On Implicit Faith and Scripture

Translation of Christiaan Pesch's, Praelectiones dogmaticae, Vol. 8, Sect. 8, Prop. XXX, n. 452-453

Introduction

One of the most difficult objections to the common thesis of an “implicit faith” in the Incarnation and Trinity which suffices per accidens for justification after the coming of Christ is the clear testimony of Sacred Scripture. In text after text, the opposite doctrine seems to be indicated.

So, how do the theologians respond to this? The classic response was given by Suarez in De Fide, Disp. 12, Sect. IV, n. 21, which is followed closely by his sucessors (e.g., Lugo, quoted below, and the Salmanticenses, quoted in a previous article).

Here, there are a number of important distinctions made. The distinction between affirmative and negative testimonies, and the subdistinction between negative-suppositional (i.e., supposing the preaching of the Gospel, viz. privative) and negative-simple (i.e., of all men whatsoever). Of this last sort, some are of Christ Himself (i.e., the power of his redemption) and others the union with Christ by faith.

Here, Suarez lays the groundwork for the individual exegesis of each of the passages in the New Testament with respect to faith in Christ. The affirmative passsages simply state the efficacy of faith in Christ (which is not denied). The negative-suppositional passages are clearly not applicable. The negative simple of the first sort are obviously affirmed since Christ is, nonetheless, the meritorious cause of our justification. The negative simple of the second sort does not necessarily imply that such union by faith be in re, but also allows for such union by faith in voto.

Beraza gives a typical scholastic response to the objection with the usual texts quoted in objection to the common opinion.

If you wish to read these, you can click the link above for the Latin original or simply read the summary given by the Salmanticenses in the last article. Perhaps I will translate it one day. Enjoy!