gospel are conditional, we are not excluding every condition but in particular the condition of our merits so that in this way the conditional may be contrasted to the free. Bellarmine denies that these are opposed to each other because the very obedience of the Law is a gift of God so that in this way God gives grace for grace, that is, the grace of indulgence7 for the grace of repentance, the grace of eternal life for the grace of merit. But it must be carefully noticed that we are not simply contrasting something free with something conditional but only in a certain respect, namely, in the article of justification. Faith and works are not simply and absolutely opposed to each other of themselves, but rather they are subordinate8 and are surely related to each other with respect to cause and effect, for faith reveals itself through works of love and works provide a witness of faith. Nevertheless, in the act of justification, the apostle’s contrasts of opposites become clear: to the believer, not to the doer [Gal. 2:16]; from the Gospel, not from the Law [Rom. 3:20–22]; from grace, not from works [Eph. 2:8–9]; from God, not from ourselves, etc. [2 Cor. 3:5]. [More] on this in its own place [cf. On Justification through Faith (Commonplace XIX), § 155].
(2) Thus the condition of faith is different from the condition of works. The former is not opposed to a free gift, just as the act of taking a gift, which occurs through the hand of a beggar, is not opposed to the generosity of the donor. But [works] are expressly contrasted [to grace] as opposite: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer by works” (Rom. 11:6). This is expressed by others as follows. The conjunction “if ” is either etiological or syllogistic [est αἰτιολογική aut συλλογιστική]; that is, it designates cause or consequence. In the legal expression “If you do this, you will live,” the particle “if ” is etiological, for obedience indeed is the reason why eternal life is given to those who keep the Law. But in the promises of the Gospel—“If you believe, you will be saved”—the particle “if ” is syllogistic, for it denotes the divinely appointed means of application, belonging to faith alone.
(3) Thus it is a corruption of the most beautiful statement [of grace] to say that God gives the grace of eternal life in return for the grace of merits, the grace of indulgence in return for the grace of repentance—for this explanation agrees with neither the context nor the analogy of faith. The meaning of the statement is that, because of the grace by which the Father loves and receives His Son, who was made under the Law for us [Gal. 4:4], He also makes us pleasing and acceptable to Himself (Rom. 5:15; Eph. 1:6). By His own obedience and suffering Christ acquired His Father’s grace for us; and, because of that grace, we who believe are also in His grace. The forgiveness of sins is given to the penitent, and eternal life is given to those who do good because of faith. But our repentance is not merit for forgiveness, nor are our works merit for eternal life.