Justification Through Faith

I have been reading through the first few chapters of Romans with the motivation of trying to better understand the relationship between faith and works. Although I do not have, perhaps, the greatest hermeneutical skills, I see clearly how Paul is arguing for justification by faith alone. I find Paul's arguments convincing. He argues in Romans 2 that those who were not Jews could be found righteous by God without the works of the law if they believed in Christ. He asks then in Romans 3 whether it thus is any advantage to being a Jew with the law at all? If people do not need special ceremonies or an institution to be saved, why perform the ceremonies or belong to the institution at all? Paul believes there is a purpose to being a Jew, but it seems to not be an advantage that comes from having the correct ceremonies but rather further evidence for the supremacy of faith over human works. Paul argues that the advantage to being a Jew is that "unto them were committed the oracles of God" (3:2). In other words, God sent the prophets unto the Jews and not unto other peoples. He chose the Jews so that they would believe on him. This is important to Paul because it shows that it was God's will that the Jews were chosen and not the will of the Jews. God's 'faith'--his grace and mercy--is stronger than the Jews actions. He proves this seemingly by playing on the Jewish sentiment that even the worst Jew is better than a heathen since the Jew chosen by God must retain some merit despite his unworthiness. Paul asks "For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? (3:3). God's grace is greater than our works even to the point that once we are chosen, our works cannot overrule God's decision.

I find this very interesting from a historical point of view. Paul wrote in a context where the emphasis on the efficacy of the ceremonies and institution were being trumpeted against a more progressive approach where the old institutions of Judaism were being challenged by the newness of the Christian doctrine. Later groups, the Lutheran and Calvinist reformers, would make use of Paul's arguments as they found themselves in a similar situation opposing an institution that emphasized ceremony and exclusion for both dogmatic and political reasons. I accept both extremes--non-institutional salvation and ceremony--as necessary aspects of human nature.

Determinism, Freedom, and Psychology

Lately, I have learned a bit about how psychology seeks to empower people. I have made several realizations about freedom as I have studied this. The beginning philosophical point for many psychologists seems actually to be an idea quite anti-thetical to the notion of freedom: environmental determinism. Along with rationalists like Spinoza, psychologists in the tradition of Freud see human behavior as a result of visceral, natural reactions to stimuli. Our feelings are determined by what seems to be a programmed response to certain situations over which it seems that we have little choice. When I see a bear on a jog in the mountains, I immediately get the sensation of fear and my next action--flight--follows naturally from this sensation. The decision time between this emotion and this action is very little. The same goes for anger and love; I act in a certain way when I encounter specific sets of stimuli. So, in general, psychologists posit that all human behavior in a sense comes from natural laws. We react in a determined way when we are stimulated in such and such a way. So how can we make free decisions or better choices other than just our natural instincts? Psychology suggests that freedom is possible in this model. The first key is recognizing that we do react most of the time automatically to certain situations with little reflection. You can come to this realization by trying to become more conscious of your emotional state through activities such as meditation, breathing exercises, etc. When you are feeling at any time a particularly strong emotion, one should stop and try to pinpoint what the emotion is that you are feeling. Stress? Depression? Anger? More often than not, these are emotions that at any other time we would not choose to feel. By stopping and realizing what we are feeling, we, in a sense, remove ourselves from the situation that gave rise to the emotion and we give ourselves a small window to make a decision. There is a window between stimuli and reaction in which free will exists. While we cannot choose to feel the stimuli and the accompanying emotion per se, we do choose how to react. By getting better at recognizing what emotions we feel, we in essence increase that short moment where all decisions are made. Most people don't make decisions because their actions have become programmed by habit.